Over the past few days, one headline has been everywhere:
“Scientists found a vaccine that prevents cancer.”
It sounds almost too important to scroll past.
And underneath the headline, there is a real breakthrough.
In August 2026, Moderna and Merck announced positive Phase 3 results for a personalized mRNA-based cancer vaccine called intismeran autogene, used together with the immunotherapy drug pembrolizumab.
But the headline compresses several very different ideas into one sentence.
This vaccine was not given to healthy adults to prevent a first cancer from developing.
The participants had already been diagnosed with high-risk melanoma. Their visible cancer had been surgically removed, and the experimental vaccine was given afterward to reduce the risk that microscopic cancer cells would cause the disease to return or spread.
That is still a major medical advance.
It is simply a different kind of prevention.
And when we separate the headline from what actually happened, the science may be even more interesting.
Medical Note
This article is for educational purposes only. It is not a substitute for cancer screening, vaccination, diagnosis, or individualized treatment from a qualified healthcare professional.
Intismeran autogene and Nous-209 remain investigational. They are not currently general cancer-prevention vaccines and should not alter anyone’s existing cancer treatment or screening plan.
Key Takeaways
- In August 2026, Moderna and Merck announced positive topline results from a Phase 3 trial of a personalized mRNA cancer vaccine combined with pembrolizumab.
- The trial involved people whose high-risk melanoma had already been surgically removed. It tested whether the treatment could reduce recurrence and distant spread.
- The study met its primary endpoint of recurrence-free survival and a key secondary endpoint of distant metastasis-free survival.
- The full Phase 3 effect sizes, absolute event rates, subgroup results, and detailed safety data have not yet been publicly presented in a peer-reviewed paper.
- The vaccine was compared with pembrolizumab alone, which is already a standard immunotherapy. It was not tested as a stand-alone vaccine.
- Earlier Phase 2b data remained favorable at five years, showing a 49% relative reduction in recurrence or death and a 59% relative reduction in distant metastasis or death.
- This is not the first cancer vaccine ever developed. Treatment vaccines already exist, and the HPV and hepatitis B vaccines already prevent several infection-related cancers.
- A different 2026 study tested a vaccine in people with Lynch syndrome before invasive cancer developed. It generated strong immune responses, but it did not prove that cancer was prevented.
- We have not discovered one universal vaccine that prevents all cancer. We are beginning to see several very different vaccine strategies move closer to clinical reality.
First, What Actually Happened?
The new result came from a global Phase 3 study called INTerpath-001.
The companies reported that the trial enrolled 1,137 participants with completely resected stage IIB to IV cutaneous melanoma.
“Completely resected” means the visible tumor had been surgically removed.
That does not always mean every cancer cell is gone.
A small number of cells may remain elsewhere in the body, too few to appear on a scan but still capable of causing a recurrence months or years later.
This is why some people receive adjuvant treatment, which means treatment given after surgery to reduce the risk that the cancer returns.
Participants were randomly assigned in a 2-to-1 ratio to receive:
- Intismeran autogene plus pembrolizumab
- Pembrolizumab plus placebo
Pembrolizumab, also known by the brand name Keytruda, is an immune checkpoint inhibitor already used in melanoma care.
At a planned interim analysis, the combination met:
- The primary endpoint of recurrence-free survival
- The key secondary endpoint of distant metastasis-free survival
Recurrence-free survival measures how long participants remain alive without the cancer returning.
Distant metastasis-free survival measures how long they remain alive without the cancer spreading to a distant part of the body.
The companies described the improvements as statistically significant and clinically meaningful. They also reported no new safety signals.
But as of August 26, 2026, this remains a topline company announcement.
The full numerical Phase 3 results have not yet been presented publicly. We do not yet have the hazard ratios, absolute recurrence rates, full safety tables, quality-of-life data, or mature overall-survival results.
The companies plan to present the details at a future medical meeting and discuss regulatory submissions. Intismeran is still investigational and is not yet an approved treatment.
The Correction That Changes the Whole Story
Did the vaccine prevent cancer?
Not in the way most of us understand that phrase.
The participants were not cancer-free volunteers receiving a shot to stop melanoma from ever developing.
They had already had melanoma.
The treatment was designed to prevent or delay recurrence after surgery.
That difference matters.
Preventing a first cancer and preventing an existing cancer from returning are both valuable goals, but they are not scientifically interchangeable.
A more accurate headline would be:
A personalized mRNA vaccine helped reduce the return and spread of high-risk melanoma after surgery in a Phase 3 trial.
That sentence is less dramatic.
It is also genuinely remarkable.
The treatment was tested on top of an active standard therapy, not against no treatment at all. To improve outcomes beyond pembrolizumab alone sets a meaningful clinical bar.
How Can a Cancer Vaccine Be Personalized to One Person?
Most vaccines teach the immune system to recognize something shared by many people, such as a virus.
A personalized cancer vaccine works differently.
Cancer begins when cells accumulate genetic changes.
Some mutations cause cancer cells to produce abnormal protein fragments that healthy cells do not normally make.
These fragments are called neoantigens.
You can think of a neoantigen as a molecular spelling mistake that appears only on the tumor.
The personalized-vaccine process works roughly like this:
- A sample of the person’s tumor is genetically sequenced.
- Researchers identify mutations that may produce recognizable neoantigens.
- A set of the most promising targets is selected.
- A unique strand of mRNA is manufactured for that patient.
- The mRNA carries instructions encoding up to 34 tumor-specific neoantigens.
- After injection, antigen-presenting cells read those instructions and display the selected targets.
- T cells learn to recognize cancer cells carrying those same mutations.
The mRNA functions as temporary biological instructions.
The goal is not to attack every rapidly dividing cell.
It is to train the immune system to recognize the particular molecular fingerprint of one person’s tumor.
Early clinical research has shown that this approach can create new neoantigen-specific T-cell responses and strengthen existing ones.
Why Is Pembrolizumab Part of the Treatment?
Teaching T cells what to recognize is only one part of the problem.
Cancer cells are very good at hiding from the immune system.
One method they use involves a checkpoint called PD-1.
PD-1 acts like a brake on T cells. Under normal circumstances, this brake helps prevent the immune system from damaging healthy tissue.
Some tumors exploit that system and use it to switch off the immune cells trying to attack them.
Pembrolizumab blocks PD-1.
In simple terms:
- The vaccine helps show the immune system what the tumor looks like.
- Pembrolizumab helps release the brake that may stop T cells from attacking it.
This combination makes biological sense.
But it also creates an important limitation in how we interpret the trial:
INTerpath-001 does not tell us how the vaccine would perform on its own.
It tells us whether adding the personalized vaccine to pembrolizumab performs better than pembrolizumab alone.
What Did the Earlier Trial Show?
Before the Phase 3 study, the same combination was tested in a smaller randomized Phase 2b trial called KEYNOTE-942.
The trial included 157 people with completely resected stage IIIB to IV melanoma:
- 107 received intismeran plus pembrolizumab.
- 50 received pembrolizumab alone.
The original peer-reviewed analysis found that 18-month recurrence-free survival was:
- 79% with the combination
- 62% with pembrolizumab alone
At that stage, the hazard ratio for recurrence or death was 0.561, although the confidence interval narrowly crossed 1 and the conventional two-sided P value was 0.053.
The five-year follow-up, published in 2026, strengthened the longer-term picture.
After a median follow-up of just over five years, the combination was associated with:
- A 49% relative reduction in recurrence or death
- A 59% relative reduction in distant metastasis or death
There was also a favorable trend in overall survival, but the confidence interval was wide and crossed 1. That means the overall-survival result was not yet conclusive.
These are relative risk reductions.
They do not tell us how many additional participants remained cancer-free without also seeing the absolute event rates.
That is one reason the full Phase 3 data will matter so much.
What About Side Effects?
Cancer vaccines are sometimes described as though they are simply an ordinary vaccination added to cancer care.
That understates the treatment burden.
In the original Phase 2b publication, grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events occurred in:
- 25% of participants receiving the combination
- 18% receiving pembrolizumab alone
Most treatment-related adverse events were grade 1 or 2.
The frequency of immune-mediated adverse events was 36% in both groups, suggesting that the vaccine did not clearly increase this specific category in the smaller trial.
The five-year analysis reported no new safety signals and described the overall profile as manageable.
However, “manageable” does not mean side-effect-free.
The full Phase 3 safety data are still needed, particularly because the larger study included a broader group of melanoma stages and more than 1,000 participants.
Why the Phase 3 Result Is a Genuine Milestone
Phase 2 trials often generate exciting signals that do not survive larger testing.
Phase 3 trials are designed to provide stronger confirmation in larger populations and usually play a central role in regulatory decisions.
Merck and Moderna describe INTerpath-001 as the first positive Phase 3 readout for:
- An individualized neoantigen therapy
- An mRNA-based cancer therapy
That is why this announcement matters.
The basic idea has now moved from:
“Can we generate tumor-specific T cells?”
to:
“Can this strategy improve meaningful clinical outcomes in a large confirmatory trial?”
According to the topline announcement, the answer appears to be yes for recurrence-free and distant metastasis-free survival in resected high-risk melanoma.
But important questions remain:
- What were the absolute event rates?
- How large was the benefit at one, two, and three years?
- Did every melanoma stage benefit similarly?
- Which tumor features predicted response?
- What were the full rates of serious and treatment-limiting adverse events?
- Did quality of life differ?
- Will overall survival improve?
- How quickly can each vaccine be manufactured?
- What will personalized production cost?
- Will treatment be accessible outside major cancer centers?
- Can the approach work in cancers with fewer mutations or less immune visibility?
A positive Phase 3 trial is a major step.
It is not the final step.
We Already Have Vaccines That Prevent Cancer
Here is the part many headlines overlook:
Vaccines that prevent some cancers already exist.
The HPV vaccine prevents infection with high-risk human papillomavirus types that can later cause:
- Cervical cancer
- Anal cancer
- Oropharyngeal cancer
- Penile cancer
- Vaginal cancer
- Vulvar cancer
The CDC estimates that HPV vaccination can prevent more than 90% of cancers caused by HPV.
The hepatitis B vaccine prevents chronic hepatitis B infection, which can lead to cirrhosis and liver cancer.
These are genuine cancer-prevention vaccines.
But they work indirectly.
They prevent infections that can eventually cause cancer.
They do not identify and attack a person’s own cancer mutations.
Cancer Treatment Vaccines Are Not Completely New Either
The phrase “cancer vaccine” can describe several different technologies.
Some are used after cancer has already developed.
For example, sipuleucel-T has been FDA-approved since 2010 for selected people with advanced prostate cancer.
It is made using a patient’s own immune cells and is designed to stimulate an immune response against the cancer.
The new melanoma approach is still different.
Intismeran uses tumor sequencing and mRNA to create a personalized set of targets for each patient.
So the real innovation is not the first use of the word “vaccine” in oncology.
It is the successful late-stage testing of a highly individualized mRNA neoantigen strategy.
The Next Frontier: Vaccinating Before Invasive Cancer Appears
Preventing recurrence after surgery is one form of interception.
Researchers are also asking a more ambitious question:
Could we train the immune system before an invasive cancer develops?
One of the most interesting early examples involves Lynch syndrome.
Lynch syndrome is an inherited condition caused by changes in DNA mismatch-repair genes. It substantially increases the risk of colorectal and several other cancers.
These tumors often develop recurring types of genetic errors that create abnormal protein fragments called frameshift peptides.
Researchers designed an experimental vaccine called Nous-209 to target 209 of these shared fragments.
Unlike intismeran:
- Nous-209 is not personalized for each participant.
- It is not an mRNA vaccine.
- It uses two viral-vector platforms in a prime-and-boost schedule.
- It is designed as an off-the-shelf approach for people with a shared hereditary risk.
A 2026 Phase 1b/2 study included 45 adults with Lynch syndrome who did not have active invasive cancer.
The study’s main goals were safety and immune response, not proof of cancer prevention.
Among 37 evaluable participants:
- 100% developed neoantigen-specific immune responses
- 85% still had detectable responses one year later
The vaccine generated both CD4 and CD8 T-cell responses against multiple targets.
That is an encouraging sign that the immune system can be trained against abnormalities commonly found in Lynch-associated precancers and cancers.
Did Nous-209 Prevent Cancer?
We do not know.
Forty-three participants completed an end-of-study colonoscopy or related lower endoscopy.
No colorectal cancers or advanced adenomas were identified at that follow-up.
But this result needs several layers of context.
The study:
- Was small
- Had no placebo group
- Was not powered to measure cancer incidence
- Followed participants for a relatively short period
- Did not show a statistically significant reduction in the overall proportion or number of adenomas compared with baseline
The percentage of participants with at least one adenoma at follow-up was approximately 28%, which was similar to baseline and within expectations for this high-risk population.
So the colonoscopy finding is interesting.
It is not evidence that Nous-209 prevented colorectal cancer.
The study successfully answered its primary questions:
- The vaccine appeared acceptably safe.
- It generated broad and durable T-cell responses.
A larger randomized trial must now determine whether those immune responses actually reduce advanced precancers or cancer over time.
Three Very Different Meanings of “Cancer Vaccine”
This is the framework I would keep in mind whenever another headline appears.
1. Vaccines that prevent a cancer-causing infection
Examples:
- HPV vaccine
- Hepatitis B vaccine
These are established and already in clinical use.
2. Vaccines used after cancer has developed
Examples:
- Sipuleucel-T for selected prostate cancers
- Intismeran plus pembrolizumab after melanoma surgery, currently investigational
These aim to treat cancer or reduce the chance of recurrence.
3. Vaccines designed to intercept cancer before it becomes invasive
Example:
- Nous-209 in people with Lynch syndrome
This is one of the most exciting frontiers, but it remains experimental.
Using one phrase for all three categories creates confusion.
They target different biology, are given to different populations, and sit at very different stages of evidence.
Why There May Never Be One Universal Cancer Vaccine
Cancer is not one disease.
It is hundreds of diseases with different:
- Organs of origin
- Mutations
- Growth patterns
- Immune environments
- Risk factors
- Treatment sensitivities
Even two people with melanoma may have tumors carrying very different mutations.
That is exactly why the personalized approach is so appealing.
Instead of searching for one target shared by every melanoma, researchers create a vaccine around the mutations found in one patient’s tumor.
But personalization also creates practical challenges.
Each treatment requires:
- High-quality tumor tissue
- Genetic sequencing
- Neoantigen prediction
- Individual manufacturing
- Quality control
- Delivery within a clinically useful timeframe
A universal cancer vaccine would be easier to manufacture.
A personalized one may be better able to match the tumor.
The future may include both strategies, depending on the cancer and the point at which treatment begins.
What We Still Need to See
Before describing the new melanoma vaccine as a clinical revolution, we need the full Phase 3 data.
The most important missing pieces include:
- Exact recurrence-free survival results
- Exact distant metastasis-free survival results
- Absolute risk differences
- Number needed to treat
- Full safety and discontinuation data
- Quality-of-life outcomes
- Overall-survival follow-up
- Performance across melanoma stages and molecular subgroups
- Manufacturing time and treatment access
- Regulatory review
We also need to know how well the approach translates beyond melanoma.
Trials are underway in other cancers, including lung, bladder, and kidney cancers.
A vaccine platform can be biologically elegant and still work better in some tumors than others.
Melanoma tends to carry many mutations and is relatively visible to the immune system. That may make it particularly suitable for a neoantigen approach.
The same success cannot automatically be assumed for every cancer.
Should This Headline Change Anything We Do Today?
For most of us, no immediate change is required.
The new vaccine is not currently available as routine cancer prevention.
It does not replace:
- HPV vaccination
- Hepatitis B vaccination
- Recommended cancer screening
- Sun protection
- Tobacco avoidance
- Medical evaluation of concerning symptoms
- Established cancer treatment
For someone receiving care for melanoma, treatment decisions belong with their oncology team. Clinical-trial eligibility depends on cancer stage, surgical history, prior treatment, health status, and many other factors.
Promising research should create informed hope.
It should not encourage anyone to delay care while waiting for a future vaccine.
The Bottom Line
Did scientists find a vaccine that prevents cancer?
Not in the universal way the headline suggests.
The new Phase 3 result involved people who had already been treated surgically for high-risk melanoma.
A personalized mRNA vaccine, used with pembrolizumab, improved outcomes related to cancer recurrence and distant spread compared with pembrolizumab alone.
That is not primary prevention.
But it is a major milestone in preventing cancer from returning after treatment.
At the same time:
- HPV and hepatitis B vaccines already prevent several infection-related cancers.
- Cancer treatment vaccines have existed for years.
- Experimental interception vaccines are beginning to train the immune system before invasive cancer appears in selected high-risk populations.
So the real story is not:
“We found one vaccine that prevents cancer.”
It is:
“Cancer vaccines are becoming several different clinical realities.”
One may prevent a cancer-causing infection.
Another may help stop microscopic disease from returning after surgery.
A future vaccine may recognize precancerous changes before an invasive tumor has time to form.
The original headline is too broad.
But the science underneath it may be more important than the headline itself.
We are beginning to learn that the immune system can be taught not only to recognize a virus, but also to recognize the unique molecular fingerprint of a person’s cancer.
And in one large Phase 3 melanoma trial, that idea appears to have improved outcomes that matter.
That is not the end of cancer.
But it is a meaningful new chapter in how we may prevent its return, interrupt its development, and treat it more precisely.
References
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2025). Vaccines and cancer prevention.
D’Alise, A. M., Willis, J., Duzagac, F., et al. (2026). Nous-209 neoantigen vaccine for cancer prevention in Lynch syndrome carriers: A phase 1b/2 trial. Nature Medicine, 32, 1002–1011. doi:10.1038/s41591-025-04182-9
Khattak, A., Carlino, M. S., Meniawy, T., et al. (2026). Intismeran autogene plus pembrolizumab versus pembrolizumab alone in high-risk resected melanoma: 5-year update of the randomized phase IIb KEYNOTE-942 study. Journal of Clinical Oncology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1200/JCO-26-00835
Merck & Co., Inc., & Moderna, Inc. (2026, August 19). Phase 3 INTerpath-001 trial of intismeran autogene plus pembrolizumab met recurrence-free survival and distant metastasis-free survival endpoints in completely resected stage IIB-IV melanoma [Press release].
National Cancer Institute. (n.d.). Cancer treatment vaccines.
National Library of Medicine. (2025). INTerpath-001: A clinical study of intismeran autogene plus pembrolizumab in people with high-risk melanoma (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT05933577).
Weber, J. S., Carlino, M. S., Khattak, A., et al. (2024). Individualised neoantigen therapy mRNA-4157 plus pembrolizumab versus pembrolizumab monotherapy in resected melanoma: A randomised, phase 2b study. The Lancet, 403(10427), 632–644. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(23)02268-7
Cancer Vaccines: Frequently Asked Questions
What is a cancer vaccine?
A cancer vaccine is an immunotherapy or preventive strategy designed to help protect against certain cancers or help the immune system recognize and destroy cancer cells. Preventive cancer vaccines, such as HPV and hepatitis B vaccines, prevent infections that can cause cancer. Therapeutic cancer vaccines are given after cancer has developed and aim to train the immune system to recognize tumor-associated targets.
How do therapeutic cancer vaccines work?
Therapeutic cancer vaccines expose the immune system to antigens associated with cancer cells so that T cells can better recognize and attack those targets. Different platforms can use dendritic cells, tumor-derived material, proteins or peptides, viral vectors, or mRNA. mRNA is one newer approach, not the only type of therapeutic cancer vaccine.
What is a personalized mRNA cancer vaccine?
A personalized mRNA cancer vaccine is designed using genetic information from an individual patient's tumor. Researchers identify mutations that may create tumor-specific neoantigens, select promising targets, and manufacture mRNA carrying instructions for those targets. The goal is to generate T-cell responses directed toward the molecular features of that person's cancer. These vaccines remain investigational.
What are neoantigens?
Neoantigens are abnormal protein fragments that can arise from mutations in cancer cells. Because mutation-derived neoantigens are not normally present on healthy cells, they can provide useful targets for personalized cancer vaccines. However, not every tumor mutation produces a neoantigen capable of generating a strong immune response.
Are any cancer vaccines currently FDA-approved?
Yes, but the terminology requires some care. Sipuleucel-T (Provenge) is an FDA-approved cancer treatment vaccine for certain patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. HPV and hepatitis B vaccines are preventive vaccines that reduce cancer risk by preventing cancer-causing infections. Other cancer immunotherapies sometimes discussed alongside vaccines, including BCG, gene therapies, and oncolytic viruses, belong to different treatment categories.
Is there an FDA-approved mRNA cancer vaccine?
No. As of August 2026, no mRNA cancer vaccine has received FDA approval. Personalized mRNA cancer vaccines are being evaluated in clinical trials, including intismeran autogene for melanoma. Its Phase 3 trial has reported positive topline results, but the treatment remains investigational and regulatory submissions are still planned.
Does the new melanoma mRNA vaccine prevent cancer?
Not in the way a preventive vaccine such as the HPV vaccine does. Participants in the Phase 3 INTerpath-001 trial had already been diagnosed with high-risk stage IIB-IV melanoma and had their tumors surgically removed. The study tested whether intismeran autogene plus pembrolizumab could reduce the risk of melanoma returning or spreading compared with pembrolizumab alone.
What did the Phase 3 INTerpath-001 melanoma trial find?
The Phase 3 INTerpath-001 trial reported that intismeran autogene plus pembrolizumab produced statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in recurrence-free survival and distant metastasis-free survival compared with pembrolizumab alone. However, as of August 2026, the complete Phase 3 hazard ratios, absolute event rates, detailed safety results, and mature overall-survival data have not yet been publicly presented.
How effective are cancer vaccines at preventing cancer recurrence?
The complete Phase 3 effect size has not yet been publicly released. In the earlier Phase 2b melanoma trial, five-year follow-up found that intismeran autogene plus pembrolizumab was associated with a 49% relative reduction in recurrence or death and a 59% relative reduction in distant metastasis or death compared with pembrolizumab alone.
These results come from the smaller Phase 2b study and should not be interpreted as the effect size of the newer Phase 3 trial. The Phase 3 trial has so far reported that recurrence-free and distant metastasis-free survival were significantly improved, without yet releasing the detailed numerical results.
Are there vaccines that can prevent cancer?
Yes. Some vaccines already prevent cancers caused by infections. HPV vaccination can prevent more than 90% of cancers caused by HPV, including many cervical, anal, vaginal, vulvar, penile, and oropharyngeal cancers. Hepatitis B vaccination prevents HBV infection, which can lead to chronic liver disease and liver cancer. These vaccines prevent cancer indirectly by preventing the infection that can cause it.
Is BCG a cancer vaccine?
BCG originated as a vaccine against tuberculosis, but when it is placed directly into the bladder to treat early stage bladder cancer, the National Cancer Institute classifies it as an immune system modulator and intravesical immunotherapy, rather than a therapeutic cancer vaccine. It stimulates a local immune response that can attack bladder cancer cells.
What cancers are therapeutic cancer vaccines being studied for?
Cancer vaccine approaches are being investigated across many tumor types. Personalized or mRNA-based vaccines are in clinical research for cancers including melanoma, lung cancer, pancreatic cancer, colorectal, kidney, and bladder cancers. Sipuleucel-T is already approved for certain prostate cancers. Being studied in a clinical trial does not mean a vaccine has been proven effective for that cancer.
Can cancer vaccines be combined with other cancer treatments?
Yes. Some cancer vaccines are designed to be used alongside other treatments, particularly immune checkpoint inhibitors. For example, intismeran autogene is being studied with pembrolizumab, which blocks the PD-1 immune checkpoint. The vaccine aims to help T cells recognize tumor targets, while checkpoint inhibition can help prevent cancer from suppressing that immune response. Whether a combination improves outcomes depends on the specific treatment and cancer.
What are the possible side effects of cancer vaccines?
Side effects depend on the type of cancer vaccine and any treatments given with it. They may include injection-site reactions, fatigue, fever, chills, headache, muscle aches, or other flu-like symptoms. Cell-based treatments given by infusion can also cause infusion reactions, while combinations with checkpoint inhibitors may produce immune-related side effects. Safety should therefore be evaluated for the specific vaccine and treatment combination, rather than cancer vaccines as one group.
Why is it difficult to develop effective cancer vaccines?
Cancer is difficult to vaccinate against because tumors are highly variable and can change over time. Many cancer antigens resemble normal human proteins, tumors can actively suppress the immune system, and two people with the same cancer may carry very different mutations. Personalized vaccines can address some of this variability, but they also require tumor sequencing, target selection, individualized manufacturing, and clinical testing.
Where can patients find cancer vaccine clinical trials?
Patients interested in experimental cancer vaccines should first discuss clinical-trial eligibility with their oncology team. Current studies can be searched through ClinicalTrials.gov and the National Cancer Institute's clinical-trial database. Eligibility depends on factors such as cancer type, stage, previous treatments, tumor characteristics, and overall health.
