Over the past three decades, survival has improved across almost every major hematologic malignancy. Diseases that once carried devastating prognoses can now be controlled for years, and some can be treated almost as chronic conditions. Targeted therapies, monoclonal antibodies, cellular therapies, and increasingly precise molecular approaches have changed what a diagnosis of leukemia, lymphoma, or multiple myeloma means.
While patients are living longer after diagnosis, the incidence of most hematologic malignancies has increased. For some diseases, this rising incidence has offset much of the progress achieved through treatment. This creates an uncomfortable paradox in modern hematology: therapeutic success does not necessarily translate into epidemiological success.
Major Gains in Survival Across Hematologic Malignancies
According to Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) data analyzed by Sujobert, some of the largest improvements between 1992 and 2017 occurred in chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), where 5-year OS increased from 31% to 69%, and multiple myeloma (MM), where it rose from 27% to 64%. Non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) improved from 51% to 78%.
These changes reflect some of the defining therapeutic developments of modern hematology. Imatinib transformed CML by directly targeting BCR::ABL1. Proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulatory drugs changed the natural history of MM. Rituximab established antibody-based therapy as a central component of B-cell lymphoma treatment.
Progress has extended beyond these diseases. Five-year OS increased from 58% to 76% in acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) and from 18% to 34% in acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Even diseases with relatively favorable outcomes at baseline improved further, including chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), from 77% to 92%, and Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), from 85% to 93%.
And the therapeutic curve has not flattened. CAR T-cell therapies, bispecific antibodies, increasingly selective targeted drugs, and agents such as menin inhibitors continue to reshape treatment. If survival were the only measure of success, hematology would appear to be moving steadily toward its goal.
Better Survival Does Not Necessarily Mean a Lower Disease Burden
At the population level, success should ultimately translate into fewer deaths from hematologic malignancies. Here, the picture becomes more complicated.
Between 1975 and 2022, age-adjusted disease-specific mortality declined substantially for several malignancies. The most striking reductions occurred in HL, with an 80% decline, childhood leukemia with a 73% decline, and CML with a 71% decline. Mortality also fell in ALL, CLL, and NHL.
For MM and AML, however, the population-level improvement was far less apparent. MM mortality decreased by only 3%, while AML mortality increased by 4%.
At first glance, this seems difficult to reconcile with the substantial gains in survival seen in these diseases. MM is perhaps the clearest example: how can 5-year survival improve from 27% to 64% while age-adjusted mortality across the population remains almost unchanged?
The answer lies partly in what is happening before treatment ever begins: more people are developing the disease.
The Rising Incidence of Hematologic Malignancies
SEER data show that most major hematologic malignancies became more common between 1975 and 2022.
HL is a notable exception, with incidence declining by 27%, while CML incidence remained essentially stable. For the other diseases examined, incidence increased: by 21% for AML, 22% for childhood leukemia, 26% for CLL, 43% for MM, 58% for ALL, and 69% for NHL.
A treatment can drastically improve the prognosis of an individual patient while the overall burden of the disease continues to grow. More effective therapy lowers the risk of dying after diagnosis, increasing incidence simultaneously enlarges the population at risk of experiencing that disease.
In MM modern therapy has unquestionably transformed patient outcomes, yet a 43% increase in incidence helps explain why this success has not produced a comparable reduction in population-level mortality. Treatment and epidemiology are therefore measuring different dimensions of progress, and hematology needs both.
Five Different Stories of Progress
Looking at incidence and mortality together reveals that hematologic malignancies are not following a single epidemiological trajectory.
Hodgkin lymphoma represents the most favorable pattern: both incidence and mortality have declined. Fewer people develop the disease, and fewer die from it.
CML incidence has remained relatively stable, while mortality has fallen drastically. This is perhaps the clearest example of therapeutic innovation changing the natural history of a malignancy at the population level.
MM and NHL expose the tension between treatment and incidence. Outcomes after diagnosis have improved, but rising incidence limits the corresponding reduction in overall disease burden.
CLL, ALL, and childhood leukemia show another pattern: incidence has increased, yet mortality has still declined. Therapeutic progress has been sufficiently strong to overcome, at least partly, the epidemiological pressure created by more diagnoses.
AML remains the most concerning pattern, with increases in both incidence and mortality despite meaningful improvements in individual patient survival.
And even successful chronic control carries consequences. Patients may live for years with treatment exposure, late toxicities, surveillance requirements, and financial burden. Better survival is an enormous achievement, but it does not make prevention irrelevant.
Why Prevention Is More Difficult in Hematologic Malignancies
Cancer prevention is easiest to conceptualize when a major modifiable risk factor is identifiable. Tobacco control provides the obvious model: identify an exposure, establish its causal relationship with cancer, reduce exposure, and eventually reduce disease incidence.
Hematologic malignancies rarely offer such a straightforward pathway, they are not strongly linked to common behavioral exposures. Some of their better-established risk factors are instead environmental and occupational, including pesticides, benzene and other hydrocarbons, and ionizing radiation.
That difference has practical consequences. Smoking history can be measured reasonably well at the individual level. Reconstructing years of occupational exposure, or contact with multiple potentially carcinogenic compounds is much more difficult. Exposure may have occurred decades before the malignancy develops, and patients may not know precisely which chemicals they encountered or at what concentrations.
The result is an important blind spot: environmental and occupational contributions to hematologic malignancies may be considerably harder to identify and quantify than familiar behavioral cancer risks. Prevention therefore cannot depend entirely on individual choices. It requires population-level approaches.
Expanding the Goal of Modern Hematology
The therapeutic achievements of hematology should not be understated in diseases once considered extraordinarily difficult to treat. Modern hematology has built extraordinary expertise in molecular classification, targeted therapy, immunotherapy, and increasingly individualized treatment. The next expansion of that expertise may need to reach further upstream to occupational medicine, environmental epidemiology, exposure biology, and public health policy.
Emerging approaches, including epigenetic signatures and spatial mapping of pesticide exposure, may uncover associations that conventional assessment misses and improve the evidence used to evaluate potentially carcinogenic compounds.
The goal is not only to make hematologic malignancies more survivable, but also understand why they arise, identify preventable exposures where they exist, and ultimately reduce the number of people who need these increasingly effective treatments in the first place.
Read the full article.