Q&A with Dr Jason Williams, founder of the Williams Cancer Institute

As immune-based approaches continue to take center stage in oncology, researchers are pushing beyond traditional checkpoint inhibitors and systemic drug delivery to explore more localized strategies. One such approach is being championed by Dr Jason Williams, founder of the Williams Cancer Institute, who has spent over a decade developing a technique that combines tumor ablation with intratumoral immunotherapy.

We spoke to Dr Williams at ASCO 2025 about how this method works, what sets it apart from standard treatment, and why it could represent a major turning point in the treatment of solid tumors.

How does your combination of cryoablation and intratumoral immunotherapy work to destroy tumors while triggering a broader immune response?

We use a combination of tumor ablation, such as cryoablation (freezing) or pulsed electrical field (a non-thermal technique that uses electrical discharges), alongside direct injection of immunotherapy agents into tumors. The ablation destroys tumor tissue, creating debris that the immune system can recognize. Injecting immunotherapy directly into the tumor site helps stimulate or unlock immune responses precisely where it matters most. Together, these processes aim to activate the immune system locally and, ultimately, systemically, turning the tumor into a sort of in-situ vaccine.

What sets your approach apart from traditional treatments, and how does it enable the body’s own defenses to aid in clearing the disease?

Traditional therapies deliver drugs systemically, via oral or intravenous routes, hoping they reach the tumor in effective doses. In contrast, our approach targets the tumor directly, delivering both destruction and immune activation at the site. This local-first strategy gives the immune system clear visibility of tumor antigens, allowing it to mount a response not just at the treatment site, but against cancer elsewhere in the body. We’re effectively initiating the immune battle where it starts, rather than hoping it finds its way there.

Some patients you’ve treated have shown dramatic responses. Can you highlight a case study or two?

One notable case was a woman we treated who had advanced, metastatic small cell lung cancer. She received a single treatment and experienced a complete response, at a time when we were still refining our protocols. Another was a man with advanced prostate cancer who also responded completely to just one session. These early successes gave us high expectations, though we’ve since learned that multiple treatments are usually needed, typically three to six sessions depending on tumor burden. A more recent standout case includes Larry Boyer, who had stage 4 pancreatic cancer.

Real-World Impact — Larry Boyer’s Story

“A turning point”: From stage 4 pancreatic cancer to remarkable recovery
One standout case highlighted by Dr. Williams is Larry Boyer, a patient with stage 4 pancreatic cancer. After receiving the combined cryoablation and intratumoral immunotherapy treatment, Larry experienced a notable response – offering real-world evidence of this approach’s potential, even in one of the most aggressive and hard-to-treat cancers.

How do you collaborate with a patient’s existing oncology team to make sure your treatment complements standard care instead of replacing it?

We advocate for a “standard of care plus” model. Ideally, patients continue with their existing therapies, such as chemo, radiation or targeted agents, while incorporating our intratumoral immunotherapy. Our treatments typically don’t exacerbate side effects and often synergize with other modalities. Unfortunately, many patients come to us only after exhausting standard options. We’d love to work with oncologists earlier in the disease course to combine strengths and improve outcomes from the outset.

What’s your view on the role of this approach in addressing metastasis, which is often the most challenging aspect of advanced disease?

There’s a misconception that local tumor treatment can’t affect distant disease. In fact, when you kill tumor cells and activate the immune system locally, that immune activation can become systemic. Our data show that even when only one tumor is treated, the immune response can recognize and attack cancer elsewhere. It’s not just about treating what we can see, it’s about training the immune system to find and fight what we can’t.

Are there particular patient profiles or tumor types that respond especially well to this method?

Yes. Tumors already known to respond to immunotherapy, like melanoma, renal cell carcinoma and non-small cell lung cancer, typically do well with our method. We’ve also seen strong responses in pancreatic cancer and certain neuroendocrine tumors. Breast cancer and colorectal cancer are more variable, some patients respond well, others not at all. Our goal is to refine regimens to improve consistency across tumor types, especially the harder-to-treat ones.

What’s the current state of your clinical trials, and when might we see more data from them?

Our US clinical trial through the biotech company Syncromune is active and progressing. In prostate cancer, there are many standard-of-care options that patients typically undergo first, which can make recruitment more challenging until individuals reach a more advanced stage. While we’ve seen strong responses even in these later-stage cases, our hope is that over time we’ll be able to reach and treat patients earlier in their journey. We’re also exploring creative recruitment strategies, including expanding trial access through US border sites such as Tucson. We expect trial momentum to build steadily and look forward to sharing data in the near future.

What do you think your approach signals for the future of cancer treatment, and for the growing role of the immune system in oncology?

I believe this represents a paradigm shift, one where we train the immune system to do what it was designed to do: detect and eliminate disease. We’re not suggesting the immediate replacement of current therapies but envision a transitional model. Our goal is to add our therapy alongside standard care now, then gradually reduce reliance on toxic therapies as the immune approach proves its value. Education, of both physicians and patients, is key to that future.

How do you address misconceptions or skepticism about this kind of therapy from the wider medical community?

Early on, skepticism was understandable, we initially lacked robust data. Now, with our ongoing Syncromune clinical trial and recent presentations at major conferences like AACR and ASCO, our work is gaining mainstream traction. As respected institutions participate and data accumulate, perceptions are shifting. These trials are critical not only for validation but for opening the door to broader adoption.

Where do you see the greatest opportunity for your team to make a measurable, real-world impact for patients in the years ahead?

The biggest opportunity lies in catching and treating cancer early, before metastasis, before the patient is overwhelmed by toxic therapies. If we can intervene early with a low-toxicity, immune-based strategy, we could drastically reduce the number of patients who progress to late-stage disease. That would mean less suffering, lower costs and better survival. While much of today’s medical system is built around established treatment pathways, we believe there’s room to evolve, incorporating approaches that not only do more, but also do better.