The vaccine in question is called Enteromix, reportedly an mRNA-based therapeutic (or therapeutic + preventive) cancer vaccine.

The vaccine in question is called Enteromix, reportedly an mRNA-based therapeutic (or therapeutic + preventive) cancer vaccine. 

According to statements by Russian officials (notably Veronika Skvortsova of the FMBA), preclinical testing has been completed, and they claim safety and efficacy in animal studies (tumor shrinkage, slowed progression, improved survival in 60–80% of test cases) .

They have said that the vaccine is “ready for use” and that they are awaiting regulatory approval before deploying it. 

Some media outlets have reported that the vaccine will be made free to patients in Russia once approved. 

---

Key caveats & what is not yet established

Given what we know, there are important scientific, regulatory, and practical checks that must still be passed before the kind of broad, life-changing rollout your summary describes:

1. Preclinical = animal studies, not human trials

The current reports are about preclinical studies (animals, lab models). That is a necessary early step, but does not prove that a vaccine is safe or effective in humans. 

A cancer vaccine would require at least Phase I (safety), then Phase II/III (efficacy) trials in humans before approval for general use.

2. Lack of independent, peer-reviewed data

The detailed data (methods, controls, statistical results) have not been published in recognized scientific journals or shared publicly for independent review, based on available reporting.

Experts quoted in media raise caution: they say the announcements are strong claims made with limited evidence publicly available. 

3. Regulatory and ethical oversight

Even if Russia’s internal regulators approve this vaccine, international regulatory agencies (e.g. FDA, EMA, WHO) would likely demand rigorous data. Also, using a new cancer vaccine widely requires long-term safety monitoring, and possibly balancing risk vs benefit, especially in diverse populations.

4. Cancer heterogeneity & immune escape

Cancers are genetically and immunologically diverse. A vaccine that works well in animals or in one tumor type may not generalize across cancer subtypes, metastases, or in immunosuppressed patients. The challenge of immune evasion by cancers is nontrivial.

5. Preventing recurrence vs treating active disease

The idea of “vaccinating” against cancer recurrence is scientifically compelling, but harder. The immune system must detect tiny residual disease. That might demand very precise targeting, antigen selection, and durable immune memory—none of which are trivial.

6. Cost, infrastructure, scaling, distribution

Even if the vaccine is free to patients, manufacturing, cold chain, delivery, follow-up, and monitoring in real-world settings are major logistical hurdles.

---

Bottom line

Your framing—“turning point in oncology” and “reshaping cancer care” — is possible in the distant future, but premature based on what is publicly known. The more cautious, evidence-based view is:

Russia claims it has a cancer vaccine (Enteromix) that performed well in animal studies, and plans to make it free once approved.

But as of now, no credible evidence exists publicly that it has cleared human trials or been approved for general use.

The scientific community is understandably skeptical until strong, independent, peer-reviewed data are released.

If subsequent trials succeed, then yes — such a vaccine could be transformative, but that is a “if proven effective” scenario, not reality yet.