Prostate deaths hit record high of 12,000 after soaring by more than a quarter in less than 20 years - while the breast cancer toll dropped by 1,600 in the same period

blueorange22_ · 2020-01-18T03:53:46+00:00

EDIT: I see this is about the UK, I’ve added a second half to this comment (which will actually be first)

This is what happens when feminism influences a healthcare system. Men’s health is put last, and ignored

Experts say delays in diagnosing prostate cancer mean that, for thousands of men, the disease is only spotted when it is too late to act. Just 47 per cent of cases are diagnosed before the cancer has spread outside the prostate – the stage at which it is easiest to treat them. The government target is 75 per cent.

Another issue is lack of awareness, with men far more likely to ignore symptoms than women. However, a more fundamental problem is screening. Tests for breast cancer are routine, with middle-aged women invited for scans every three years. By contrast, tests for prostate cancer are notoriously inaccurate.

Prostate cancer now kills more men in the UK than breast cancer:

More than 11,800 men a year - or one every 45 minutes - are now killed by the disease in Britain, compared with about 11,400 women dying of breast cancer.

It means prostate cancer is behind only lung and bowel in terms of how many people it kills in Britain. In the US, the disease kills 26,000 each year.

Despite this, it receives less than half the research funding of breast cancer – while treatments for the disease are trailing at least a decade behind.

Yet still receives half the funding...there is truly no excuse for this.

————

It’s a myth that prostate cancer isn’t very deadly, it’s the second biggest cancer killer of men, and the cancer a non-smoking man is most likely to die from.

Another source

People site the 99% survival rate and line “men don’t die of it, they die with it”, but that’s misleading. The mortality rate is watered down because it’s the most common cancer in men and most cases are slow growing. However, because it’s so common, even a smaller percent of more serious forms add up to a large number, thus high total deaths. A man might develop it at 55, and survive to 60- thus adding to the 5 year survival rate- but then die in his 60s.

Think of it this way- what’s more:

10% of 100 (10)

Or 50% of 10 (5)

50% is “bigger” than 10%, but the total number of deaths can still be higher.

JohnKimble111 · 2020-01-18T04:13:35+00:00

In all fairness to the UK government, they did begin the process of starting to take prostate cancer a year or so ago:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-5596487/Mays-war-prostate-cancer-Prime-Minister-reveals-75m-plan-speed-diagnosis.html

Of course, a policy of making things fairer now doesn't make up for all the lost lives and knowledge that resulted form treating prostate cancer patients as third class citizens for 50 years. And also you won't really see any impact from the new funding in the published death figures.

autotldr · 2020-01-18T05:02:06+00:00

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 88%. (I'm a bot)

Angela Culhane, chief executive of Prostate Cancer UK - which compiled the figures on annual death tolls from government databases - said: 'By 2030, prostate cancer is set to be the most commonly diagnosed of all cancers in the UK. Before we reach this point, we must ensure that as many of these men as possible have their prostate cancer caught early and successfully treated.

The Daily Mail has been campaigning for more than 20 years to improve prostate cancer treatments and diagnosis.

An NHS spokesman said: 'The survival rates for prostate cancer is now at a record high of 86 per cent - despite the NHS dealing with an ageing population and an increase in the numbers of people diagnosed.

Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: cancer^#1 Prostate^#2 year^#3 men^#4 diagnosed^#5

Comments