An afternoon exploring cancer vaccines
On June 2nd 2025, the Centre for Personalised Medicine and the Oxford Centre for Cancer Early Detection and Prevention (OxCODE) hosted an event that brought together clinicians, scientists, patients, social scientists, policy leaders, and community representatives to explore an ambitious and deeply personal question: what might it mean to prevent cancer altogether through vaccination? Over the course of the day, it became clear that this isn’t just a scientific challenge; it’s a social and ethical one too. Preventive cancer vaccines, particularly those aimed at people who carry inherited risk factors or precancerous changes, are no longer speculative. They are actively in development, with trials like LungVax already underway. But alongside this promising science is a responsibility to communicate carefully, build trust, and involve patients from the very beginning.
The science presented was both complex and hopeful. Professor Sarah Blagden shared Oxford’s work developing vaccines that train the immune system to recognise and eliminate abnormal cells before they become cancerous. These vaccines don’t target cancer itself, but the early warning signs: mutated proteins, or neoantigens, that mark high-risk cells. This proactive approach could transform how we think about cancer risk, especially for people with inherited syndromes like BRCA or Lynch. In the case of LungVax, a collaboration with UCL and the Crick Institute, the vaccine uses the same viral vector as the Oxford/AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine to target precancerous changes in smokers. An mRNA version is also in development, offering an opportunity to compare platforms.
What grounded the event most powerfully, however, were the voices of those with lived experience. Tom Bartlett, who lives with Lynch syndrome and received immunotherapy through compassionate access, shared the emotional realities of living with genetic risk. His reflections reminded us that these innovations are about more than clinical outcomes. They’re about giving people back a sense of agency, of choice, and of hope. He also called for honesty in communication. Cancer vaccines are an extraordinary opportunity, but they must be presented with care. Overpromising or simplifying risks undermines trust, and trust is something that must be earned, particularly among communities who have historically been marginalised or excluded.
Hearing directly from patient and public contributors like Claire Swan and Liz Thompson further enriched the day. Claire described how understanding the biology of cancer prevention at a cellular level helped her appreciate the power of early detection and the hope that cancer could be predicted and prevented years before symptoms appear. She emphasised how informative and empowering it was to learn about different types of vaccines and how they work, particularly in the context of her own conversations with friends and family. The way the term “vaccine” is understood by the public emerged as an important theme, and Claire highlighted the opportunity we now have to communicate the role of cancer prevention vaccines more clearly and honestly.
Liz also reflected on the inclusive atmosphere of the day, noting how everyone’s perspectives were welcomed, regardless of academic background. She found the session on language especially thought-provoking and stressed the importance of consistency in how the term “vaccine” is used across different settings to avoid confusion or mistrust. For Liz, it was deeply humbling to hear that research taking place in Oxford could one day result in an “AllVax” capable of reducing cancer risk for future generations. Both contributors were struck by the potential of these innovations to not only change outcomes, but to offer people real choice and hope in the face of an often-indiscriminate disease.
The importance of language and communication was a recurring theme. While “cancer vaccine” is scientifically accurate, it may be misunderstood or even alarming in the wake of recent global vaccine debates. Rather than rename the concept, many attendees agreed that clarity and context are key. Good communication, done in partnership with patients and community leaders, is more effective than rebranding. Discussions around equity also ran deep. Participants raised important questions about who will benefit from these vaccines. Will access to genetic testing limit who can participate in trials? Will underserved communities be overlooked again? We heard again and again that patients are not passive recipients of science; they must be co-creators of it. Inclusion is not just a moral imperative. It is essential for the science to succeed.
There was optimism, too. The NHS Cancer Vaccine Launch Pad is already demonstrating what’s possible when infrastructure aligns with innovation. It has increased access to therapeutic vaccine trials and shortened recruitment timelines significantly. The hope is that this kind of platform will not only support current efforts but be ready to scale as the science progresses. Looking further ahead, the idea of a universal “AllVax,” a vaccine designed to prevent multiple cancers, was raised. While still aspirational, it reflects the direction of travel: a future in which cancer prevention is integrated into personalised care from the outset.
As the event drew to a close, a strong message emerged. This is not simply a moment of scientific possibility, but one of shared responsibility. Cancer vaccines have the potential to reshape public health, but only if they are developed and delivered with care, equity, and partnership at every step. The work ahead is complex, but the conversations at this event marked a meaningful beginning.
Hiba Malik, Liz Thompson, Claire Swan and Sarah Briggs
