Early Cancer Detection and Translational Biology Are Set to Shape the Future of Oncology

Progress in cancer care and research improves steeply year over year in the United States (US), yet cancer incidence rates have soared, giving rise to a cancer research landscape packed with long-awaited achievements and new challenges ahead, according to Keith Flaherty, MD, FAACR.¹

“What we realized, dating back even to the beginning of these progress reports but certainly in the years since, is that the pace of progress in cancer research, in terms of impacting clinical practice and ultimately outcomes for the cancer population, continues to get steeper and steeper,” Flaherty said in an exclusive interview with OncLive^®.

In the interview, Flaherty discussed key points outlined in the 2026 AACR Cancer Progress Report, touching on its most notable highlights, how day-to-day practice changes may help address identified gaps in cancer research, and where the field should move next in response to the report’s findings.

“[These reports have] been useful for us as a research community to be able to share this information with elected officials, particularly those in Congress, who are the ones responsible for allocating funds, [meaning] taxpayer dollars being directed to fund biomedical research at a scale that’s larger than any other country on the planet,” he explained.

Flaherty is director of Clinical Research and the Richard Saltonstall Endowed Chair in Oncology at Mass General Brigham Cancer Institute, as well as a professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School, all in Boston, Massachusetts. Notably, Flaherty also serves as the AACR Cancer Progress Report Steering Committee Chair.

What notable improvements in cancer research are outlined in the 2026 AACR Cancer Progress Report?

The report emphasizes strong annual improvements in mortality rates. From 2015 to 2024, the rates of lung, colorectal, and female breast cancer in the US have had annual decreases of 4.2%, 1.3%, and 1.2%, respectively, according to report. These annual decrease rates in hematologic malignancies, namely Hodgkin lymphoma, leukemia, multiple myeloma, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, were 3.2%, 3.0%, 2.5%, and 2.4%, respectively.

“We’ve been gratified to see a continued drop in cancer-related mortality in the US, and that trend has continued through this 1-year interval,” Flaherty described. “To pan back to a larger view, going back to the early 1990s as a reference point, where we had good reporting data of the same quality as we have now, [there has been a] 35% drop in cancer deaths from the early 1990s to now. We continue to see that trend, [which is] positive,” Flaherty emphasized.

Moreover, the report underscores how in the US, patients are not just surviving their cancer diagnosis but sustaining their survival outcomes. The 5-year survival rate across all cancers in the US stood at 49% in the mid-1970s and improved to 71% among all diagnoses from 2016 to 2022.

Importantly, committed funding for advancing cancer research has correlated with improved outcomes for patients who are newly diagnosed, as well as for those with more dire prognoses, such as metastatic or advanced disease. From 1995 to 1997, the 5-year survival rate for patients with metastatic disease across all cancers was 17% compared with 36% from 2016 to 2022. These respective rates by cancer subtype were 2% and 10% for lung cancer, 16% and 34% for melanoma, 8% and 19% for rectal cancer, and 3% and 8% for stomach cancer.

“Once patients have metastatic disease, they typically are beyond [the point where] surgery or radiation [can] meaningfully impact their care,” Flaherty said. “The [improvement] metastatic disease outcomes has to do with medical therapy advances, and that is a direct byproduct of the public investment in biomedical research.”

What areas of improvement in cancer research did the AACR report identify?

As survival outcomes continue to improve, diagnoses increase. Recent upticks in overall cancer diagnoses in the US are a complex issue that the report dedicates ample attention to.

“Unfortunately, we’re seeing more cancer cases, and that’s a trend that’s been steadily increasing,” Flaherty discussed. “Despite progress in terms of cancer-related mortality rates and improved treatment options for patients, even patients with the most advanced disease, the overall number of new cases continues to increase, largely owing to the fact that longevity has increased over the past several decades. The longer the population lives, the more cancer burden there is. Age is simply the strongest risk factor for cancer of all kinds. We have to confront this problem of a rising incidence of cancer.”

In 2026, 2.1 million cancer cases, excluding non-melanoma skin cancer, are expected to be diagnosed in the US, which is approximately 19% less than the 2.5 million cases expected to be diagnosed in 2050. Additionally, the percentage of individuals who are at least 65 years of age, the age at which 60% of all cancer diagnoses occur, is expected to rise to 23% by 2050. Aside from projections, the report looked at concrete data from 2001 to 2021 in certain gastrointestinal cancers; the rate of early-onset diagnoses rose 6.24%, 3.19%, 1.65%, 1.52%, and 1.20% in intrahepatic bile duct, small intestine, colon and rectum, pancreas, and stomach cancers, respectively.

The report also briefly explored socioeconomic disparities in cancer care and research, citing several unmet needs. For more in-depth insights, check out our coverage of the 2026 AACR Cancer Disparities Progress Report with exclusive insights from steering committee chair, Mariana C. Stern, PhD.²

What research can be conducted to address improvement areas in cancer care?

Intercepting cancer early is just as important as managing it with effective therapies, according to Flaherty and his coauthors on the report.¹

“[We should] deploy screening tools that we know are impactful in a more population-wide fashion,” he elaborated. “This is where we continue to see disparities in terms of screening for cancer types for which we have strong evidence of the ability to improve outcomes with screening methods. That early detection/early interception trend is where it’s critical that continued investment be made, given the increased number of cases we’re going to see.”

Flaherty and coauthors highlighted artificial intelligence (AI)–supported mammographies, AI-powered lung nodule assessment tools, and liquid biopsies or novel blood and body fluid analyses, particularly in gynecologic, gastrointestinal, breast, and genitourinary cancers, as crucial screening tools in that are currently in development.

Despite the importance of pushing the bounds of technological possibilities in early screening methodologies, the report stressed the importance of deepening the oncology field’s understanding of cancer biology.

“Our increased molecular understanding of cancer, which began in earnest approximately 25 years ago and has [evolved at a] more rapid [pace] in recent years, has taught us that classifying cancer based on site of origin oversimplifies the problem,” said Flaherty. “Within cancer types like lung, breast, and colon, there are multiple types, some more common than others.”

The report shed light on present-day breakthroughs in effective therapies that were the result of basic research discoveries like the HER2 gene in breast cancer, the RET gene in thyroid cancer, the PDCD1 gene that led to PD-1–directed immune checkpoint inhibition, and most recently, the once-considered “undruggable” KRAS gene that is breaking ground in pancreatic cancer.

“When you look broadly across all of cancer or within individual types, you see a distribution of common molecular classifications that ultimately relate specifically to the therapies we can offer patients, but then there is a long tail of the curve; in other words, [we only have] small molecularly defined subtypes of cancer,” Flaherty added. “That’s [why] it’s critical for us to continue supporting cancer research, particularly in the public sector, because those relatively uncommon or even rare subgroups of cancer, by molecular definitions, are not obvious commercial opportunities for the private sector to pursue in terms of trying to develop therapies. In many of those uncommon cancer types, we don’t understand the therapeutic vulnerabilities [or] opportunities. Approximately 40% of all cancers fall into the relatively uncommon category. That’s a big swath of cancer that doesn’t fit in the most common groups based on site-of-origin definitions. An increasing molecular understanding gives us a bit of a roadmap.”

Ultimately, cancer research in 2026 has come a long way but still has its fair share of future research needs.

“When we produce these reports, we’re trying to highlight where the gains are being made, where they’re not being made, and where we need to think about further focusing. We recognize the profound benefit of cancer immunotherapy when it does work, but we need to be able to deploy that strategy more broadly in the cancer population than we currently can, and that’s going to require more basic, translational, and clinical research,” Flaherty concluded.

References

1. AACR Cancer Progress Report 2026. American Association for Cancer Research; 2026. Accessed November 2, 2026. https://cancerprogressreport.aacr.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2026/09/AACR_CPR_2026.pdf
2. AACR Cancer Disparities Progress Report 2026. American Association for Cancer Research; 2026. Accessed November 2, 2026. https://cancerprogressreport.aacr.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2026/06/AACR_CDPR_2026.pdf