Written by Shanshan Wang, PhD Student at the University of Calgary
The 2026 BioCanRx Summit for Cancer Immunotherapy (Summit4CI) brought together researchers, clinicians, trainees, patient partners, and industry leaders from across the immunotherapy landscape for several days of scientific exchange, discussion, and collaboration in Vancouver, British Columbia.
This year, I had the opportunity to participate in the Summit from several different perspectives: as a trainee presenter, a speed poster presenter, and a member of the Summit4CI HQP Working Group, which helps shape and support HQP Development Day programming. Working alongside other HQP members and BioCanRx staff gave me a deeper appreciation for the collaborative effort involved in creating meaningful trainee-focused experiences at the Summit.
1. Opening / Why We’re Here
One moment that stayed with me from the opening evening was hearing patient keynote speaker Haydn Bechthold alongside scientific discussions on adoptive cell therapy for solid tumors. The conversation returned quickly to patients: not as a distant goal, but as the reason this work needs to move forward now. Hearing patient perspectives alongside talks from Paul Beavis made it clear that our timelines in the lab are not abstract.
The atmosphere throughout the Summit felt both energized and purposeful. There was a shared sense that people were not simply presenting data but actively trying to solve translational challenges together. As someone working on CAR-engineered cell therapies, it grounded my work again in its urgency: developing approaches that are not only effective, but realistically translatable.
2. The Science
One thing that stood out to me throughout the Summit was the breadth of perspectives represented across the scientific sessions. The program spanned topics ranging from microbiome-based therapeutics and immunopeptidomics to in vivo CAR-T engineering, targeted therapeutics, accessibility of advanced therapies, and novel approaches to antigen discovery.
What I appreciated most was how these talks collectively emphasized that progress in immunotherapy does not come from a single breakthrough, but from integrating insights across disciplines. Even though many speakers approached cancer from very different angles, there was a shared focus on improving translation, accessibility, and patient outcomes.
I was particularly drawn to the plenary session on In Vivo Engineering Cancer Therapeutics. Talks from Drs. Filipe Pereira, Carolina Ilkow, and Justin Eyquem highlighted how rapidly the field is moving toward more flexible and programmable approaches to engineering immune cells: from in vivo dendritic cell reprogramming and RNA-based CAR-T engineering platforms to CRISPR-mediated T-cell editing. As someone working on CAR-engineered cell therapies, these discussions pushed me to think more critically about how design choices influence not only efficacy, but also durability, manufacturability, and accessibility.
I was also fascinated by the plenary on Microbial Therapeutics for Cancer: Promises and Challenges, particularly the talks from Drs. Matthew Chang, Arielle Elkrief, and Robert Jenq. Hearing discussions on engineered microbes, microbiome-based therapeutics, and how antibiotic-associated microbiome injury can shape cancer therapy responses challenged me to think more broadly about how systemic and environmental factors influence immunotherapy outcomes, an area I had not previously considered as deeply in the context of my own research.
3. HQP Development Day
One of the most meaningful parts of the Summit for me was not just attending HQP Development Day, but contributing to it as an HQP Working Group member and chairing a concurrent trainee session.
The day opened with a keynote from Dr. Megan Levings, who not only shared her cutting-edge research, but also reflected candidly on her scientific journey and personal growth throughout her career. One comment that particularly stayed with me was when she said, “I thought science hinged on prestige. Moving abroad made me reassess my priorities.” As an international trainee myself, that reflection resonated deeply.
What stood out to me throughout the day was how openly people discussed uncertainty: not only in science, but also in career development, mentorship, and defining success on individual terms. Dr. Levings also emphasized qualities such as resilience, independence, inspiration, generosity, and supporting others, reminding us that scientific growth is not only measured by publications or achievements, but also by the kind of community and mentorship we help build.
Before the session I chaired began, I remember looking around the room and realizing how eager trainees were to ask questions and engage in honest conversations. Facilitating those discussions gave me a very different perspective from simply attending a workshop. As someone still navigating many of these questions myself, the experience felt especially personal and relevant.
4. People and Connections
Some of the most meaningful moments happened in between sessions: during poster discussions, at the Meet-the-Experts lunch, and in conversations that continued long after sessions had officially ended.
At this year’s Summit, I had the opportunity to present my work as both a speed poster and a standard poster, in addition to contributing as an HQP Working Group member. Presenting in the speed poster format was a unique challenge: it pushed me to think carefully about how to communicate the core motivation and translational significance of my work clearly and concisely.
One thing I did not expect was how many discussions extended beyond the data itself. People were asking about translational challenges, manufacturing considerations, and how off-the-shelf approaches might realistically fit into treatment landscapes. Those conversations pushed me to think about my own work differently.
What stood out most was how open and collaborative the environment felt. HQPs were not just there to present completed stories: we were sharing ideas, uncertainties, and future directions in real time. Being part of the HQP Working Group also gave me a greater appreciation for the collaborative effort behind the Summit itself. Over the past year, our group worked closely together through numerous meetings to brainstorm ideas for HQP programming and trainee engagement, with tremendous support from Julie and the BioCanRx team. Seeing those ideas come together during the Summit made the experience feel especially rewarding.
5. Looking Forward
I left the Summit feeling more focused than when I arrived. Not necessarily with all the answers, but with a clearer sense of where my work fits within the broader immunotherapy landscape. The discussions throughout the Summit reinforced my interest in translational research, particularly how to bridge promising preclinical findings with real clinical impact, accessibility, and patient-centered outcomes.
For HQPs considering attending, I would say this: the value goes far beyond the science. It’s the perspective you gain, the conversations you have, and the community you become part of that make the experience truly impactful!