Only 47% of 196 people who had a total laryngectomy met all three criteria for successful electrolarynx use (intelligible, reliable and independent speech) in a 2024 two-center US study (Pan et al., Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology 2024). In a 2025 survey the device ranked second only to tracheoesophageal puncture as a primary voice: 24.4% of 157 surveyed laryngectomees rely on it first (Perryman and Kraft, Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery 2025). Its weak spot is noise, where listener recognition of key words falls from 75.5% in quiet to 57.3% in babble (Cox et al., American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 2020). The candidate pool keeps renewing itself, with 12,290 new US laryngeal cancer cases projected for 2026 (NCI SEER Cancer Stat Facts 2026), a population we profile in our laryngeal cancer incidence and survival statistics. We aggregated data from NCI SEER, the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA), the Journal of Laryngology and Otology, Head and Neck, the Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology journal, the Journal of Voice, and more than a dozen other peer-reviewed sources.
TL;DR
- 24.4% of 157 surveyed laryngectomees use an electrolarynx as their primary method, vs 61.5% for TEP (Perryman and Kraft, Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery 2025).
- 71% of 1,196 UK laryngectomees used surgical voice restoration; 344 used another method (Woodman et al., Journal of Laryngology and Otology 2024).
- 47% (93 of 196) of patients met all electrolarynx success criteria (Pan et al., Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology 2024).
- All 7 rating SLPs preferred a prototype electrolarynx with variable pitch, but only 50% of 10 users did (Davatz et al., Journal of Voice 2025).
- Tracheoesophageal speech was rated significantly more intelligible than electrolarynx speech across a 26-study review (van Sluis et al., European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology 2018).
- Electrolarynx intelligibility drops from 75.5% of key words in quiet to 57.3% in babble (Cox et al., AJSLP 2020).
- Clear speech raised electrolarynx intelligibility by 9.1%, vs 1.4% for tracheoesophageal speakers (Hui et al., Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica 2022).
- The UW-QOL speech score climbed from 30 to 65.8 after 60+ days of electrolarynx use (Monte et al., Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira 2024).
- Only about one-quarter of 40 primary electrolarynx users rated their voice-related quality of life as poor or fair (Cox and Doyle, Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery 2014).
- 63% of 507 survey respondents said talking effort made them speak less (Searl and Knollhoff, AJSLP 2018).
- A parametric acoustic array cut radiated noise by 23 dB vs a traditional electrolarynx (Wang et al., Sensors 2025).
1. Adoption: How Many Laryngectomees Use an Electrolarynx
The electrolarynx is rarely the headline method in countries where tracheoesophageal puncture (TEP) is routine, but it never disappears. In a 2025 survey of 157 laryngectomees, 24.4% still named the electrolarynx as their primary way of talking (Perryman and Kraft, Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery 2025). One in four makes it a mainstream method, not a footnote, even in a sample where TEP dominates.
The UK national audit gives the mirror image. Surgical voice restoration covered 852 of 1,196 people, which leaves 344 on another method (Woodman et al., Journal of Laryngology and Otology 2024), or 28.8% by our arithmetic (344 / 1,196). The audit does not split that group, so the electrolarynx share inside it is unknown. For the valve-and-puncture side of the same story, see our voice prosthesis and laryngectomy rehabilitation statistics.
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Primary method: electrolarynx | 24.4% of 157 respondents (124 recruited via the International Association of Laryngectomees) | Perryman and Kraft, Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery 2025 |
| Primary method: TEP and writing | 61.5% TEP, 9% writing | Perryman and Kraft, Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery 2025 |
| UK: surgical voice restoration as primary method | 71% (852 of 1,196); 344 used another method | Woodman et al., Journal of Laryngology and Otology 2024 |
| Nova Scotia: electrolaryngeal speech | 57% of 62 respondents (vs 19% esophageal, 8.5% tracheoesophageal) | Carr et al., Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery 2000 |
| Online survey: electrolarynx speakers | 132 of 507 respondents (222 TE, 41 esophageal, 112 laryngeal) | Searl and Knollhoff, American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 2018 |
| Naples cohort: electrolarynx users | 4 of 89 laryngectomees | Mesolella et al., Journal of Personalized Medicine 2023 |
| Laryngectomies performed per year in Germany | about 950 to 1,200 | Schutz et al., Laryngo-Rhino-Otologie 2024 |
| People living with laryngeal cancer in the US | 87,355 (2023 estimate) | NCI SEER Cancer Stat Facts 2026 |
Context note: these shares come from different recruitment channels (a patient association, a national audit, a mailed provincial survey, a single Italian center) and are not directly comparable. The Nova Scotia figure is the most recent available data from that survey design: Carr et al., 2000.
2. Who Succeeds: Electrolarynx Success Rates and Predictors
Handing a patient a device is not the same as restoring a voice. Fewer than half (47%, 93 of 196) of total laryngectomy patients met all three success criteria of intelligibility, reliability and independence (Pan et al., Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology 2024). The rate was 49% at the University of Washington and 40% at VA Puget Sound.
The predictors point to the whole patient rather than the hardware. Social support, prior treatment and swallowing status were each tied to success in univariate analysis (only prior treatment stayed significant in the multivariate model), while age, comorbidity and the extent of surgery showed no association. In practice, the electrolarynx is quick to learn but not an automatic fallback: patients carrying the heaviest treatment burden are also the ones most likely to struggle with it.
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Overall electrolarynx success (intelligible, reliable, independent) | 47% (93 of 196); 49% UW vs 40% VA | Pan et al., Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology 2024 |
| High vs low social support | 52% vs 30%; univariate success ratio 1.73 (95% CI 1.03, 2.91), p = .037 | Pan et al., Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology 2024 |
| Preoperative radiation alone vs chemoradiation vs none | 64% vs 33% vs 47% | Pan et al., Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology 2024 |
| Feeding-tube dependent vs full oral diet at 6 months | 30% vs 52%; univariate success ratio 0.58 (95% CI 0.34, 0.97), p = .037 | Pan et al., Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology 2024 |
| Positive vs negative preoperative opinion of the device | 60% vs 37% (overall p = .052) | Pan et al., Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology 2024 |
| Romanian cohort: electrolarynx success at 12 months | 46% of TL patients (vs 68% TEP, 32% esophageal speech) | Murariu et al., Cancers 2025 |
| No voice rehabilitation as predictor of poor outcomes | OR 2.91 (95% CI 1.68 to 4.35), p < 0.001 | Murariu et al., Cancers 2025 |
| Training needed for useful electrolarynx speech | mostly achieved within 5 training sessions | van Sluis et al., European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology 2018 |
Outlier note: the Romanian figures (Murariu et al., Cancers 2025) come from a 75-patient study where only 15 people completed 12-month follow-up, and the article does not state the denominator for its method success rates. Treat them as directional.
3. Intelligibility: Electrolarynx vs Tracheoesophageal and Esophageal Speech
The evidence leans one way, but on thin foundations. A systematic review of 26 studies (1,097 participants) found tracheoesophageal speech rated with significantly better voice quality and intelligibility than both esophageal and electrolarynx speech, yet only 3 of those studies had a low risk of bias (van Sluis et al., European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology 2018). Just 10 studies and 135 electrolarynx speakers fed the comparison, and none analysed electrolarynx speech acoustically.
Absolute numbers tell a gentler story. Across 36 laryngectomees, mean listener-rated intelligibility was 89.91%, even though TE speakers outscored EL speakers (Eadie et al., Head and Neck 2016). The gap is real but measured in degrees, not in whether a person can be understood at all. Readers interested in how these voices are quantified can compare the methods in our acoustic voice analysis and dysphonia statistics.
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Studies in systematic review of voice outcomes after total laryngectomy | 26 studies, 1,097 participants; 3 at low risk of bias | van Sluis et al., European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology 2018 |
| Studies and speakers in the electrolarynx comparison | 10 studies, 135 electrolarynx speakers | van Sluis et al., European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology 2018 |
| Mean intelligibility across 36 laryngectomees | 89.91% (SD 8.02), range 71.89% to 99.63% | Eadie et al., Head and Neck 2016 |
| TE (n = 23) vs EL (n = 11) speakers | TE more intelligible, t(32) = 3.28, p < .05; more acceptable, t(32) = 3.94, p < .05 | Eadie et al., Head and Neck 2016 |
| Cantonese TE speakers, habitual speech | 81.4% and 81.3% sentence intelligibility (two listeners) | Hui et al., Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica 2022 |
| Intelligibility gain with clear speech | EL +9.1%, esophageal +8.9%, TE +1.4% | Hui et al., Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica 2022 |
| Effect of communication method on Cantonese intelligibility scores | not significant (31 speakers: 9 EL, 10 esophageal, 12 TE) | Hui et al., Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica 2022 |
Context note: the review’s search closed in December 2016 and the Eadie study was published in 2016, so most recent available data for multi-method intelligibility comparisons: van Sluis et al., 2018. The Cantonese result is a useful counterpoint: in a tonal language with clear-speech coaching, the method gap was not statistically significant (Hui et al., Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica 2022).
4. Noise, Listeners and Listening Effort
The electrolarynx is designed for a quiet room and judged in a loud one. Listeners correctly identified 75.5% of key words from 10 experienced users in quiet, but only 57.3% in multitalker babble at +6 dB SNR (Cox et al., American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 2020). The speaker spread matters as much as the mean: in babble, the weakest user dropped to 12.9% while the strongest held 78.9%.
Listener burden is the hidden cost. Perceived effort tracks intelligibility closely, so a listener who has to work hard is also a listener who understands less and likes the voice less. When synthetic voices driven by facial muscle signals were played next to electrolarynx voices, listeners preferred the synthetic speech, a sign of where expectations are moving.
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Electrolarynx intelligibility in quiet | 75.5% of key words (SD 20.8%); speakers ranged 33.1% to 92.9% | Cox et al., American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 2020 |
| Electrolarynx intelligibility in +6 dB SNR babble | 57.3% (SD 23.3%); speakers ranged 12.9% to 78.9% | Cox et al., American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 2020 |
| Quiet vs babble difference | 17.9% more key words identified in quiet | Cox et al., American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 2020 |
| Servox Digital vs TruTone users in babble | 51.2% vs 64.0% (not significant, adjusted p = .77; Cohen’s d = 0.54) | Cox et al., American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 2020 |
| Listener effort vs intelligibility and acceptability | r = -0.76 and r = -0.80 | Nagle and Eadie, Journal of Communication Disorders 2018 |
| Listener panel rating alaryngeal voices | 381 listeners, 8 samples; female esophageal speech rated most favorably of the alaryngeal modes | Knollhoff et al., International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 2021 |
| sEMG-driven synthetic speech vs electrolarynx | 96.3% word recognition (SD 3.10%); rated above electrolarynx for acceptability and intelligibility | Vojtech et al., Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 2021 |
Context note: the listener data are most recent available data from Cox et al., 2020, Nagle and Eadie, 2018, and Knollhoff et al., 2021. In the Nova Scotia survey, difficulty being heard in noisy settings was the most common complaint (Carr et al., 2000).
5. User Satisfaction and Quality of Life
Patient-reported outcomes refuse to line up with listener scores. After at least 60 days of electrolarynx use, the share of patients naming speech as one of their most relevant problems fell from 77.4% to 29% (p < 0.001) (Monte et al., Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira 2024). That same cohort moved from 3.2% to 54.8% describing their quality of life as much better than in the month before cancer, although the study had no comparison group and the early timepoint was just 7 days after surgery.
Cross-method surveys repeat the pattern. In Nova Scotia, quality of life did not differ by method even though TE speech is objectively more intelligible (Carr et al., Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery 2000), and the 26-study review found no group with clearly better patient-reported outcomes (van Sluis et al. 2018). Satisfaction is driven by function in daily life, not by how a voice scores in a lab.
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| UW-QOL speech score, 7 days post-op vs after 60+ days of electrolarynx use | 30 to 65.8 (p < 0.001), n = 31 | Monte et al., Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira 2024 |
| Speech named among most relevant problems | 77.4% to 29% (p < 0.001) | Monte et al., Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira 2024 |
| UW-QOL anxiety score | 52.7 to 93.6 (p < 0.001) | Monte et al., Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira 2024 |
| Health-related quality of life rated very good | 0% to 45.1% (p < 0.001) | Monte et al., Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira 2024 |
| Primary electrolarynx users rating voice-related quality of life poor or fair | about one-quarter of 40 (25 men, 15 women) | Cox and Doyle, Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery 2014 |
| Talking less than before surgery | EL 50%, TE 44%, esophageal 62%, no voice 78% | Mesolella et al., Journal of Personalized Medicine 2023 |
| Respondents who said talking effort made them speak less | 63% of 507, with no difference between groups | Searl and Knollhoff, American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 2018 |
| Fatigue: electrolarynx vs TE speakers | electrolarynx respondents reported less fatigue than TE respondents | Searl and Knollhoff, American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 2018 |
Context note: the Naples electrolarynx group had only 4 people, so its 50% figure is 2 patients (Mesolella et al., Journal of Personalized Medicine 2023). The Cox and Doyle (2014) cohort is most recent available data for a dedicated V-RQOL study of electrolarynx users (Adelphi University record).
6. Device Types and Next-Generation Technology
The standard device is still a buzzing transducer held against the neck. Most users have a battery-operated neck-placement electrolarynx, and an intraoral tube version can be trialed 1 to 3 days after surgery (ASHA Practice Portal, Communication After Total Laryngectomy). The research pipeline targets its three oldest complaints: a robotic monotone, a busy hand and leaked buzz.
Clinicians and patients do not always want the same fix. All 7 SLPs in one perceptual study preferred a prototype with variable pitch and jitter, but only half of the 10 users did (Davatz et al., Journal of Voice 2025). Hands-free and muscle-signal designs aim at independence, which matters most for people who cannot also hold a device, a theme that overlaps with our speech-generating device and insurance statistics.
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Most common device type | battery-operated neck-placement electrolarynx; intraoral tube trial possible 1 to 3 days post-op | ASHA Practice Portal, Communication After Total Laryngectomy (accessed 2026) |
| Conventional vs prototype pitch | fixed 120 Hz, no perturbation vs 110 to 175 Hz with 0.5% jitter | Davatz et al., Journal of Voice 2025 |
| SLPs preferring the prototype sound | 100% (7 of 7); 71.4% rated it more natural | Davatz et al., Journal of Voice 2025 |
| Laryngectomees preferring the prototype | 50% prototype, 10% conventional, 40% no difference (n = 10) | Davatz et al., Journal of Voice 2025 |
| Intraoral voice retriever vs electrolarynx, 100-syllable test | 14.6 vs 12.8 (p < .001), 33 healthy first-time users | Yamada et al., Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology 2024 |
| Hands-free wearable electrolarynx in ventilated ICU patients | 42.9% effective users vs 0% with a self-operated conventional device (median score 3.5 vs 2, p = 0.03) | Sato et al., Journal of Anesthesia 2025 |
| Parametric acoustic array vs traditional electrolarynx | 23 dB lower radiation noise (p < 0.0001) | Wang et al., Sensors 2025 |
| Surface EMG silent speech, laryngectomy pilot | 20.2% word error rate (95% CI 11.0% to 31.5%) | Kaushal et al., Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology 2026 |
Context note: the device trials are tiny (from a single patient to 33 volunteers, plus one neck-phantom bench study), and several were run in healthy volunteers or ICU patients rather than laryngectomees. The Sato ICU series is in Journal of Anesthesia 2025, the acoustic array work in Sensors 2025 and the sEMG pilot in Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology 2026. Non-electric options persist too: in Taiwan, 79 pneumatic artificial larynx users and 25 esophageal speakers recruited through the national laryngectomee association showed no significant V-RQOL difference (Wang et al., Journal of Voice 2023).
Summary: Electrolarynx Intelligibility and User Satisfaction by the Numbers
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Primary method: electrolarynx | 24.4% of 157 laryngectomees | Perryman and Kraft, Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery 2025 |
| UK surgical voice restoration as primary method | 71% of 1,196 | Woodman et al., Journal of Laryngology and Otology 2024 |
| Nova Scotia electrolaryngeal speech | 57% of 62 respondents | Carr et al., Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery 2000 |
| New US laryngeal cancer cases, 2026 | 12,290 (9,730 men, 2,560 women) | American Cancer Society, Key Statistics for Laryngeal Cancer 2026 |
| Laryngectomies per year in Germany | about 950 to 1,200 | Schutz et al., Laryngo-Rhino-Otologie 2024 |
| Overall electrolarynx success | 47% (93 of 196) | Pan et al., Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology 2024 |
| Electrolarynx success at 12 months, Romanian cohort | 46% of TL patients | Murariu et al., Cancers 2025 |
| Studies in voice-outcome systematic review | 26 (3 at low risk of bias) | van Sluis et al., European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology 2018 |
| Mean intelligibility, 36 laryngectomees | 89.91% | Eadie et al., Head and Neck 2016 |
| Clear-speech intelligibility gain, electrolarynx users | +9.1% | Hui et al., Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica 2022 |
| Electrolarynx intelligibility, quiet vs babble | 75.5% vs 57.3% | Cox et al., American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 2020 |
| Listener effort vs intelligibility | r = -0.76 | Nagle and Eadie, Journal of Communication Disorders 2018 |
| sEMG synthetic speech word recognition | 96.3% | Vojtech et al., Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 2021 |
| UW-QOL speech score after 60+ days of electrolarynx use | 30 to 65.8 | Monte et al., Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira 2024 |
| Quality of life much better than before cancer | 3.2% to 54.8% | Monte et al., Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira 2024 |
| Electrolarynx users rating V-RQOL poor or fair | about one-quarter of 40 | Cox and Doyle, Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery 2014 |
| Talking effort made respondents speak less | 63% of 507 | Searl and Knollhoff, American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 2018 |
| Hands-free wearable electrolarynx effective users, ICU | 42.9% | Sato et al., Journal of Anesthesia 2025 |
| Radiated noise reduction, parametric acoustic array | 23 dB | Wang et al., Sensors 2025 |
Methodology and Sources
- Perryman M, Kraft S. Patient Perspectives in Postlaryngectomy Communication Rehabilitation and Outcomes. Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, 2025
- Woodman SH et al. Primary mode of communication for people with total laryngectomy in the UK: a cross-sectional survey. Journal of Laryngology and Otology, 2024
- Pan C et al. Factors associated with successful electrolarynx use after total laryngectomy, a multi-institutional study. Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology, 2024
- Murariu MO et al. Long-Term Quality of Life and Functional Outcomes in Patients with Total Laryngectomy. Cancers, 2025
- van Sluis KE et al. Objective and subjective voice outcomes after total laryngectomy: a systematic review. European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, 2018
- Eadie TL et al. The relationship between communicative participation and postlaryngectomy speech outcomes. Head and Neck, 2016
- Hui TF et al. The Effect of Clear Speech on Cantonese Alaryngeal Speakers’ Intelligibility. Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica, 2022
- Cox SR et al. Variability of Electrolaryngeal Speech Intelligibility in Multitalker Babble. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 2020
- Nagle KF, Eadie TL. Perceived listener effort as an outcome measure for disordered speech. Journal of Communication Disorders, 2018.
- Knollhoff SM et al. Listener impressions of alaryngeal communication modalities. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 2021
- Vojtech JM et al. Surface Electromyography-Based Recognition, Synthesis, and Perception of Prosodic Subvocal Speech. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 2021
- Monte LEF et al. Evolution of the quality of life of total laryngectomy patients using electrolarynx. Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira, 2024
- Cox SR, Doyle PC. The influence of electrolarynx use on postlaryngectomy voice-related quality of life. Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, 2014
- Carr MM et al. Communication after laryngectomy: an assessment of quality of life. Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, 2000
- Mesolella M et al. Subjective Perception and Psychoacoustic Aspects of the Laryngectomee Voice: The Impact on Quality of Life. Journal of Personalized Medicine, 2023
- Searl J, Knollhoff S. Sense of Effort and Fatigue Associated With Talking After Total Laryngectomy. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 2018
- ASHA Practice Portal: Communication After Total Laryngectomy
- Davatz GC et al. Electrolarynx Prototype With Adjustable Period Perturbation and Fundamental Frequency. Journal of Voice, 2025
- Yamada T et al. Development and evaluation of a new intraoral voice assist device called the voice retriever. Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology, 2024
- Sato K et al. A hands-free wearable electrolarynx for communication in tracheostomized mechanically ventilated critically ill patients. Journal of Anesthesia, 2025
- Wang L et al. Experimental Study on Noise-Reduced Propagation Characteristics of the Parametric Acoustic Array Field in a Neck Phantom. Sensors, 2025
- Kaushal NK et al. Noninvasive Speech Restoration After Total Laryngectomy Using Surface Electromyography: Pilot Study. Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology, 2026
- Schutz J, Rotter N, Nett S. Methods of Voice Restoration following Laryngectomy. Laryngo-Rhino-Otologie, 2024.
- Wang CC et al. Voice-Related Quality of Life Outcomes from Pneumatic Artificial Laryngeal and Esophageal Speakers. Journal of Voice, 2023.
- NCI SEER Cancer Stat Facts: Laryngeal Cancer, 2026
- American Cancer Society, Key Statistics for Laryngeal and Hypopharyngeal Cancers, 2026
- Data watch: usage shares are not comparable across sources (24.4% in a 2025 association-recruited US survey, 57% in a 2000 Nova Scotia mail survey, 4 of 89 patients in a 2023 Naples cohort), and no national registry reports electrolarynx use; the UK audit does not break out the 344 people who did not use surgical voice restoration. The Murariu et al. (2025) cohort lost 80% of patients by 12 months and its abstract and methods give conflicting recruitment dates. Cox et al. (2020) report the babble mean as 57.3% in the text and 57.6% in a table; we use the text figure. Eadie et al. (2016) report per-method means only in tables we could not read, so we cite the overall mean plus the significance test. Most head-to-head intelligibility and V-RQOL studies of electrolarynx users predate 2023 and are flagged as most recent available data. US case counts from NCI SEER and the American Cancer Society agree (12,290 for 2026).
Last updated: October 18, 2026. We update this roundup quarterly, and the next refresh is expected when the American Cancer Society publishes Cancer Facts and Figures 2027 in January 2027.