I recently read an article about a clinical trial in cancer patients. I don't remember exactly which one it was, but the story went something like this. They randomized 2 groups of patients with some treatment resistant cancer into two groups. The first group would receive the standard of care regimen A and the other would receive the regimen A plus an immune checkpoint inhibitor. The results made headlines as a new revolutionary way to treat those patients might have emerged. The authors demanded an urgent FDA approval and an immediate change of practice. So i decided to read the abstract: Patients that received regimen A had 7 months of disease free survival. Patients that received A+checkpoint inhibitor had 9 months. And that was statistically significant. But there was not a difference in overall survival. So to my understanding, from the patients perspective this means that if you take the double treatment, you will live the same, but your life will be worse because you will be receiving a heavier treatment from 2 more months. Immunotherapy in cancer has been celebrated for quite a while and its truth that some patients seem to get incredible benefits. A big amount of research has been conducted already, and now that most of the low hanging fruits are collected, lets briefly see the landscape so far. The greatest benefit seem to be in patients with melanoma. They even claim some cures, however some say that some 10% of melanoma were always cured by themselves for no apparent reason, although this percentage might have increased somewhat, or that immunotherapy is not better than double combinations of newer targeted therapies. In most other tumors they appear to do slightly better than traditional chemotherapy, usually by increasing life for 2-3 months. In other tumors immunotherapy seems to have no benefit at all. the question is: although cancer immunotharepy is a definitely revolution, will it be able to eventually cure cancer in most tumor types, or is it a bit hyped?