New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

70 Percent of Cancer Patients Now Survive at Least Five Years, Study Finds

Cancer survival rates climbed significantly in recent decades. But federal funding cuts could threaten that progress, physicians warn

Man pointing to a CT scan showing cancerous tumors (R) and a clean scan after treatment (L)

A CT scan showing cancerous tumors (right) and a clean scan after treatment (left). Survival rates across cancer types have increased in recent decades.

SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

On Tuesday the American Cancer Society (ACS) released its annual report on cancer statistics in the U.S., and it offered a rare bit of good news: the proportion of people who were alive at least five years after a cancer diagnosis hit a record high.

The report found that, among all cancer patients diagnosed between 2015 and 2021 in the U.S., the survival rate at the five-year mark relative to those who didn’t have cancer was 70 percent. This is the highest rate ever recorded by ACS. The researchers attributed the gains to better detection and treatment, as well as cutbacks in smoking.

“Seven in 10 people now survive their cancer five years or more, up from only half in the mid-70s,” said Rebecca Siegel, ACS’s senior scientific director for surveillance research, in a statement. “This stunning victory is largely the result of decades of cancer research that provided clinicians with the tools to treat the disease more effectively, turning many cancers from a death sentence into a chronic disease.”


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Some of the most fatal cancers saw the greatest improvement in survival. The five-year relative survival rate for myeloma (a type of cancer that affects bone marrow), for instance, nearly doubled between the 1990s and now, jumping from 32 to 62 percent, while liver cancer survival more than tripled from 7 to 22 percent.

In part, that’s because of greater understanding of the cancer genome and the development of targeted therapies against cancer mutations, added William Dahut, ACS’s chief scientific officer, on a press call with reporters on Monday, ahead of the report’s release. “People are living with metastatic cancer for years and years now,” he said. “This has really been driven by research.”

But the full picture isn’t entirely rosy. The report projects that, in 2026, more than two million people in the U.S. will be diagnosed with new cancer cases, and more than 625,000 people will die of their disease. Lung cancer is expected to cause the most deaths—more than twice as many as any other cancer, the report’s authors write. (That’s particularly tragic because, as Scientific American has reported, many of those who are most at risk of lung cancer never get screened.)

Cuts to federal funding for cancer-related research threaten the country’s progress, the authors warn. In just the first three months of 2025, a Senate minority report estimated, National Cancer Institute grant funding was down 31 percent from the previous year.

“Although decades of scientific investment have translated into longer lives for most people diagnosed with cancer,” the authors of the new ACS report concluded, “pending federal cuts to health insurance and cancer research will inevitably reduce access to life‐saving drugs and halt progress at a time when incidence is rising for many common cancers.”

Jackie Flynn Mogensen is a breaking news reporter at Scientific American. Before joining SciAm, she was a science reporter at Mother Jones, where she received a National Academies Eric and Wendy Schmidt Award for Excellence in Science Communications in 2024. Mogensen holds a master’s degree in environmental communication and a bachelor’s degree in earth sciences from Stanford University. She is based in New York City.

More by Jackie Flynn Mogensen

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe