Every year, ASCO arrives with a theme. Most quietly disappear into the background by the end of the opening session, overtaken by survival curves, late-breaking data and the relentless pace of oncology innovation.

This year’s theme was different. Translation.

More than a congress slogan, it felt like a call to action. The opening message was that oncology’s job isn’t just to generate innovation, but to ensure that innovation makes a difference where it matters.

That means translating emerging science into care that works meaningfully in practice. And translating clinical research into real-world impact across different healthcare systems, settings and communities.

For those working in healthcare marketing, there’s another challenge too: translating complex science into communications and experiences that help people understand, trust and act on it.

Because, as ASCO President Eric Small put it: “What matters to patients is what matters most.”

This year, breakthroughs were only part of the story.

What stood out most was how much smarter oncology is becoming in terms of when, why and how to treat. Across tumour types, discussions repeatedly returned to the same themes: intervening earlier, understanding disease more precisely, tailoring treatment more effectively and making better use of the tools available to clinicians.

Ultimately, ASCO 2026 wasn’t just about hazard ratios and first-in-class molecules. It was about exploring a broader question: how do we translate scientific progress into better outcomes for patients? Here are the trends that stood out.

Precision immunotherapy is transforming cancer care, but ASCO 2026 suggested the next phase will require a much deeper understanding of why treatments succeed or fail.

For years, treatment decisions were guided by broad categories. A tumour carried a particular mutation, expressed a particular biomarker or was considered immunologically ‘hot’ or ‘cold’. Those classifications helped identify likely responders, but they often provided only part of the picture.

The emerging view is more nuanced. Developmental immunotherapy is increasingly focused on what one session framed as a kind of ‘immune matchmaking’. Rather than treating resistance as a single problem, researchers are trying to understand the specific biological barriers preventing an immune response and then matching interventions accordingly.

Examples ranged from strategies that make resistant tumours more visible to the immune system to approaches that block alternative immune escape pathways when PD-1 inhibition is no longer enough. Other studies explored oncolytic therapies that aim to turn the tumour itself into an immune-activating environment, biomarker-guided cell therapies that select the most useful immune cells, and next-generation T-cell engagers designed to redirect immune attack with greater precision.

Researchers are increasingly focused on resistance: why it happens, how it develops and what can be done to overcome it.

This approach reflects a broader trend across oncology towards precise intervention, where treatment decisions are informed by a better understanding of tumour biology, resistance pathways and patient-specific disease characteristics. The goal is simple: give more patients the opportunity to benefit from treatment and avoid approaches that are unlikely to succeed. That’s scientific progress translated into meaningful outcomes.

Not every story at ASCO was about a drug. Timing mattered too.

Liquid biopsy, circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) and minimal residual disease (MRD) have moved beyond the realm of detection. Increasingly, they are helping clinicians answer some of oncology’s most important questions: when to intervene, when to wait and when to change course.

Timing also sat at the heart of the debate around early detection. Results from the much-anticipated NHS-Galleri study showed increased detection of earlier-stage cancers but failed to meet the primary endpoint. The message was clear: when it comes to cancer screening, the evidence bar remains high.

More compelling were studies showing how molecular monitoring can influence treatment decisions. Across tumour types, researchers demonstrated how ctDNA and MRD can guide treatment decisions in real time. In colorectal cancer, CIRCULATE-Japan data suggested postoperative ctDNA monitoring could help identify which patients are most likely to benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy. In breast cancer, the SERENA-6 study used emerging ctDNA signals as a trigger to switch treatment before conventional disease progression became apparent.

The take-home? ctDNA is becoming a decision tool as well as a detection tool. By monitoring disease biology in real time, clinicians can identify signs of recurrence, resistance or treatment response before they become visible through conventional approaches. That creates new opportunities to intervene earlier, adapt treatment sooner and avoid unnecessary therapy, making timing itself a more powerful part of cancer care.

The most important call for translation was also the simplest: translating science into lives that patients can actually live.

ASCO devoted significant attention to issues that would once have been considered secondary concerns: the management of treatment toxicities, survivorship, exercise, sleep, cognitive impairment and emotional well-being. Their prominence reflected a growing recognition that cancer care extends far beyond tumour response. Research exploring the cardiovascular impact of breast cancer treatment and the role of tailored exercise programmes was just one example of how quality-of-life considerations are increasingly becoming part of the scientific conversation.

Discussion around early-onset cancers reinforced the point. Researchers highlighted rising rates of cancers among younger adults, bringing fresh attention to challenges that extend beyond treatment itself. Careers, family life, fertility, mental health and fear of recurrence all become part of the conversation. As one presenter observed, ‘45 is the new 50’ when it comes to cancer risk.

What’s striking is that these discussions are no longer taking place on the fringes of oncology. As patients live longer, questions about how people recover from treatment, manage side effects and navigate survivorship are becoming part of the mainstream conversation. The shift reflects the opening message: what matters to patients is what matters most. Success isn’t just measured by how long people live, but by how well they live.

GLP-1s have become impossible for oncology to ignore. That’s the trend that emerged from the meeting, although the evidence remains preliminary.

Several studies explored links between GLP-1 use and improved outcomes in patients with cancer. In breast cancer, retrospective analyses suggested lower recurrence rates among patients receiving GLP-1 therapies alongside cancer treatment. Separate research reported positive signals across six tumour types, while additional studies in colorectal, bladder and breast cancer explored the impact of concurrent GLP-1 use.

The caveat is important. Most of the evidence presented was retrospective and involved patients taking GLP-1 therapies for diabetes. Prospective studies are needed to explore the relationship further.

The theme of translation translated to the exhibition floor too. With nearly 500 exhibitors competing for attention, one lesson stood out: information is rarely enough. The booths that generated the most engagement weren’t those displaying the most data, but those that gave people something to do, feel or remember.

Across the hall, passive digital displays struggled to attract attention. In contrast, hands-on activities, immersive environments and emotionally-driven experiences consistently drew crowds. Whether it was Lego installations, interactive artwork or multi-sensory brand experiences, the most effective exhibitors understood that engagement starts with participation.

The best found creative ways to translate complexity into something more accessible. BMS’s ‘medical library’ offered a useful metaphor for modern oncology itself, helping visitors navigate a growing landscape of data, targets and treatment options. Jazz Pharmaceuticals turned the MoA behind Ziihera into an immersive visual experience, while Novartis used sound, movement and scent to create a memorable environment for its two leading brands. Together, they took on the broader challenge facing healthcare communications: making complex science easier to understand.

Translation wasn’t only about simplifying science. It was also about connecting it to human experience. Gilead, for example, featured a live artist drawing portraits of Trodelvy patient ambassadors, creating a more personal and memorable moment. Bayer invited attendees to reflect on the people who inspire them, while Lilly framed clinical trial participation through a patient lens.

For healthcare communicators, the lesson was hard to miss. Scientific innovation only creates value when people understand it and connect with it.

The trends that emerged from ASCO 2026 were diverse, reflecting a category coursing with innovation. Yet a common thread ran through them: the future of oncology won’t be defined by science alone, but by our ability to translate it into meaningful benefits for patients.

No matter how quickly innovation advances, the most important measure of success remains unchanged: what matters to patients is what matters most.

Costas Saratsis is Medical Strategy Director and Disha Srivastava is Group Director, Medical Strategy, both at VML Health