Yet there is no cure.
Also how mainstream are the treatments that you are talking whwn we are still talking about chemo as a primary treatment. For as much as we have spent on cancer research over the decades WE SHOULD HVE A CURE! And yet we don’t have a cure.
We have numerous survivors of cancer, including myself. There are cures. I work in early-phase drug development, and I see the progress the industry has made--it is nothing short of phenomenal.
Merck has a drug right now--perhaps you've heard of Keytruda or pembolizumab--they are pushing the FDA to recommend it as a first-line treatment for lung cancer. Keytruda is considered an immunotherapy treatment; i.e., it triggers your immune system to work to stop abnormal cell division, the hallmark of cancer.
Keytruda also has been shown to work well in head & neck cancers, as well as melanomas. Former President Carter was diagnosed with a cancer (I forget which one, perhaps liver or lung), one that spread to his brain. He's a 90 year-old man, and they usually forgo chemo at that age. After a month or two of treatment, the tumor in his brain was completely gone.
One final point--your declaration that after years of research and spending, "WE SHOULD HAVE A CURE!" is extremely ignorant of what cancer is. It's almost as arrogant as Obama and Biden declaring that a cancer "moon shot" -- spending from the federal government will finally push us over the top for a cure.
Cancer is not a single disease, and it's highly unlikely there will be a single cure for all. Some cancers are caused by a combination of viruses, some by genetic mutations, and some by the environment. Cancer is complex, and the genetic mutations that have occurred in humans over centuries make it as hard to pin down as the flu or common cold. Cancer evolves...it's a moving target. Simply throwing money at it does not solve the problem. Yet, we are making progress.