There are many promising research directions, which are however grossly underexplored, either because there is a low chance it might lead to a positive result, or because it cannot be patented even if it's successful. Examples in the latter category include off-label use of established procedures, or of already known drugs. Conversely, the majority of money and energy is being spent on highly predictable research and which can result in a patent; almost always the downside is low impact. So as you can see, profit optimisation is not correlated with impact optimisation.
Calling profit and impact optimization "uncorrelated" is not justified by your comment. The biggest impact in the past decade of cancer has undoubtedly been immunotherapies, which are also by far hugely profitable. And immunotherapies themselves were often a backwater, far more so than drug repurposing, until the impact came through with a patented drug.
Not even close. So much more money to be made from treatment than from research. And there is so much money to be had from beating a competitor with a better treatment than there is to have an equivalent treatment
Taking a cynical profit-only driven view of the world would optimize for better cancer care.
But nobody goes into it "aha I want to make a lot of money." They might go into it wanting to get famous for coming up with a cancer cure. But take the cures that are most closely associated with individuals, whether it's a drug targeting BCR-ABL1 fusions or HER2, and almost nobody knows their name. So even then the fame motive is pretty weak.