{"id":27242,"date":"2026-10-22T13:40:57","date_gmt":"2026-10-22T09:40:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/medscriptum.org\/?p=27242"},"modified":"2026-10-22T13:43:51","modified_gmt":"2026-10-22T09:43:51","slug":"the-power-of-early-diagnosis-in-modern-oncology-the-opportunities-of-prevention-timely-intervention-and-personalized-treatment","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/medscriptum.org\/en\/the-power-of-early-diagnosis-in-modern-oncology-the-opportunities-of-prevention-timely-intervention-and-personalized-treatment\/","title":{"rendered":"The Power of Early Diagnosis in Modern Oncology: The Opportunities of Prevention, Timely Intervention, and Personalized Treatment."},"content":{"rendered":"

Cancer should no longer be regarded solely as synonymous with an inevitably fatal disease. Advances in modern oncology have significantly expanded our ability to prevent and detect cancer at an early stage, as well as to establish accurate diagnoses and provide effective treatment. However, in clinical practice, I encounter the same fundamental questions on a daily basis: how much of the disease burden can we prevent before cancer develops, and to what extent can we alter the course of disease once cancer has already been diagnosed?<\/span><\/p>\n

The answer to these questions should not be sought solely in the number of new medications being developed. On the contrary, evidence from recent years suggests that one of the most important opportunities in the fight against cancer lies in making more effective use of the knowledge and tools we already possess \u2014 reducing exposure to risk factors, implementing vaccination, promoting early detection, ensuring accurate diagnosis, and providing timely access to evidence-based treatment.<\/span><\/p>\n

The number of new cancer cases and the potential for prevention.<\/b><\/p>\n

In 2026, two major global studies highlighted this issue particularly clearly. One assessed the preventable proportion of new cancer cases, while the other examined potentially avoidable mortality among people who had already been diagnosed with cancer. For me, considering these two studies together is particularly important, as they present cancer control as a continuous and interconnected pathway:<\/span><\/p>\n

cancer prevention \u2192 early detection \u2192 accurate diagnosis \u2192 effective treatment \u2192 improved survival.<\/b><\/p>\n

Cancer is currently one of the leading causes of mortality worldwide. According to GLOBOCAN 2022 estimates, approximately 20 million new cancer cases and 9.7 million cancer-related deaths occurred globally in 2022. Lung, colorectal, and liver cancers accounted for a substantial proportion of cancer-related mortality. (IARC)<\/span><\/p>\n

These figures are not merely statistical indicators. Behind every number is an individual, a family, and a healthcare system. At the same time, the rising number of cancer cases cannot be explained solely by population ageing and demographic changes. The prevalence of risk factors, some of which are modifiable, also plays an important role.<\/span><\/p>\n

This is why the global analysis published in 2026 by researchers from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the World Health Organization (WHO) is particularly relevant. The study included 185 countries, 36 cancer types, and 30 modifiable risk factors, including tobacco use, alcohol consumption, excess body weight, physical inactivity, air pollution, ultraviolet radiation, and nine cancer-causing infectious agents. The authors also accounted for the latency period between exposure and the development of cancer. (IARC)<\/span><\/p>\n

According to the study, approximately 7.1 million new cancer cases in 2022 \u2014 nearly 37% of all cases \u2014 were attributable to the assessed modifiable risk factors. In my view, this is one of the most important contemporary findings when considering the potential for cancer prevention. (IARC)<\/span><\/p>\n

However, these findings must be interpreted with caution. The figure of 37% does not mean that cancer would necessarily have been prevented in a particular patient had they not been exposed to the relevant risk factor. Rather, it represents a population-level estimate \u2014 an attributable burden \u2014 indicating the number of cases statistically associated with specific modifiable exposures. This distinction between individual risk and population-level impact is important to keep in mind when interpreting global epidemiological data in clinical practice.<\/span><\/p>\n

Tobacco, infections, and alcohol \u2014 three key areas for prevention.<\/b><\/p>\n

The study showed that tobacco use made the largest contribution among modifiable risk factors, accounting for approximately 15% of all new cancer cases in 2022. This was followed by cancer-causing infections, which accounted for approximately 10%, and alcohol consumption, which accounted for approximately 3%. (IARC)<\/span><\/p>\n

These findings once again demonstrate that cancer prevention cannot be reduced to recommendations regarding individual lifestyle choices alone. Tobacco control, HPV and HBV vaccination, the diagnosis and treatment of infections, reduction of alcohol-related risk, improvement of air quality, and control of occupational exposures are all systemic public health interventions.<\/span><\/p>\n

It is also particularly important to recognize that prevention priorities are not the same across all populations. The IARC analysis demonstrated substantial differences according to sex and geographical region. Modifiable risk factors were associated with approximately 45% of new cancer cases among men and approximately 30% among women. Tobacco was the most important factor among men, whereas the contribution of infectious causes was particularly significant among women. (IARC)<\/span><\/p>\n

Therefore, one of the key conclusions I draw is that there is no universal model for cancer prevention. Effective strategies should be based on the epidemiological profile of the specific country, the social and economic circumstances of its population, and the risk factors that have the greatest impact within that particular setting.<\/span><\/p>\n

When prevention is no\u00a0 sufficient.<\/b><\/p>\n

Although a substantial proportion of cancers can be prevented, not all cancers can be avoided. This is precisely where the second major stage of cancer control begins: early detection and effective treatment.<\/span><\/p>\n

This issue is particularly highlighted by a population-based study published in\u00a0<\/span>The Lancet Global Health<\/span><\/i>\u00a0in 2026 by IARC researchers, which included 185 countries and 35 cancer sites. The researchers estimated the proportion of deaths expected to occur within the following five years among people diagnosed with cancer in 2022 that could potentially have been avoided through primary prevention, early detection, or effective treatment. (IARC)<\/span><\/p>\n

The findings are particularly noteworthy: of approximately 9.4 million expected deaths, 4.5 million, or 48%, were estimated to be potentially avoidable. Of these, approximately 3.1 million deaths (33%) were associated with opportunities for primary prevention, while 1.4 million (14%) were associated with the potential for improved early detection and more effective treatment. (IARC)<\/span><\/p>\n

This finding should not be interpreted as an individual patient’s prognosis, nor as evidence that every one of these deaths could necessarily have been prevented. The study was based on population-level modelling and comparisons of different scenarios. Nevertheless, from a public health perspective, the findings send an important message: a substantial proportion of cancer-related mortality should not be regarded as an inevitable outcome.<\/span><\/p>\n

Screening aims to identify individuals who do not yet have symptoms, whereas early diagnosis involves the timely assessment of symptomatic patients and the prompt confirmation of disease. Although both approaches ultimately aim to identify cancer at an earlier stage, their target populations and organisational requirements are different.<\/span><\/p>\n

It is particularly important to recognise that \u201cmore screening\u201d does not automatically translate into \u201cbetter oncology outcomes.\u201d Effective screening must be evidence-based and should take into account both its potential benefits and harms, including false-positive results, unnecessary diagnostic procedures, overdiagnosis, and overtreatment.<\/span><\/p>\n

For this reason, the quality of cancer control cannot be assessed solely by the number of screening tests performed. More meaningful questions are: how many cancers were detected at a clinically favourable stage, how rapidly was the diagnosis confirmed, how promptly was treatment initiated, and to what extent did patients receive the recommended therapy?<\/span><\/p>\n

Modern treatment: an opportunity that must become accessible.<\/b><\/p>\n

The progress achieved in oncology over recent decades has undoubtedly been remarkable. Today, we can select treatment according to the molecular profile of a tumour, use targeted therapies when specific biomarkers are present, activate the immune system, and, in certain malignancies, achieve long-term disease control that was previously considered virtually unattainable.<\/span><\/p>\n

However, for me, one of the most important paradoxes of modern oncology is precisely this:\u00a0<\/span>the existence of an effective therapy does not, in itself, guarantee that a patient will receive effective treatment.<\/b><\/p>\n

A patient must first receive a timely diagnosis, followed by accurate staging and, when indicated, molecular testing. Only then can the appropriate treatment become genuinely accessible. The final outcome is influenced by the timing of treatment initiation, the quality of therapy, treatment continuity, and subsequent monitoring.<\/span><\/p>\n

The 2026\u00a0<\/span>Lancet Global Health<\/span><\/i>\u00a0study demonstrated the scale of this challenge: among deaths potentially avoidable through early detection and improved treatment, the largest contributions came from breast, colorectal, and prostate cancers. (IARC)<\/span><\/p>\n

This is a particularly important finding because it demonstrates that the next major step in cancer control is not solely the development of new drugs. Equally important is the timely and equitable implementation of evidence-based interventions that are already available.<\/span><\/p>\n

Inequality as a major challenge in cancer control.<\/b><\/p>\n

When the findings of the two 2026 studies are considered together, one issue becomes particularly clear to me: while the biological nature of cancer may be global, the risk of dying from cancer is not distributed equally across the world.<\/span><\/p>\n

The\u00a0<\/span>Lancet Global Health<\/span><\/i>\u00a0study demonstrated that the proportion of potentially avoidable mortality was particularly high in countries with low and medium Human Development Index values. This disparity cannot be explained solely by limited access to preventive measures; differences in early detection, diagnosis, and access to effective treatment also contribute significantly. (IARC)<\/span><\/p>\n

Therefore, when discussing the reduction of cancer mortality, focusing solely on individual patient responsibility is insufficient. Patient behaviour is important, but the capacity of the healthcare system to detect disease promptly, confirm the diagnosis, and provide patients with modern, evidence-based treatment is equally important.<\/span><\/p>\n

Taken together, these two studies lead me to an important conclusion:\u00a0<\/span>the future of cancer control does not lie solely in the discovery of new anticancer therapies.<\/b><\/p>\n

If approximately 7.1 million new cancer cases in 2022 were associated with modifiable risk factors, while approximately 4.5 million deaths among people already diagnosed with cancer were estimated to be potentially avoidable, then a substantial part of the fight against cancer lies in making effective use of the knowledge and tools we already have. (IARC)<\/span><\/p>\n

In my view, this is precisely how we should approach modern oncology:\u00a0<\/span>cancer prevention begins before diagnosis, but cancer control does not end with diagnosis.<\/b><\/p>\n

Tobacco control, infection prevention and vaccination, evidence-based screening, early diagnosis, accurate molecular characterisation, and effective treatment represent different stages of one common goal \u2014 preserving life.<\/span><\/p>\n

Ultimately, for me, one of the most important measures of success in modern oncology should not be limited to how many new or innovative therapies we can offer our patients. It is equally important to consider how many cancer cases we can prevent, how many cancers we can detect at an early stage, and how many patients we can enable to receive treatments whose efficacy has already been established.<\/span><\/p>\n

Creating a world free of cancer is not a realistic goal at this stage. However, based on the available scientific evidence, preventing a substantial proportion of cancer-related mortality is already a realistic possibility. Using this opportunity effectively represents one of the most important challenges facing modern oncology.<\/span><\/p>\n

Eter Surguladze, MD, Resident in Clinical Oncology<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Cancer should no longer be regarded solely as synonymous with an inevitably fatal disease. Advances in modern oncology have significantly expanded our ability to prevent and detect cancer at an early stage, as well as to establish accurate diagnoses and provide effective treatment. However, in clinical practice, I encounter the same fundamental questions on a […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":12,"featured_media":21783,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5963],"tags":[6228,1598],"class_list":["post-27242","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-oncofeed-en","tag-eter-surguladze","tag-oncology"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/medscriptum.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27242","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/medscriptum.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/medscriptum.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/medscriptum.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/12"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/medscriptum.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=27242"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/medscriptum.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27242\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":27248,"href":"https:\/\/medscriptum.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27242\/revisions\/27248"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/medscriptum.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/21783"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/medscriptum.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=27242"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/medscriptum.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=27242"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/medscriptum.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=27242"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}