Radical oncology: what could change the war by 2035
Radical oncology is a horizon map of the wilder ideas in cancer, sorted by how close they are to mattering, with the reason each one might never arrive.
Most of what is celebrated as a breakthrough is an incremental gain on an existing modality. This roadmap collects the ideas that would change the shape of treatment rather than its slope: therapies that read DNA directly, living drugs, radiation delivered in milliseconds, and detection that runs continuously rather than annually.
The grouping is by horizon, from technologies already producing randomised data to ideas with no human evidence at all. Placement reflects the state of evidence in September 2026, not company timelines. Several steps will not happen: the failure record of hypoxia-activated prodrugs, metabolic therapy, and matrix-softening agents is a reminder that a clean mechanism is not a clinical benefit.
- Now (randomised data exists)current
Ideas already being tested against a control arm
Microbiome modulation, spatially fractionated radiotherapy, sonodynamic therapy in glioblastoma, GDF-15 blockade for cachexia, and repurposed cheap drugs all have randomised or registrational trials running in 2026. These are the frontier ideas closest to a guideline: each has a defined population, a comparator, and a readout inside a few years. Cachexia therapy is the likeliest first approval in a domain with no approved drug at all.
- By 2027 (early clinical, readouts imminent)emerging
Living drugs, logic gates, and designed proteins reach decision points
Engineered bacteria, logic-gated cell therapies, molecular glue platforms, and de novo designed binders all have first-in-human programmes running. The question each faces is the same: does the elegant mechanism survive contact with a heterogeneous human tumour? Expect most to disappoint on response rate while establishing safety, which is how bispecific antibodies and ADCs also began.
- By 2030 (physics and chemistry maturing)emerging
Radiation and radiopharmaceuticals get a second act
Auger emitters, contained alpha nanogenerators, proton arc delivery, and very-high-energy electrons are all limited today by engineering rather than biology: isotope supply, daughter recoil, gantry speed, and dosimetry at ultra-high dose rate. Those are tractable problems with capital behind them. If FLASH sparing is real in humans, deep FLASH by electron or proton arc would be the largest change to radiotherapy since intensity modulation.
- By 2030 (detection and decision-making)emerging
Monitoring becomes continuous and selection becomes spatial
Fragmentomics, breath analysis, and near-continuous ctDNA sampling all push detection from an annual event towards a running signal, while spatial omics and organoid testing push treatment choice from genotype towards phenotype and architecture. The gating question for every one of them is not sensitivity but utility: acting earlier has to change outcomes, and no randomised trial has yet shown that for continuous monitoring.
- By 2035 (needs a delivery breakthrough)speculative
Writing to the genome and the epigenome inside a tumour
In vivo base and prime editing, epigenetic silencing, antibody-oligonucleotide conjugates, and programmable DNA-targeting drugs share one blocker: getting a large, charged molecule into most cells of a solid tumour. Liver-directed editing is already in the clinic, so the chemistry works; the tumour delivery problem has resisted thirty years of effort. If it is solved, undruggable drivers such as MYC and TP53 loss become addressable and much of this roadmap is rewritten.
- By 2035 (attacking the host, not the tumour)speculative
Treating the soil rather than the seed
Stromal CAR-T, nerve blockade, senescence clearance, mechanical decompression, and targeting the tumour's own microbes all treat the environment a cancer needs rather than the cancer itself. The attraction is that the host does not mutate. The risk is visible in the record: PEGPH20 failed, FAP CAR-T caused cachexia in mice, and broad antibiotics blunt immunotherapy. Success here probably requires far better spatial measurement first.
- Speculative (no human evidence)speculative
Ideas that are still physics and mouse data
DNA origami nanorobots, phage-based delivery, and quantum-dot imaging agents have striking preclinical demonstrations and no clinical footprint. They belong on the map because the failure modes are known and specific, nuclease degradation, rapid clearance, heavy-metal toxicity, rather than vague. Any of them could move a horizon if a single delivery or materials problem is solved.
Probability ranges are named estimates that the claim is borne out on roughly a five-year horizon. They are meant to be argued with: propose a revision with your name and reasoning via a pull request to src/data/confidence.ts.
Story
topIdeas already being tested against a control arm
Microbiome modulation, spatially fractionated radiotherapy, sonodynamic therapy in glioblastoma, GDF-15 blockade for cachexia, and repurposed cheap drugs all have randomised or registrational trials running in 2026. These are the frontier ideas closest to a guideline: each has a defined population, a comparator, and a readout inside a few years. Cachexia therapy is the likeliest first approval in a domain with no approved drug at all.
Changing the gut bacteria of a patient whose immunotherapy stopped working, in the hope of restarting the response.
Deliberately treating a big tumour unevenly, with a lattice of very high dose peaks inside it, instead of a uniform dose.
A drug that does nothing until ultrasound hits it, then kills the cells that took it up. Being tested in brain tumours because sound reaches where light cannot.
Treating the wasting that kills many cancer patients, by blocking the hormone that suppresses appetite.
Testing cheap old drugs, aspirin, metformin, statins, beta-blockers, as cancer treatments, because they are safe, available and sometimes work.
Nanoparticles that turn ordinary radiotherapy X-rays into a much bigger dose exactly where they sit.
Living drugs, logic gates, and designed proteins reach decision points
Engineered bacteria, logic-gated cell therapies, molecular glue platforms, and de novo designed binders all have first-in-human programmes running. The question each faces is the same: does the elegant mechanism survive contact with a heterogeneous human tumour? Expect most to disappoint on response rate while establishing safety, which is how bispecific antibodies and ADCs also began.
Bacteria that seek out the low-oxygen core of tumours, then manufacture a drug on the spot.
Cells or drugs that fire only when two conditions are true at once, so healthy tissue expressing just one of them is spared.
Molecular glues are small molecules that stick two proteins together so the cell destroys one of them. They are smaller and more drug-like than bifunctional degraders.
Designing a protein from scratch on a computer to grip a chosen target, instead of finding one in an animal or a library.
Treating one tumour so aggressively that the immune system learns to attack every other one, using the tumour itself as the vaccine.
Destroying a tumour mechanically with sound, rather than heat, leaves the debris intact enough for the immune system to learn from it.
Adding a PARP or ATR inhibitor to a radioactive drug so the tumour cannot repair the damage the radiation causes.
Radiation and radiopharmaceuticals get a second act
Auger emitters, contained alpha nanogenerators, proton arc delivery, and very-high-energy electrons are all limited today by engineering rather than biology: isotope supply, daughter recoil, gantry speed, and dosimetry at ultra-high dose rate. Those are tractable problems with capital behind them. If FLASH sparing is real in humans, deep FLASH by electron or proton arc would be the largest change to radiotherapy since intensity modulation.
Radioactive atoms that spray very short-range electrons, lethal only if the atom sits on or inside the cell's DNA.
Actinium-225 releases four alpha particles as it decays, but the daughters escape and irradiate the kidneys and salivary glands. Nanocarriers try to hold them in place.
Rotating the proton beam continuously around the patient instead of firing from a few fixed angles, to spread the entrance dose and sharpen the target dose.
Using very fast electrons instead of photons or protons: a possible way to deliver FLASH-speed radiation to deep tumours from a compact machine.
Magnetic nanoparticle hyperthermia injects iron-oxide nanoparticles into a tumour and heats them from outside with an alternating magnetic field.
Gold nanoshells that accumulate in a tumour and cook it when a near-infrared laser is shone on them.
Monitoring becomes continuous and selection becomes spatial
Fragmentomics, breath analysis, and near-continuous ctDNA sampling all push detection from an annual event towards a running signal, while spatial omics and organoid testing push treatment choice from genotype towards phenotype and architecture. The gating question for every one of them is not sensitivity but utility: acting earlier has to change outcomes, and no randomised trial has yet shown that for continuous monitoring.
Instead of testing blood every three months, sampling constantly, so a relapse is caught the week it starts.
Smelling cancer: measuring the trace chemicals a tumour puts into exhaled breath.
Choosing treatment from a map of where each cell type sits in the tumour, not just from a list of its mutations.
Organoid-guided therapy means routinely growing a piece of each patient's tumour and testing drugs on it before choosing, rather than relying on genetics alone.
Using a model of what would have happened to a patient on standard treatment, so fewer people have to be randomised to it.
Building a trial around one patient, or letting one trial swap drugs in and out as evidence accumulates.
Scanners sensitive enough to image the whole body in seconds at a fraction of the radiation dose, which raises the question of whether healthy people should be scanned at all.
Writing to the genome and the epigenome inside a tumour
In vivo base and prime editing, epigenetic silencing, antibody-oligonucleotide conjugates, and programmable DNA-targeting drugs share one blocker: getting a large, charged molecule into most cells of a solid tumour. Liver-directed editing is already in the clinic, so the chemistry works; the tumour delivery problem has resisted thirty years of effort. If it is solved, undruggable drivers such as MYC and TP53 loss become addressable and much of this roadmap is rewritten.
In vivo base and prime editing would rewrite a cancer's DNA letter by letter inside the body. It works in the liver for inherited disease; nobody has yet corrected a cancer this way in a person.
Switching a gene off for good without changing the DNA sequence, by writing chemical marks onto it.
An ADC that carries a gene-silencing strand instead of a chemotherapy, so it can switch a protein off rather than poison the cell.
Programmable DNA-targeting therapeutics are an experimental idea: a drug that reads a cell's DNA, recognises a cancer-specific sequence, and kills only cells that carry it. Change the guide, and the same drug becomes a new drug.
RNA drugs that copy themselves inside the cell, or are made as a loop so they last longer. Both aim to get more protein from a smaller dose.
Loading the tiny vesicles cells naturally use to talk to each other with a cancer drug, so the body treats the carrier as its own.
Folded DNA machines that open only when they touch a tumour, releasing a payload or clotting the tumour's blood supply.
Treating the soil rather than the seed
Stromal CAR-T, nerve blockade, senescence clearance, mechanical decompression, and targeting the tumour's own microbes all treat the environment a cancer needs rather than the cancer itself. The attraction is that the host does not mutate. The risk is visible in the record: PEGPH20 failed, FAP CAR-T caused cachexia in mice, and broad antibiotics blunt immunotherapy. Success here probably requires far better spatial measurement first.
Instead of attacking the cancer cell, engineering T cells to strip away the scaffolding and the suppressive immune cells that protect it.
Cancer neuroscience is the study of how tumours talk to nerves. Nerves grow into tumours and feed them signals; brain tumours even wire themselves into neural circuits. Cutting the conversation with common drugs such as beta-blockers is now being tested.
Chemotherapy leaves behind zombie cells that will not divide but poison their neighbours. Senolytics aim to clear them.
Stiff, high-pressure tumours squeeze their own blood vessels shut, keeping drugs out. Softening them is a way in.
Some tumours contain bacteria and fungi that shelter cancer cells and break down chemotherapy. Killing them may make treatment work.
A harmless molecule that turns into a poison only where there is no oxygen, which in the body means inside a tumour.
Giving the innate immune system a memory, so monocytes and NK cells respond harder the next time they meet a tumour.
Ideas that are still physics and mouse data
DNA origami nanorobots, phage-based delivery, and quantum-dot imaging agents have striking preclinical demonstrations and no clinical footprint. They belong on the map because the failure modes are known and specific, nuclease degradation, rapid clearance, heavy-metal toxicity, rather than vague. Any of them could move a horizon if a single delivery or materials problem is solved.
Folded DNA machines that open only when they touch a tumour, releasing a payload or clotting the tumour's blood supply.
Using viruses that infect bacteria, not human cells, as programmable delivery shells for cancer drugs and vaccines.
Brighter, longer-lasting fluorescent particles and targeted microbubbles that make tumours visible during surgery or on an ultrasound scan.
Giving the same drug at a different time of day, because the body clock changes how much damage it does and how well the immune system responds.
Removing an amino acid or nutrient that certain tumours cannot make for themselves, while normal cells can.