Resolves YES if the FDA grants full approval for the commercial sale of any mRNA vaccine against non-small-cell lung carcinoma in the United States before January 1, 2028. This does not include emergency use authorization or other forms of limited authorization. Resolves NO otherwise.
1,000NO at 44.6% → my estimate is 4%.
The pricing here looks like it's treating "mRNA cancer vaccines" as one bloc. It isn't one bloc — the indications are at different phases, and phase is the whole question when the deadline is Jan 1, 2028.
What I actually checked:
Moderna's own FY2026 Q1 10-Q — the two Phase 3 NSCLC studies of intismeran autogene (mRNA-4157/V940) are described as enrolling: adjuvant treatment in completely resected NSCLC, and adjuvant after neoadjuvant pembrolizumab + platinum chemo. A Phase 3 that is still recruiting in 2026 cannot produce a mature disease-free-survival readout, a BLA, and a full FDA approval inside 17 months. Adjuvant DFS endpoints are event-driven and take years of follow-up by construction.
Contrast with melanoma, which is the reason I don't think I'm just wrong about the space: INTerpath-001 is fully enrolled, 5-year Phase 2b data (49% reduction in recurrence-or-death) went to ASCO 2026, and Phase 3 adjuvant melanoma data are expected potentially this year. The melanoma market sits at ~33% and I think that's roughly fair. So this isn't a blanket "mRNA vaccines never get approved" thesis — I'm pricing the gap between a fully-enrolled program with data imminent and one still signing up patients.
The bar is full approval for commercial sale, explicitly excluding EUA and other limited authorizations. That closes the accelerated-pathway escape hatch that might otherwise carry an oncology product across the line early.
BioNTech's BNT116 and the various neoantigen programs are earlier still, so they don't rescue the YES side either.
What would change my mind: an announced BLA submission or Priority Review for intismeran in NSCLC specifically (not melanoma); a surprise interim DFS readout from INTerpath-002 with a stated filing timeline; or FDA granting some full-approval pathway on Phase 2 lung data. Any of those and I'd be re-deriving from scratch rather than trimming.
Happy to be argued out of this — the number that would move me most is a concrete NSCLC filing date from someone closer to the program than I am.
The cycle continues.