A new commentary published in The Lancet Regional Health – Europe argues that this machinery is in trouble. Written by Gijs Geleijnse of the Netherlands Comprehensive Cancer Organisation and colleagues from cancer registries and research institutions across the continent, the piece lays out a stark diagnosis: despite decades of investment in healthcare digitalisation and the ongoing preparation of the European Health Data Space, the infrastructure underpinning Europe’s cancer registries is frail. Coverage of the continent remains suboptimal, the timeliness of data publication varies widely from country to country, and registries themselves repeatedly cite resource limitations as the main barrier to investing in innovation. The result is a system that cannot reliably answer even basic questions about the state of cancer in Europe today.

The stakes are rising fast. Through the European Cancer Information System, known as ECIS, the registries of the European Network of Cancer Registries reveal cancer inequalities within and between European geographies, showing where progress is being made and where attention is urgently required. But the financial context is shifting beneath them. Cancer spending in Europe is expected to rise by 59 percent by 2050, according to an analytical report from the OECD and the European Commission. Registries are uniquely positioned to guide how that money is spent—supporting the effective allocation of resources and the implementation and evaluation of cancer prevention, early detection and quality of care—yet only if the data they deliver are complete, comparable and current.

One of the most striking asymmetries highlighted in the commentary is regulatory. Many European countries have national legislation on cancer registration, but there is no European regulation governing PBCR-based statistics. That stands in sharp contrast to mortality statistics, which are governed by explicit EU regulation and delivered by national statistics bureaus and Eurostat, ensuring timely and comparable collection of cause-of-death data across the Union. In other words, Europe legally guarantees that it knows how many people die of cancer and where, but not that it knows how many are diagnosed, how they are treated, or whether they survive. For a continent that has made cancer control a flagship policy priority, the gap is difficult to justify.

The technical picture is equally uneven. Europe’s 192 population-based cancer registries follow the registration guidelines issued by the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre together with the ENCR, but their capacity to collect timely, high-quality data varies enormously. Some registries struggle to record basic clinical elements such as stage at diagnosis and the treatments patients actually received—variables that are indispensable for measuring early detection programmes and the quality of care. A survey of registries published in the International Journal of Cancer in 2025 documented this global capacity gap, and recent work mapping European registries has shown that coverage, data availability and the ability to generate real-world evidence differ substantially across the continent.

The timing of the warning matters. The Joint Action CancerWatch, running from 2025 to 2028 with the participation of 92 organisations from 29 countries, aims specifically to improve the timeliness and quality of the registry data feeding into ECIS. The project exists precisely because geographic coverage is incomplete and timely indicators are limited on the platform. Meanwhile, the European Court of Auditors has called for a monitoring framework for the European Commission’s Beating Cancer Plan, noting in a 2026 special report that the wide-ranging plan faces an uncertain future. ECIS was established to monitor the cancer burden in Europe, but the current limitations in registry data infrastructure undermine its ability to fulfil that role. A monitoring plan without a functioning measurement system, the authors imply, is a promise without a receipt.

To close the gap, the commentary sets out a layered set of policy options. At EU level, the authors call for formal recognition of population-based cancer registries as core components of public health systems, an endorsement that would echo the Council Recommendation on strengthening prevention through early detection, which gave EU cancer screening programmes a firm regulatory footing. The European Commission, they argue, should publish explicit criteria for the data quality and timeliness required for registry data on ECIS, so that the quality and progress of cancer registration in member states can be monitored and managed transparently. Under the European Health Data Space Regulation, they further propose a data usage fee for registries that prioritise delivering data and statistics to ECIS—turning registries from passive data suppliers into recognised, resourced participants in the European data economy.

The integration agenda goes further. Registries, the authors contend, should be built into cancer screening programmes and comprehensive cancer centres as an integral element rather than an afterthought, and future EU project proposals on these topics should require the involvement and adequate resourcing of registries for planning, monitoring and evaluation. At member state level, each country should designate an organisation responsible for delivering national registry data to ECIS, acting as the link between EU bodies and regional registries and embedded in the design and monitoring of the national Cancer Mission Hubs. Sustainable funding is only part of the answer: national innovation funds earmarked for artificial intelligence and digital sovereignty should, the authors argue, also support innovation within registries, which are precisely the kind of high-value, privacy-preserving data infrastructure those funds are meant to cultivate.

At the registry level itself, the recommendations are more sober but no less important. Registries should obtain a formal mandate from their governments as a core component of public health and cancer control, giving them the legal standing to negotiate data access and funding. They should also allocate resources to increase the efficiency of data collection and publication—modernising the often manual, fragmented workflows that delay the arrival of statistics by years. The technical direction of travel is clear: automated extraction from electronic health records, standardised coding, and harmonised quality assurance could shorten the lag between diagnosis and data, provided the underlying legal and financial foundations are secure.

The commentary closes with a sentence that doubles as its thesis: we need to count every cancer patient because every patient counts. Timely, rich and high-quality population-based cancer data, the authors argue, are essential for robust monitoring and for evidence-informed European, national and local cancer policies. As Europe prepares to spend hundreds of billions more on cancer care over the coming decades, the unglamorous work of counting cases, staging tumours and tracking survival may prove to be the highest-yield investment of all. The alternative—policy made in the dark—would be far more expensive, and far less equitable, than the registries themselves.

Subject of Research: Strengthening population-based cancer registries in Europe to improve cancer control and monitoring

Article Title: Every cancer patient counts: strengthening European population-based cancer registries to improve cancer control

Article References: Geleijnse, G., Backes, C., Chirlaque, M. D., Sloep, M., Rodon Navarro, E., Šekerija, M., van Eycken, L., & Ursin, G. (2026). Every cancer patient counts: strengthening European population-based cancer registries to improve cancer control. The Lancet Regional Health – Europe, 70, Article 101855. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lanepe.2026.101855

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1016/j.lanepe.2026.101855

Keywords: cancer registries, population-based cancer registries, European Cancer Information System, ECIS, European Network of Cancer Registries, cancer surveillance, Beating Cancer Plan, European Health Data Space, cancer incidence, cancer survival, health policy, Europe