NCCN Summit Tackles Cancer Prevention Access Gap With Policy and Innovation Focus

In early October, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network convened two days of conversation in Washington, D.C. about a problem that sits at the intersection of science, policy, and human consequence: millions of Americans have access to screening and prevention strategies that could save their lives, yet barriers—financial, structural, cultural—keep them from using those tools.

The summit, held October 5–6 at the National Press Club, brought together federal health officials, cancer researchers, patient advocates, health plan executives, and policy specialists to examine what stands between knowledge and action. Anthony Letai, director of the National Cancer Institute, and Captain Jacqueline Miller, acting director of the CDC's Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, anchored the conversation with keynote remarks. The gathering was framed by a stark statistic: established prevention and screening strategies have the capacity to prevent nearly half of all cancer deaths. Yet that potential remains unrealized for many.

Chyke Doubeni, chief health equity officer at Ohio State University's Wexner Medical Center, articulated the core tension. New screening technologies—blood-based tests, artificial intelligence-driven detection systems—offer genuine promise for earlier diagnosis. But without attention to how these tools are delivered, he warned, they risk widening existing disparities rather than closing them. The fragmentation in how screening is organized and paid for creates unequal access depending on where someone lives, what insurance they carry, or what community they belong to.

The first day of the summit examined broad infrastructure: tobacco cessation programs, vaccines, emerging blood tests, and computational tools that could make screening more efficient. Attendees received copies of free NCCN patient guides on screening and prevention—available in English and Spanish—covering breast, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancer screening, as well as genetic testing. These materials are designed to help people have informed conversations with their doctors about what screening makes sense for them.

Day two shifted focus to the systems that need to change. Brandon Leonard of LUNGevity Foundation named one of the central challenges: ensuring continuity of care from the moment someone enters screening through follow-up diagnostics, treatment, and survivorship. From a policy standpoint, he said, that means eliminating cost-sharing barriers and utilization management requirements that discourage eligible patients from getting screened. Molly Guthrie of Susan G. Komen added that early detection looks different for different people—and that laws at state and federal levels need to evolve to guarantee affordable access to breast imaging without financial burden.

Medical mistrust emerged as a significant barrier, particularly for LGBTQIA+ patients. Scout, executive director of The LGBTQIA+ Cancer Network, reported that screening barriers rooted in mistrust of medical institutions have worsened notably for 75 percent of their community in the past eighteen months. Simple interventions—welcoming signage, inclusive badges worn by staff—can counter this, but only if health systems actively choose to implement them.

Tuya Pal, a clinical geneticist at Vanderbilt, underscored that genetic testing alone does not improve outcomes. People who carry inherited cancer risk genes benefit tremendously from screening, but only if they can actually access the recommended follow-up care based on their test results. The gap between testing and treatment remains a critical failure point. Elisa Rodriguez of Roswell Park noted that when people receive their cancer risk information, they do not want just a number or percentage—they want to know what they can actually do to reduce their risk. That actionable guidance is often missing.

Ernest Hawk of MD Anderson Cancer Center offered a note of caution about the pace of innovation. As multicancer detection tests move toward clinical use, he said, the responsibility is to balance enthusiasm for their potential against careful consideration of harms, costs, and population-level implications—until rigorous evidence demonstrates they actually improve outcomes. The field has advanced remarkably, but translation of that science into practice requires discipline.

The summit pointed toward a future where cancer prevention is no longer reactive—waiting for diagnosis—but proactive, identifying risk earlier when intervention is most effective. That shift requires policy changes at federal and state levels, health systems willing to redesign how they deliver care, and sustained attention to the communities and populations that have historically been left behind. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network is scheduled to host its annual Patient Advocacy Summit in December, focusing on family-centered care and gaps in government support.