Five things governments can do to turn the tide on lung cancer

25 May 2026

Lung cancer is the world’s biggest cancer killer. In the WHO European Region in 2021, it claimed 444,900 lives, cost societies €233 billion, and accounted for 10 million healthy years of life lost. Behind every number is a patient who deserved better: an earlier diagnosis, access to treatment while the disease was still more treatable, and a care pathway designed with them in mind.

This must, and can, change.

Here are five critical actions governments can take to reduce the burden and societal impact of lung cancer.

1. Treat tobacco control as the health emergency it is

Tobacco smoking remains the single biggest cause of lung cancer globally. The tools to address it are well established: taxation, smoke-free laws and decisive action on tobacco product sales. 

Air quality matters too – it is a significant and under-acknowledged driver of lung cancer risk, particularly in urban and industrial communities where exposure is highest and healthcare access is often weakest.

2. Make early detection the norm, not the exception

Low-dose CT screening can identify lung cancer at an earlier stage, when it is more likely to respond to treatment, but most countries still do not have a national screening programme in place. The fifth European Code Against Cancer, published in 2025, now recommends that governments implement sustainable, organised lung cancer screening programmes, placing it alongside cervical, colorectal and breast cancer screening. The framework is there; what is needed now is investment and urgency at a national level.

3. Make sure screening reaches the people who need it most

Results from the EU-funded SOLACE project show that different approaches make a real impact on how high-risk groups engage with lung cancer screening:

• Mobile screening units and practical support such as free transport helped screening reach communities that would otherwise be missed because of location and access to healthcare facilities.
• Integrating lung cancer screening with other programmes, such as breast cancer screening, also showed promise, makng it easier for people to attend screening alongside other routine checks.
• Community ambassadors and mediators were more effective at engaging people from communities where individuals have lower levels of formal education and may be less engaged with healthcare services.

Where a person lives, socioeconomic status and demographics should not determine whether cancer is caught in time. Screening programmes must be tailored to local contexts and designed with equity at their core.