Why this matters now
Cancer medicine has two dated tests coming. Moderna and Merck plan to present detailed results for their personalized mRNA cancer vaccine, intismeran, at the ESMO cancer congress on Oct. 24, and to engage with regulators on potential filings.1 Earlier, the same vaccine was reported to have stopped melanoma, a serious skin cancer, from returning in a clinical trial described as historic.2 That is a headline result, and the detail on Oct. 24 is what will show how far it goes.
Three weeks later, on Nov. 14, 2026, the US Food and Drug Administration is due to act on Summit Therapeutics' application for ivonescimab. The application rests on the HARMONi trial results.3 Summit has also announced a trial collaboration with Daiichi Sankyo and AstraZeneca to test ivonescimab alongside Datroway across several solid tumor settings. It intends to include breast and lung cancer.4 Our research narrative groups these developments as a shift toward AI-designed biologics, personalized vaccines and drug combinations. It also places first-line triple-negative breast cancer among the combination targets.13 That framing is Via News's analysis, not an external finding.
What the AI part of the story actually says
The AI claim comes from AstraZeneca, so read it as the company's own account. Puja Sapra describes a 'lab of the future' this way: "Where a self-driving car uses sensors and models to navigate its environment, this system uses AI to make predictions, robotic systems to execute experiments, and instruments to generate data."5 She says the approach should produce data "at a scale that traditional workflows cannot match."5
She names the company's edge as data: "Data is our differentiator."5 The piece is also candid about limits. In her words, "One of the hardest problems in de novo design is predicting whether a computationally generated molecule will be safe in the human body."5 She adds that "human oversight remains at the heart of this approach."5 So the claim is that AI could speed early design, and the author concedes the safety question is unsolved.
One caution about the source. In our checks, 0% of the 11 claims examined from this MIT Technology Review article held up.5 That is a small sample, but it is a poor record. Treat the article as a statement of AstraZeneca's intentions, not as proof that AI-designed drugs work.
The money behind the science: Merck's verified numbers
Merck is the best-documented company in our data, and these figures come from its SEC filings. Its capital spending, meaning money put into plants, labs and equipment, was $3.863 billion in 2023 and $3.372 billion in 2024.6 It then rose to $4.112 billion in 2025.6 By our arithmetic that is about 22% more than in 2024. In the first quarter, spending was $861 million in 2024, $1.328 billion in 2025 and $991 million in 2026.6
Merck's cash balance moves a great deal from quarter to quarter. At the end of 2025 it was $14.565 billion, up from $13.242 billion a year earlier.7 It was $18.169 billion in the third quarter of 2025.7 It then fell to $5.327 billion in the first quarter of 2026 and $6.849 billion in the second quarter. In the second quarter of 2025 it had been $8.007 billion.7 We cannot tell from this data why the balance dropped. Reasons such as acquisitions, debt repayment and investments are all possible, and the dossier does not say which applies. We are not guessing.
The cost of producing and selling its products, which the filings call cost of revenue, rose too. In the second quarter it was $4.395 billion in 2026, against $3.557 billion in 2025, about 24% higher by our calculation.8 In the first quarter it was $4.195 billion, against $3.419 billion a year earlier.8 We do not have Merck's revenue in this dossier, so we cannot say whether sales grew faster than costs. Anyone judging Merck's profitability needs that figure before drawing a conclusion.
If you hold a broad stock-market index fund, you may own Merck indirectly. The dossier does not give its weighting, so we will not guess at one.
Commercial results are strong, but mostly at the larger companies
Novocure reported what its chief executive, Frank Leonard, called "our strongest quarter to date, with record net revenues and active patients on therapy."9 Second-quarter revenue was $184 million, up 16% on the year. The company attributed this to 18% growth in active patients.9 It also received the CE Mark, which allows sale in Europe, for Optune Pax in locally advanced pancreatic cancer, and Germany is the first market to launch. More than 280 patients were on that product at the end of June.9 Our narrative also records narrowed-and-raised oncology guidance and growth in Kiniksa's Arcalyst revenue, but we have no verified figures behind those two points.13
Regulators are moving on combination therapy. On July 24, Europe's medicines committee recommended Gilead's Trodelvy plus Keytruda for first-line metastatic triple-negative breast cancer in patients whose tumors carry the PD-L1 marker.11 Evandro de Azambuja said such patients "need effective treatment options as early as possible in the course of their disease."11 Separately, Telix dosed the first patient in a Phase 3 trial of TLX250-Tx for renal cancer. The company calls it the first radiopharmaceutical therapy to reach Phase 3 in that disease.12
The smaller names are under pressure
ADC Therapeutics is cutting jobs, a step projected to deliver "$10 million in annualised cost savings."10 The company says it "maintains a cash runway into 2028."10 That is a company stretching its money, not a company expanding. Our narrative also notes that OPKO issued softer third-quarter guidance. We have no verified figures on that, so we do not quantify it.13
How much to trust the sources
Most of these company statements came through press-release wires. In our checks, 56% of 4,956 claims from the wire that carried the Novocure and Gilead items held up. For the Telix item's source it was 31% of 2,927 claims, and for the weekly roundup that carried the ADC Therapeutics news it was 45% of 520.9,11,12,10 The quotes above are accurate to those sources, but company releases are advocacy. Merck's SEC-filed figures are our firmest ground.
What to watch
- Oct. 24: the detailed intismeran data at ESMO, and any word from regulators on filings.1
- Nov. 14: the FDA action on ivonescimab.3
- Merck's revenue alongside its rising costs and its swinging cash balance, to see whether spending is paying off.6,7,8
- ADC Therapeutics' runway into 2028, as a gauge of how hard it is for smaller cancer developers.10
