When Dr Cary Adams, CEO of the Union for International Cancer Control (UICC), asked what will impact cancer control in 2036, he did more than spark an online discussion. He framed a strategic question that goes to the heart of global oncology. Will artificial intelligence transform cancer medicine development?
Will antimicrobial resistance claim more lives among cancer patients? Will China become a central engine of medical and technological innovation? Will simple blood tests detect multiple cancers at once? These are not speculative fantasies; they are plausible trajectories. Yet the discussion that followed suggests that the defining issue of 2036 may not be scientific possibility, but systemic readiness.
Isabel Mestres, CEO of City Cancer Challenge Foundation and board member at NCD Alliance, highlighted the core tension. Science, she noted, is moving rapidly. The more difficult question is whether health systems are evolving at the same pace and the evidence suggests they are not.
Isabel Mestres Recognized Among The 100 Most Influential CEOs in Oncology in 2025
By 2036, advances in AI and early detection are likely to raise expectations dramatically. However, they may also expose weaknesses in infrastructure, coordination, and equity more starkly than ever before. Earlier diagnosis only saves lives if it is followed by timely and effective treatment. If diagnostic capacity expands without corresponding investment in surgery, radiotherapy, systemic therapy, and trained workforce, then innovation risks amplifying inequality rather than reducing it.
Michael Oberreiter, Head of External Affairs International at Roche, brought the discussion into the realm of political accountability. In his view, cancer control in 2036 will not succeed or fail because of science alone, but because of political choices. AI, he argued, will not cure cancer by itself; it will accelerate processes and reveal which systems are capable of acting quickly and which are not. Earlier detection could shift the bottleneck from biology to governance and capacity.
Global Health Dialogues with Princess Dina Mired: Michael Oberreiter
As cancer increasingly resembles a chronic condition, existing financing models may struggle to sustain long-term care, creating a slow-building crisis rather than a clear victory. He also warned that antimicrobial resistance could quietly undermine survival gains if infections in immunocompromised patients remain a secondary concern.
At the same time, innovation will likely be multipolar, with Asia, particularly China, playing a growing role in biotechnology and technology development. In this landscape, geopolitics may determine who benefits from progress. His conclusion was clear: the science will probably arrive on time; whether systems can translate it into equitable outcomes is far less certain.
Gevorg Tamamyan, Editor-in-Chief and Co-Founder of OncoDaily, reinforced this perspective while grounding it in clinical reality. He emphasized that breakthroughs alone will not define success in 2036; leadership must convert discovery into delivery.
Reflecting on the present, he pointed out that despite extraordinary scientific talent, the dramatic survival gains seen in the early chemotherapy era are rarely replicated today. Some cancers are still managed much as they were decades ago, with similarly poor outcomes. In too many settings, geography or personal financial resources remain the strongest predictors of survival. For Tamamyan, the central challenge is not a lack of innovation, but a failure to implement it rapidly and equitably.
Gevorg Tamamyan: The Power of a TEAM
Yet he remains optimistic. The science, he believes, will continue to advance. The decisive factor will be whether the global community builds a movement capable of turning innovation into access, speed, and equity without becoming trapped in bureaucracy or incrementalism.
Viewed together, these perspectives converge on a coherent message. By 2036, artificial intelligence, multi-cancer early detection tests, and expanding centers of innovation across continents are highly plausible realities. However, technological acceleration will place unprecedented pressure on health systems.
Workforce shortages, financing constraints, fragmented governance, antimicrobial resistance, and geopolitical tensions could all limit the impact of scientific progress. The central question is not whether breakthroughs will occur, but whether health systems will be designed to absorb and implement them efficiently and fairly.
Dr Cary Adams’ question about 2036 ultimately circles back to today. The future of cancer control will be determined less by what is discovered and more by how it is delivered. If leadership, political will, and global coordination rise to meet the pace of science, 2036 could mark a transformative era in cancer care. If not, remarkable innovations may coexist with persistent inequity. The science is advancing rapidly. The real test is whether our systems and our leaders will advance with it.
CancerWorld 112th Issue is live featuring Cary Adams and Hesham ElGhazaly
Written by Nare Hovahnnisyan, MD