Translating Innovation into Equitable Cancer Control
Alejandro Turek, MD*
*Correspondence to: Alejandro Turek, MD, Argentina.
Copyright
© 2026 Alejandro Turek, MD is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Received: 06 October 2026
Published: 01 November 2026
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23908590
Background: The 2026 World Cancer Congress in Hong Kong brought scientific innovation into dialogue with the continuing challenges of implementation, access and equity. The Hong Kong plenary provided a health-system perspective on prevention, surveillance and comprehensive cancer care.
Objective: To synthesise the principal congress themes and examine their implications for evidence-based, equitable cancer control.
Approach: A narrative review was developed from the supplied congress manuscript, official reporting, the published plenary address, selected primary studies and authoritative public-health sources verified through 6 October 2026. Published population data were used for descriptive trend figures.
Main findings: The evidence supports organised low-dose CT screening in high-risk populations, major therapeutic gains from precision oncology in defined settings, and improved performance of selected AI-supported workflows. These benefits depend on diagnostic follow-up, treatment availability, workforce capacity and appropriate governance. Hong Kong’s declining age-standardised cancer mortality contrasts with increasing crude mortality, illustrating the need to distinguish population ageing from changes in age-adjusted risk. Prevention, breast and cervical cancer pathways, supportive care and patient participation remain central. Economic value does not necessarily imply net cost savings.
Conclusions: Progress requires coordinated investment across the whole care pathway, with explicit measures of clinical outcomes, access, financial protection and continuity. Technology should be evaluated within the systems that deliver it, while resilience to conflict and climate-related disruption remains integral to cancer control.
Keywords: cancer control; health equity; Hong Kong; lung cancer screening; precision oncology; artificial intelligence; implementation.
Objectives
The primary objective is to synthesise the main messages of the 2026 World Cancer Congress and examine how innovation can improve population cancer outcomes. The specific objectives are to:
Introduction
The Union for International Cancer Control (UICC) World Cancer Congress took place in Hong Kong on 24–26 September 2026, in collaboration with the Hong Kong Anti-Cancer Society. More than 2,000 delegates from over 120 countries attended. Scientific innovation was discussed alongside the practical requirements of cancer control: prevention, early diagnosis, access to treatment, supportive care and the participation of people living with cancer.[1,2]
The scale of the challenge remains substantial. GLOBOCAN estimated approximately 20 million new cancer cases and 9.7 million cancer deaths worldwide in 2022. These dated estimates provide epidemiological context; they are not presented as measurements for 2026. The coexistence of scientific progress and uneven access makes the organisation of care as consequential as the availability of new technologies.[3]
The congress revisited a persistent question: how can increasingly sophisticated oncology translate into fewer avoidable deaths without widening inequalities? Hong Kong offered a useful case study because its population is ageing while age-standardised cancer mortality has fallen. The broader policy horizon is the World Cancer Declaration 2025–2035, which includes a target to reduce global cancer mortality by 25% by 2035. This is an international policy ambition, not an outcome already achieved by the congress.[4]
Scope and Approach
This article is a narrative congress review based on the supplied manuscript, official congress reporting, the published Hong Kong plenary address, selected primary studies and authoritative public-health documents verified through 6 October 2026. It is not a systematic review or an original patient-level study. Clinical trial results are distinguished from population statistics, programme targets and policy announcements. The two trend figures reproduce published numerical observations; the two schematics are an interpretive synthesis of the care and implementation pathways discussed in the article.
Main Discussion
1. Hong Kong: coordinated cancer control in an ageing population
In the opening plenary, Professor Lo Chung-mau described cancer control as a sustained health-system responsibility. He reported life expectancy in 2025 of 88.7 years for women and 83.3 years for men, with nearly one quarter of the population older than 65 years. Cancer accounted for approximately 30% of deaths. The address reported a decline of more than 40% in age-standardised cancer mortality over three decades, despite increasing numbers of new diagnoses. These figures describe the local context and should not be interpreted as causal estimates of any single policy.[5]
Hong Kong’s strategy combines surveillance, prevention, screening and early diagnosis, timely treatment, technology and support, survivorship and palliative care, and research. Its implementation relies on coordination across government, the Hospital Authority and community organisations. The plenary cited the population-based Cancer Registry, established in 1963, as an important surveillance resource, reporting approximately 97% coverage. Oncology services operate through hospital clusters, rather than through a separate cancer centre in every administrative district.[5,6]
Figure 1 illustrates why crude and age-standardised mortality must be distinguished. Between 2001 and 2025, the published crude cancer death rate increased from 169.9 to 204.9 per 100,000 population, while the age-standardised rate decreased from 133.5 to 80.5. Calculated from these endpoints, the changes are +20.6% and −39.7%, respectively. Population ageing can coexist with improving age-adjusted outcomes; the graph does not establish the contribution of prevention, diagnosis or treatment individually.[7,8]
The practical lesson is the need to measure both service demand and population risk. An increasing number of patients can require additional pathology, surgery, radiotherapy, systemic therapy and supportive services even when age-standardised mortality improves. Surveillance therefore needs to inform workforce and capacity planning, rather than functioning only as a retrospective reporting exercise.
2. Prevention: tobacco control, vaccination and primary care
Hong Kong’s tobacco experience provides a measurable prevention example. Daily cigarette smoking among residents aged 15 years or older fell from 23.3% in 1982 to 8.5% in 2025, an absolute decline of 14.8 percentage points. Figure 2 shows selected survey observations. These are estimates of daily conventional cigarette smoking, not the prevalence of all tobacco or nicotine product use. The long-term trend supports the relevance of sustained tobacco-control activity, although the ecological series cannot identify the effect of each intervention.[9,10]
The plenary also emphasised hepatitis B prevention and human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination. It described universal newborn hepatitis B vaccination since 1988, maternal screening and antiviral management, alongside school-based HPV vaccination coverage exceeding 90% among 15-year-old girls. Such achievements should be considered components of a prevention programme; coverage alone cannot establish elimination of the related cancers. The reported reductions in liver cancer cases and deaths cannot be attributed to vaccination alone without a separate causal analysis.[5]
Weight management, physical activity and prevention integrated into primary care broaden this approach. For implementation, the relevant questions include whether eligible people are reached, whether preventive services remain affordable, and whether follow-up is completed. Prevention should retain dedicated resources even while demand for expensive cancer treatments grows.
3. Breast and cervical cancer: targets must connect to completed care
The cervical cancer workshop addressed the difficulty of sustaining progress amid financial constraints. WHO’s elimination strategy links HPV vaccination, screening and treatment through the 90–70–90 targets for 2030. Reaching high vaccination coverage is one component; women with abnormal screening results still require diagnostic assessment and treatment. Elimination as a public-health problem is a population incidence goal, distinct from meeting a single programme target.[2,11]
The breast cancer discussions focused on referral, patient navigation and reduction of diagnostic and treatment delays. WHO’s Global Breast Cancer Initiative provides complementary measures: more than 60% of invasive cancers diagnosed at stage I or II, diagnostic evaluation completed within 60 days, and more than 80% of patients undergoing indicated multimodality treatment without abandonment. Early diagnosis of symptomatic disease should be distinguished from screening asymptomatic populations; local strategies need the capacity to act on either route to detection.[12]
4. Lung cancer screening: mortality benefit depends on delivery
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) assessment presented during the congress concluded that low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening in high-risk individuals reduces lung cancer mortality and the incidence of late-stage disease. The accompanying 2026 special report places screening within a broader prevention strategy that includes tobacco control. Benefit depends on an organised programme with appropriate selection, diagnostic follow-up and access to potentially curative treatment.[13]
Two randomised trials provide important context. In the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), LDCT reduced lung cancer mortality by 20.0% relative to chest radiography (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.8%–26.7%). NELSON reported a lung cancer mortality rate ratio of 0.76 (95% CI, 0.61–0.94) at 10 years in the primary male population, compared with no screening. Their populations, comparator groups and protocols differ, so these estimates should not be pooled informally or presented as an identical benefit in all adults.[14,15]
Programme evaluation must include false-positive findings, unnecessary invasive procedures, radiation exposure, overdiagnosis and the capacity to manage incidental findings. Earlier diagnosis and longer survival after diagnosis are not, by themselves, proof of screening effectiveness because lead-time and length biases can affect those measures. Cancer-specific mortality and advanced-stage incidence are therefore especially relevant endpoints.[13,14]
LDCT screening should not be assumed to save money. In the NLST economic evaluation, screening increased costs and yielded additional quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), with an estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of US$81,000 per QALY gained. This was a trial-based US estimate in its historical cost context, not a current price or a universal threshold. Cost-effectiveness is not synonymous with cost saving, and local budget impact must be assessed separately.[16]
5. Precision oncology: clinical benefit and access must be specified
Precision oncology featured prominently in congress discussions, but its benefits should be reported for a defined drug, disease, line of treatment and study population. The pancreatic cancer example cited in official congress reporting can be grounded in RASolute 302, a phase III trial of daraxonrasib versus chemotherapy in 500 patients with previously treated metastatic pancreatic cancer. In the overall population, median overall survival was 13.2 versus 6.7 months, with a hazard ratio for death of 0.40. Grade ≥3 adverse events occurred in 61.8% and 69.6%, respectively. This substantial benefit does not imply that every molecularly directed therapy doubles survival across cancer types.[2,17]
Molecular information is useful when it changes an evidence-based clinical decision. The relevant pathway includes an adequate specimen, a validated assay, a clinically interpretable result, timely communication and access to the indicated medicine or clinical trial. Figure 3 presents this as a practical care sequence. The exact testing requirement remains indication-specific; the diagram is not a prescribing rule for daraxonrasib or any other single drug.
6. Artificial intelligence: assess clinical performance and implementation
Artificial intelligence (AI) was discussed across research, imaging, diagnosis and service delivery. A useful external example is the 2026 MASAI trial analysis of AI-supported mammography compared with standard double reading. Among 105,915 women analysed, interval cancer rates were 1.55 versus 1.76 per 1,000 participants; the ratio was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.65–1.18), meeting the prespecified non-inferiority criterion. Sensitivity was 80.5% versus 73.8%, and specificity was 98.5% in both groups. These findings concern screening performance; they do not establish a breast cancer mortality benefit.[18]
AI deployment should therefore be assessed as a change to a clinical workflow. The intended task, local validation, failure modes, human oversight and responsibility for decisions need to be explicit. Performance should be monitored across relevant patient groups and after changes in equipment or populations. WHO guidance supports protecting autonomy, safety, transparency, accountability, equity and sustainability. These principles require operational procedures, rather than a general statement that a system is “ethical”.[19]
The Hong Kong address described a commissioned study of AI-assisted LDCT screening and the five-year eHealth+ programme. Linking records may improve continuity and reduce unnecessary repeat examinations, but the benefits depend on adoption, data quality, interoperability and governance. The appropriate sequence is to identify a clinical need, evaluate the proposed solution, deploy with safeguards and monitor patient outcomes.[5,19]
7. Financing and implementation: fund a functioning pathway
Cancer resource allocation requires a central distinction: an effective intervention may still be unaffordable at population scale or difficult to deliver reliably. For decision-making, economic value, immediate budget impact and implementation capacity should be evaluated separately. Screening budgets must include confirmatory testing and treatment; genomic programmes must include the medicines and expertise needed to use the results. The LDCT economic analysis illustrates why favourable clinical outcomes cannot simply be translated into an assertion of net savings.[16]
A practical approach is to map the current patient pathway, identify its main delays and losses to follow-up, and cost a feasible sequence of improvements. In resource-constrained systems, this may prioritise reliable pathology, essential treatment, referral and navigation before introducing more complex technology. Local knowledge networks and context-adapted protocols can help translate evidence into care, but their value should be assessed through delivered services and outcomes, rather than the number of meetings or documents produced.
8. Supportive care, survivorship and the patient voice
The congress positioned people with lived experience as contributors to policy and service design. Patient organisations can identify obstacles that institutional statistics overlook, including transport difficulties, employment disruption, unmet information needs and the burden on caregivers. Meaningful participation requires an opportunity to influence decisions and evaluate services, not only a role in public testimony.[2]
Supportive and palliative care belong within comprehensive oncology. In the randomised study by Temel and colleagues in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer, early palliative care improved quality of life and mood, illustrating the value of integrating symptom and psychosocial support with disease-directed treatment. Its setting-specific findings should not be converted into a uniform survival claim for all cancers. Rehabilitation and survivorship care similarly require planned pathways after active treatment.[20]
The UICC–La Roche-Posay “Mind the Gap” collaboration was announced to map disparities in supportive care through case studies. Its announcement is evidence of a planned initiative, not evidence that the access gaps have already narrowed. Discussions of integrative Chinese–Western care also require careful interpretation: a service announcement does not establish anticancer efficacy. Specific supportive interventions should be assessed for benefit, safety and interactions within the patient’s overall treatment plan.[2,5]
9. Conflict, climate and the resilience of cancer services
Presentations from Ukraine and Gaza described disrupted treatment, damaged facilities, shortages and displacement. Cancer services depend on repeated visits, reliable supplies, functioning equipment and continuity of records; interruptions can undermine an otherwise effective treatment plan. The congress therefore placed cancer within the discussion of humanitarian preparedness and health-system resilience.[2]
For local planning, the practical implications include backup referral arrangements, secure portable treatment summaries, continuity of essential medicines and access to palliative care during disruption. Climate-related preparedness also requires attention to reliable power, water, supply chains and vulnerable patients. WHO’s framework for climate-resilient, low-carbon health systems provides a wider planning basis; it does not constitute direct evidence that any one congress proposal has reduced cancer mortality.[21]
10. Commercial determinants and accountable partnerships
Congress discussions examined the influence of tobacco, alcohol and ultra-processed food industries on prevention policy. Tobacco-control governance has a specific international basis: Article 5.3 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control calls for protecting public-health policy from the tobacco industry’s commercial and other vested interests. These safeguards are directly relevant to prevention and policy transparency.[2,22]
Partnerships involving civil society, public authorities and commercial organisations should disclose relevant interests and retain independent priorities and evaluation. The presence of sponsors, a new collaboration or a well-attended session is not evidence of clinical effectiveness. The appropriate test is whether a programme improves access, quality, financial protection or outcomes under conditions that are transparent and accountable.
Limitations of this Review
This article combines an initial congress account with selected supporting sources; it does not comprehensively review all sessions or perform formal risk-of-bias assessment. Official statements describe reported achievements and intended policies, which may differ from independently evaluated outcomes. The Hong Kong curves are ecological descriptive data, include provisional mortality figures for 2025 and cannot establish causation. They use the Department of Health’s specified standard population and should not be compared directly with rates standardised to a different population. Trial findings apply to their enrolled populations and comparators. Claims about individual sessions that could not be independently substantiated were not converted into specific quantitative conclusions.
Conclusions
The 2026 World Cancer Congress underscored a consistent requirement: innovation must be connected to a functioning, affordable and accountable care pathway. Hong Kong illustrates the value of sustained coordination across prevention, surveillance, diagnosis, treatment and support, while also showing why declining age-standardised mortality can coexist with increasing service demand.
Lung cancer screening has evidence of mortality benefit in appropriately selected high-risk populations, but its delivery must include follow-up, treatment and management of harms. Precision oncology can produce major gains in defined settings, as illustrated by RASolute 302, while access remains a practical constraint. AI can improve selected clinical workflows, but validation, governance and meaningful patient outcomes are necessary to judge its value.
The implications extend beyond technology. Breast and cervical programmes must track completed care; supportive and palliative services must be integrated; and financing must protect patients as well as sustain providers. Conflict and climate resilience are part of cancer control because treatment depends on continuity. Progress towards the World Cancer Declaration’s 2035 ambition should therefore be judged through measurable reductions in avoidable mortality and inequalities, alongside better quality of life and financial protection.[4]
References
1. Union for International Cancer Control. World Cancer Congress 2026 [Internet]. Geneva: UICC; 2026 [cited 2026 Oct 6]. Available from: https://www.uicc.org/what-we-do/events/world-cancer-congress/world-cancer-congress-2026
2. Union for International Cancer Control. The World Cancer Congress 2026 draws to a close after three days of global exchange [Internet]. Geneva: UICC; 2026 Sep 26 [cited 2026 Oct 6]. Available from: https://www.uicc.org/news-and-updates/news/world-cancer-congress-2026-draws-close-after-three-days-global-exchange
3. Bray F, Laversanne M, Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Soerjomataram I, et al. Global cancer statistics 2022: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2024;74(3):229-63. doi: 10.3322/caac.21834.
4. Union for International Cancer Control. World Cancer Declaration 2025–2035 [Internet]. Geneva: UICC; 2025 [cited 2026 Oct 6]. Available from: https://www.uicc.org/what-we-do/driving-global-impact/targeted-commitments/world-cancer-declaration-2025-2035
5. Lo CM. Speech by Secretary for Health at plenary session of World Cancer Congress 2026 [Internet]. Hong Kong: Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region; 2026 Sep 24 [cited 2026 Oct 6]. Available from: https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/202609/24/P2026092400314.htm
6. Food and Health Bureau. Hong Kong Cancer Strategy 2019 [Internet]. Hong Kong: Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region; 2019 [cited 2026 Oct 6]. Available from: https://www.cancer.gov.hk/en/about_us/hong_kong_cancer_strategy.html
7. Centre for Health Protection. Death rate by leading cause of death, 2001–2025 [Internet]. Hong Kong: Department of Health; [cited 2026 Oct 6]. Available from: https://www.chp.gov.hk/en/statistics/data/10/27/117.html
8. Centre for Health Protection. Age-standardised death rate by leading cause of death, 2001–2025 [Internet]. Hong Kong: Department of Health; [cited 2026 Oct 6]. Available from: https://www.chp.gov.hk/en/statistics/data/10/27/339.html
9. Tobacco and Alcohol Control Office. Pattern of smoking in Hong Kong [Internet]. Hong Kong: Department of Health; [cited 2026 Oct 6]. Available from: https://www.taco.gov.hk/t/english/infostation/infostation_sta_01.html
10. Department of Health. DH announces latest smoking situation in Hong Kong and “Quit in June” campaign [Internet]. Hong Kong: Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region; 2026 May 27 [cited 2026 Oct 6]. Available from: https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/202605/27/P2026052700294p.htm
11. World Health Organization. Global strategy to accelerate the elimination of cervical cancer as a public health problem [Internet]. Geneva: WHO; 2020 [cited 2026 Oct 6]. Available from: https://www.who.int/westernpacific/publications/i/item/9789240014107
12. World Health Organization. Global Breast Cancer Initiative: operational approach based on 3 pillars [Internet]. Geneva: WHO; [cited 2026 Oct 6]. Available from: https://www.who.int/initiatives/global-breast-cancer-initiative/operational-approach-based-on-3-pillars
13. Neamtiu L, Callister MEJ, Crosbie P, Lam S, Milch V, Mariosa D, et al. IARC perspective on lung cancer screening. N Engl J Med. 2026 Sep 24 [published online ahead of print]. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsb2608211.
14. National Lung Screening Trial Research Team. Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(5):395-409. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1102873.
15. de Koning HJ, van der Aalst CM, de Jong PA, Scholten ET, Nackaerts K, Heuvelmans MA, et al. Reduced lung-cancer mortality with volume CT screening in a randomized trial. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(6):503-13. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1911793.
16. Black WC, Gareen IF, Soneji SS, Sicks JD, Keeler EB, Aberle DR, et al. Cost-effectiveness of CT screening in the National Lung Screening Trial. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(19):1793-802. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1312547.
17. O’Reilly EM, Wainberg ZA, Hendifar AE, Borad MJ, Pietrantonio F, Pant S, et al. Daraxonrasib or chemotherapy in previously treated metastatic pancreatic cancer. N Engl J Med. 2026;395(4):325-37. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2605555.
18. Gommers J, Hernström V, Josefsson V, Sartor H, Schmidt D, Hjelmgren A, et al. Interval cancer, sensitivity, and specificity comparing AI-supported mammography screening with standard double reading without AI in the MASAI study: a randomised, controlled, non-inferiority, single-blinded, population-based, screening-accuracy trial. Lancet. 2026;407(10527):505-14. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(25)02464-X.
19. World Health Organization. Ethics and governance of artificial intelligence for health: WHO guidance [Internet]. Geneva: WHO; 2021 [cited 2026 Oct 6]. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240029200
20. Temel JS, Greer JA, Muzikansky A, Gallagher ER, Admane S, Jackson VA, et al. Early palliative care for patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(8):733-42. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1000678.
21. World Health Organization. Operational framework for building climate resilient and low carbon health systems [Internet]. Geneva: WHO; 2023 [cited 2026 Oct 6]. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications-detail-redirect/9789240081888
22. World Health Organization. Guidelines for implementation of Article 5.3 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control [Internet]. Geneva: WHO; 2008 [cited 2026 Oct 6]. Available from: https://fctc.who.int/convention/treaty-instruments/guidelines-for-implementation-of-article-5.3