The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) issues recommendations for various cancers:

- Strongly recommends cervical cancer screening in women who are sexually active and have a cervix at least until the age of 65.

- Recommend that Americans be screened for colorectal cancer via fecal occult blood testing, sigmoidoscopy, or colonoscopy starting at age 50 until age 75.

- Evidence is insufficient to recommend for or against screening for skin cancer, oral cancer, lung cancer, or prostate cancer in men under 75.

- Routine screening is not recommended for bladder cancer, testicular cancer, ovarian cancer, pancreatic cancer, or prostate cancer.

- Recommends mammography for breast cancer screening every two years from ages 50–74, but does not recommend either breast self-examination or clinical breast examination. A 2013 Cochrane review concluded that breast cancer screening by mammography had no effect in reducing mortality because of overdiagnosis and overtreatment.

Screens for gastric cancer using photofluorography due to the high incidence there.

Definitive diagnosis of Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) requires examination of biopsy tissue. An ideal biopsy specimen is either a punch biopsy or a full-thickness incisional biopsy of the skin including full-thickness dermis and subcutaneous fat. In addition to standard examination under light microscopy, immunohistochemistry (IHC) is also generally required to differentiate MCC from other morphologically similar tumors such as small cell lung cancer, the small cell variant of melanoma, various cutaneous leukemic/lymphoid neoplasms, and Ewing's sarcoma. Similarly, most experts recommend longitudinal imaging of the chest, typically a CT scan, to rule out that the possibility that the skin lesion is a cutaneous metastasis of an underlying small cell carcinoma of the lung.

Breast cancer screening refers to testing otherwise-healthy women for breast cancer in an attempt to achieve an earlier diagnosis under the assumption that early detection will improve outcomes. A number of screening tests have been employed including clinical and self breast exams, mammography, genetic screening, ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging.

A clinical or self breast exam involves feeling the breast for lumps or other abnormalities. Clinical breast exams are performed by health care providers, while self-breast exams are performed by the person themselves. Evidence does not support the effectiveness of either type of breast exam, as by the time a lump is large enough to be found it is likely to have been growing for several years and thus soon be large enough to be found without an exam. Mammographic screening for breast cancer uses X-rays to examine the breast for any uncharacteristic masses or lumps. During a screening, the breast is compressed and a technician takes photos from multiple angles. A general mammogram takes photos of the entire breast, while a diagnostic mammogram focuses on a specific lump or area of concern.

A number of national bodies recommend breast cancer screening. For the average woman, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends mammography every two years in women between the ages of 50 and 74, the Council of Europe recommends mammography between 50 and 69 with most programs using a 2-year frequency, and in Canada screening is recommended between the ages of 50 and 74 at a frequency of 2 to 3 years. These task force reports point out that in addition to unnecessary surgery and anxiety, the risks of more frequent mammograms include a small but significant increase in breast cancer induced by radiation.

The Cochrane collaboration (2013) states that the best quality evidence neither demonstrates a reduction in cancer specific, nor a reduction in all cause mortality from screening mammography. When less rigorous trials are added to the analysis there is a reduction in mortality due to breast cancer of 0.05% (a decrease of 1 in 2000 deaths from breast cancer over 10 years or a relative decrease of 15% from breast cancer). Screening over 10 years results in a 30% increase in rates of over-diagnosis and over-treatment (3 to 14 per 1000) and more than half will have at least one falsely positive test. This has resulted in the view that it is not clear whether mammography screening does more good or harm. Cochrane states that, due to recent improvements in breast cancer treatment, and the risks of false positives from breast cancer screening leading to unnecessary treatment, "it therefore no longer seems beneficial to attend for breast cancer screening" at any age. Whether MRI as a screening method has greater harms or benefits when compared to standard mammography is not known.

Treatment options vary and depend on the type and stage of cancer. Common treatments include surgery, chemotherapy, radiation therapy, amputation, and immunotherapy. A combination of therapies may be used. Knowledge and treatment of cancer have increased significantly in the past three decades. Survival rates have also increased due to the increase prevalence of canine cancer treatment centers and breakthroughs in targeted drug development. Canine cancer treatment has become an accepted clinical practice and access to treatment for owners has widely expanded recently. Cancer-targeting drugs most commonly function to inhibit excessive cell proliferation by attacking the replicating cells. However, there is still a prevalent pharmacy gap in veterinary oncology.

There is one canine tumor vaccine approved by the USDA, for preventing canine melanoma. The Oncept vaccine activates T-cell responses and antibodies against tumor-specific tyrosinase proteins. There is limited information about canine tumor antigens, which is the reason for the lack of tumor-specific vaccines and immunotherapy treatment plans for dogs.

Success of treatment depends on the form and extent of the cancer and the aggressiveness of the therapy. Early detection offers the best chance for successful treatment. The heterogeneity of tumors makes drug development increasingly complex, especially as new causes are discovered. No cure for cancer in canines exist.

Some dog owners opt for no treatment of the cancer at all, in which case palliative care, including pain relief, may be offered. Regardless of how treatment proceeds following a diagnosis, the quality of life of the pet is an important consideration. In cases where the cancer is not curable, there are still many things which can be done to alleviate the dog's pain. Good nutrition and care from the dog's owner can greatly enhance quality of life.

Surgery may be difficult due to the location of these tumors. Surgery alone often leads to recurrence. Chemotherapy is very effective for TVTs. The prognosis for complete remission with chemotherapy is excellent. The most common chemotherapy agents used are vincristine, vinblastine, and doxorubicin. Radiotherapy may be required if chemotherapy does not work.

Checking the cervix by the Papanicolaou test, or Pap test, for cervical cancer has been credited with dramatically reducing the number of cases of and mortality from cervical cancer in developed countries. Pap test screening every three to five years with appropriate follow-up can reduce cervical cancer incidence up to 80%. Abnormal results may suggest the presence of precancerous changes, allowing examination and possible preventive treatment. The treatment of low-grade lesions may adversely affect subsequent fertility and pregnancy. Personal invitations encouraging women to get screened are effective at increasing the likelihood they will do so. Educational materials also help increase the likelihood women will go for screening, but they are not as effective as invitations.

According to the 2010 European guidelines, the age at which to start screening ranges between 20 and 30 years of age, but preferentially not before age 25 or 30 years, and depends on burden of the disease in the population and the available resources.

In the United States, screening is recommended to begin at age 21, regardless of age at which a woman began having sex or other risk factors. Pap tests should be done every three years between the ages of 21 and 65. In women over the age of 65, screening may be discontinued if no abnormal screening results were seen within the previous 10 years and no history of CIN 2 or higher exists. HPV vaccination status does not change screening rates. Screening can occur every 5 years between ages 30 and 65 when a combination of cervical cytology screening and HPV testing is used and this is preferred. However, it is acceptable to screen this age group with a Pap test alone every three years. Screening is not beneficial before age 25 as the rate of disease is low. Screening is not beneficial in women older than 60 years if they have a history of negative results. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guideline has recommend for different levels of resource availability.

Liquid-based cytology is another potential screening method. Although it was probably intended to improve on the accuracy of the Pap test, its main advantage has been to reduce the number of inadequate smears from around 9% to around 1%. This reduces the need to recall women for a further smear. The United States Preventive Services Task Force supports screening every 5 years in those who are between 30 and 65 years when cytology is used in combination with HPV testing.

Pap tests have not been as effective in developing countries. This is in part because many of these countries have an impoverished health care infrastructure, too few trained and skilled professionals to obtain and interepret Pap tests, uninformed women who get lost to follow-up, and a lengthy turn-around time to get results. These realities have resulted in the investigation of cervical screening approaches that use fewer resources and offer rapid results such as visual inspection with acetic acid or HPV DNA testing.

The selective estrogen receptor modulators (such as tamoxifen) reduce the risk of breast cancer but increase the risk of thromboembolism and endometrial cancer. There is no overall change in the risk of death. They are thus not recommended for the prevention of breast cancer in women at average risk but may be offered for those at high risk. The benefit of breast cancer reduction continues for at least five years after stopping a course of treatment with these medications.

Since Merkel-cell cancer is uncommon and difficult to diagnose, patients may want a second opinion about the diagnosis and treatment plan before starting treatment. However, early diagnosis and treatment of Merkel-cell cancers are important factors in decreasing the chance of metastasis, after which it is exceptionally difficult to cure.

The number of studies focusing on the development of new targeted anticancer therapy is steadily rising, and thus there is hope that new drug regimes for patients with distant and systemic Merkel-cell carcinoma disease will be available in the near future. In particular, many study groups are looking for new strategies to target the MCV either to prevent infection or to inhibit viral-induced carcinogenesis.

Even highly advanced metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma can be responsive to PD-1 inhibitor treatment, providing promise for new chemotherapeutic and immunotherapeutic options.

A transmissible cancer is a cancer cell or cluster of cancer cells that can be transferred between individuals without the involvement of an infectious agent, such as an oncovirus. Transmission of cancer between humans is rare.

Contagious cancers occur in dogs, Tasmanian devils, Syrian hamsters, and some marine bivalves including soft-shell clams. These cancers have a relatively stable genome as they are transmitted.

In humans, a significant fraction of Kaposi's sarcoma occurring after transplantation may be due to tumorous outgrowth of donor cells. Although Kaposi's sarcoma is caused by a virus (Kaposi's sarcoma-associated herpesvirus), in these cases, it appears likely that transmission of virus-infected tumor cells—rather than the free virus—caused tumors in the transplant recipients.

Blood tests to detect antibodies against KSHV have been developed and can be used to determine whether a person is at risk for transmitting infection to their sexual partner, or whether an organ is infected prior to transplantation. However, these tests are not available except as research tools, and, thus, there is little screening for persons at risk for becoming infected with KSHV, such as people following a transplant.

There are several ways to diagnose Hypopharyngeal Cancer.

- Physical Examination:

The doctor checks for swollen lymph nodes and may look down the patient’s throat with a long handled mirror.

- Endoscopy, Esophagoscopy, or Bronchoscopy:

Inserted into the nose or mouth of the patient, this a thin, lighted tube that allows the doctor to see farther down the throat, into the esophagus or into the trachea.

- Biopsy:

This is a small tissue sample that can be acquired during an endosopy, esophagoscopy, or bronchoscopy. The tissue is analyzed for the presences of cancer cells.

- CT scan or MRI:

These tests will give doctors a detailed picture of any abnormalities in the body. For a CT scan, the patient often swallows a dye that coats the throat and provides a better image. An MRI is a better tool if the patient is pregnant because the test uses no radiation.

Internationally, the greatest variation in childhood cancer incidence occurs when comparing high-income countries to low-income ones. This may result from differences in being able to diagnose cancer, differences in risk among different ethnic or racial population subgroups, as well as differences in risk factors. An example of differing risk factors is in cases of pediatric Burkitt lymphoma, a form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma that sickens 6 to 7 children out of every 100,000 annually in parts of sub-Saharan Africa, where it is associated with a history of infection by both Epstein-Barr virus and malaria. In industrialized countries, Burkitt lymphoma is not associated with these infectious conditions.

In those who are being regularly screened, 5-alpha-reductase inhibitor (finasteride and dutasteride) reduce the overall risk of being diagnosed with prostate cancer; however, there is insufficient data to determine if they have an effect on the risk of death and may increase the chance of more serious cases.

Although KS may be suspected from the appearance of lesions and the patient's risk factors, definite diagnosis can be made only by biopsy and microscopic examination. Detection of the KSHV protein LANA in tumor cells confirms the diagnosis.

In differential diagnosis, arteriovenous malformations, pyogenic granuloma and other vascular proliferations can be microscopically confused with KS.

Familial and genetic factors are identified in 5-15% of childhood cancer cases. In <5-10% of cases, there are known environmental exposures and exogenous factors, such as prenatal exposure to tobacco, X-rays, or certain medications. For the remaining 75-90% of cases, however, the individual causes remain unknown. In most cases, as in carcinogenesis in general, the cancers are assumed to involve multiple risk factors and variables.

Aspects that make the risk factors of childhood cancer different from those seen in adult cancers include:

- Different, and sometimes unique, exposures to environmental hazards. Children must often rely on adults to protect them from toxic environmental agents.

- Immature physiological systems to clear or metabolize environmental substances

- The growth and development of children in phases known as "developmental windows" result in certain "critical windows of vulnerability".

Also, a longer life expectancy in children avails for a longer time to manifest cancer processes with long latency periods, increasing the risk of developing some cancer types later in life.

There are preventable causes of childhood malignancy, such as delivery overuse and misuse of ionizing radiation through computed tomography scans when the test is not indicated or when adult protocols are used.

Prostate cancer screening is an attempt to find unsuspected cancers. Initial screens may lead to more invasive follow-up tests such as a biopsy. Options include the digital rectal exam (DRE) and the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) blood test. Such screening is controversial and, in some people, may lead to unnecessary disruption and possibly harmful consequences. Routine screening with either a DRE or PSA is not supported by the evidence as there is no mortality benefit from screening.

The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends against the PSA test for prostate cancer screening in healthy men regardless of age. They concluded that the potential benefit of testing does not outweigh the expected harms. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shared that conclusion. The American Society of Clinical Oncology and the American College of Physicians discourages screening for those who are expected to live less than ten to fifteen years, while in those with a greater life expectancy a decision should be made by the person in question based on the potential risks and benefits. In general, they concluded, "it is uncertain whether the benefits associated with PSA testing for prostate cancer screening are worth the harms associated with screening and subsequent unnecessary treatment." American Urological Association (AUA 2013) guidelines call for weighing the benefits of preventing prostate cancer mortality in 1 man for every 1,000 men screened over a ten-year period against the known harms associated with diagnostic tests and treatment. The AUA recommends screening decisions in those 55 to 69 be based on shared decision making, and that if screening is performed it should occur no more often than every two years.

Cervical cancer is staged by the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) staging system, which is based on clinical examination, rather than surgical findings. It allows only these diagnostic tests to be used in determining the stage: palpation, inspection, colposcopy, endocervical curettage, hysteroscopy, cystoscopy, proctoscopy, intravenous urography, and X-ray examination of the lungs and skeleton, and cervical conization.

Staging cancer is a way of marking the cancer’s progression and is measured on a 0 to 4 (IV) scale. To determine

each stage, smaller categories must be defined first: T. N. M. (tumor, lymph nodes, and metastasis). These were developed by the American Joint Committee on Cancer.

Studies have found heightened HPV in mouth cell samples from people with squamous cell carcinoma of the mouth. Studies have not found significant HPV in mouth cells after sampling with toothbrushes (5 of 2,619 samples) and cytobrushes (no oral transmission found).

According to the National Cancer Institute, “The most common test detects DNA from several high-risk HPV types, but it cannot identify the type(s) that are present. Another test is specific for DNA from HPV types 16 and 18, the two types that cause most HPV-associated cancers. A third test can detect DNA from several high-risk HPV types and can indicate whether HPV-16 or HPV-18 is present. A fourth test detects RNA from the most common high-risk HPV types. These tests can detect HPV infections before cell abnormalities are evident.

“Theoretically, the HPV DNA and RNA tests could be used to identify HPV infections in cells taken from any part of the body. However, the tests are approved by the FDA for only two indications: for follow-up testing of women who seem to have abnormal Pap test results and for cervical cancer screening in combination with a Pap test among women over age 30.”

In April 2011, the Food and Drug Administration approved the cobas HPV Test, manufactured by Roche. This cervical cancer screening test “specifically identifies types HPV 16 and HPV 18 while concurrently detecting the rest of the high risk types (31, 33, 35, 39, 45, 51, 52, 56, 58, 59, 66 and 68).”

The cobas HPV Test was evaluated in the ATHENA trial, which studied more than 47,000 U.S. women 21 years old and older undergoing routine cervical cancer screening. Results from the ATHENA trial demonstrated that 1 in 10 women, age 30 and older, who tested positive for HPV 16 and/or 18, actually had cervical pre-cancer even though they showed normal results with the Pap test.

In March 2003, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the Hybrid Capture 2 test manufactured by Qiagen/Digene, which is a "hybrid-capture" test as an adjunct to Pap testing. The test may be performed during a routine Pap smear. It detects the DNA of 13 "high-risk" HPV types that most commonly affect the cervix, it does not determine the specific HPV types. Hybrid Capture 2 is the most widely studied commercially available HPV assay and the majority of the evidence for HPV primary testing in population-based screening programs is based on the Hybrid Capture 2 assay.

The recent outcomes in the identification of molecular pathways involved in cervical cancer provide helpful information about novel bio- or oncogenic markers that allow monitoring of these essential molecular events in cytological smears, histological, or cytological specimens. These bio- or onco- markers are likely to improve the detection of lesions that have a high risk of progression in both primary screening and triage settings. E6 and E7 mRNA detection PreTect HPV-Proofer (HPV OncoTect) or p16 cell-cycle protein levels are examples of these new molecular markers. According to published results, these markers, which are highly sensitive and specific, allow to identify cells going through malignant transformation.

In October 2011 the US Food and Drug Administration approved the Aptima HPV Assay test for RNA created when and if any HPV strains start creating cancers (see virology).

The vulva/vagina has been sampled with Dacron swabs and shows more HPV than the cervix. Among women who were HPV positive in either place, 90% were positive in the vulvovaginal region, 46% in the cervix.

Animals that have undergone population bottlenecks may be at greater risks of contracting transmissible cancers. Because of their transmission, it was initially thought that these diseases were caused by the transfer of oncoviruses, in the manner of cervical cancer caused by HPV.

- Canine transmissible venereal tumor (CTVT) is sexually transmitted cancer in dogs. It was experimentally transplanted between dogs in 1876 by M. A. Novinsky (1841–1914). A single malignant clone of CTVT cells has colonized dogs worldwide, representing the oldest known malignant cell line in continuous propagation.

- Contagious reticulum cell sarcoma of the Syrian hamster can be transmitted from one Syrian hamster to another by means of the bite of the mosquito "Aedes aegypti".

- Devil facial tumour disease (DFTD) is a transmissible parasitic cancer in the Tasmanian devil.

- Soft-shell clams, "Mya arenaria", have been found to be vulnerable to a transmissible neoplasm of the hemolymphatic system — effectively, leukemia.

- Horizontally transmitted cancers have also been discovered in three other species of marine bivalves: bay mussels ("Mytilus trossulus"), common cockles ("Cerastoderma edule") and golden carpet shell clams ("Polititapes aureus"). The golden carpet shell clam cancer was found to have been transmitted from another species, the pullet carpet shell ("Venerupis corrugata").

Cancer prevalence in dogs increases with age and certain breeds are more susceptible to specific kinds of cancers. Millions of dogs develop spontaneous tumors each year. Boxers, Boston Terriers and Golden Retrievers are among the breeds that most commonly develop mast cell tumors. Large and giant breeds, like Great Danes, Rottweilers, Greyhound and Saint Bernards, are much more likely to develop bone cancer than smaller breeds. Lymphoma occurs at increased rates in Bernese Mountain dogs, bulldogs, and boxers. It is important for the owner to be familiar with the diseases to which their specific breed of dog might have a breed predisposition.

Canine transmissible venereal tumors (CTVTs), also called transmissible venereal tumors (TVTs), canine transmissible venereal sarcoma (CTVS), sticker tumors and infectious sarcoma is a histiocytic tumor of the external genitalia of the dog and other canines, and is transmitted from animal to animal during mating. It is one of only three known transmissible cancers in mammals; other are devil facial tumor disease, a cancer which occurs in Tasmanian devils, and contagious reticulum cell sarcoma of the Syrian hamster.

The tumor cells are themselves the infectious agents, and the tumors that form are not genetically related to the host dog. Although the genome of a CTVT is derived from a canid (probably a dog, wolf or coyote), it is now essentially living as a unicellular, asexually reproducing (but sexually transmitted) pathogen. Sequence analysis of the genome suggests it diverged from canids over 6,000 years ago; possibly much earlier. The most recent estimates of its time of origin place date it to about 11,000 years ago. However, the most recent common ancestor of "extant" tumors is more recent: it probably originated 200 to 2,500 years ago.

Canine TVTs were initially described by Russian veterinarian M.A. Novinsky (1841–1914) in 1876, when he demonstrated that the tumor could be transplanted from one dog to another by infecting them with tumor cells.

In 2010, EBC-46, a drug which cures facial tumours in dogs, cats, and horses, was proposd as a cure for DFTD.

Vaccination with irradiated cancer cells has not proven successful.

A primary research report in 2011 has suggested that picking a genetically diverse breeding stock, defined by the genome sequence, may help with for conservation efforts.

As of 2011, there was ongoing support for a research team of David Phalen and colleagues to investigate chemotherapeutic agents against DFTD.

In 2013, a study using mice as a model for Tasmanian devils suggested that a DFTD vaccine or treatment could be beneficial. In 2015, a study which mixed dead DFTD cells with an inflammatory substance stimulated an immune response in five out of six devils injected with the mixture, engendering for a vaccine against DFTD. Field testing of the potential vaccine is being undertaken as a collaborative project between the Menzies Institute for Medical Research and the Save the Tasmanian Devil Program under the Wild Devil Recovery program, and aims to test the immunisation protocol as a tool in ensuring the devil's long term survival in the wild.

In March 2017, scientists at the University of Tasmania presented an apparent first report of having successfully treated Tasmanian devils suffering from the disease, by injecting live cancer cells into the infected devils to stimulate their immune system to recognise the disease and fight it off.