Epidemiologic analyses that aim to quantify exposure effects on disease progression are not uncommon. Understanding the implications of these studies, however, is complicated, in part because different causal estimands could, at least in theory, be the target of such analyses. Here, to facilitate interpretation of these studies, we describe different settings in which causal questions related to disease progression can be asked, and consider possible estimands. For clarity, our discussion is structured around settings defined based on two factors: whether the disease occurrence is manipulable or not, and the type of outcome. We describe relevant causal structures and sets of response types, which consist of joint potential outcomes of disease occurrence and disease progression, and argue that settings where interventions to manipulate disease occurrence are not plausible are more common, and that, in this case, principal stratification might be an appropriate framework to conceptualize the analysis. Further, we suggest that the precise definition of the outcome of interest, in particular of what constitutes its permissible levels, might determine whether potential outcomes linked to disease progression are definable in different strata of the population. Our hope is that this paper will encourage additional methodological work on causal analysis of disease progression, as well as serve as a resource for future applied studies.