NHS spend on testicular and prostate Cancer compared to Breast and cervical ?

Question

Me and the wife were having a discussing about the relative nhs investment and mortality rates of male and female cancers (as she is a school nurse assistant). I maintain that male cancers (testicular / prostate) are not taken as seriously as female cancers (breast and cervical) and have less investment in them. Does anyone know if there is a disparity between the four cancers and why this is the case?

Please don't cloud the issue by telling me that men suffer with breast cancer, I know!

Answer 1

I think some of it is how much coverage they get. Breast cancer has a huge promotional effort behind it and is a big money make so they spend lots of money on research.

Answer 2

You're right about NHS spend on cancer services - by far the single largest spend is on breast related tumors. However, that's not to say that other tumor sites are taken less seriously - the incidence of breast cancer is much higher than it is for testicular and prostate, and sadly, the prognosis for breast cancer if left untreated is far worse than for testicular or prostate. So it's not as simple as saying that they're taken less seriously as they're very different diseases.



The other, less palatable consideration is that testicular and prostate cancers don't affect glamorous/famous women (Kylie, Linda McCartney) and to a large extent, prostate cancer is also a disease of old age - by the time men get to 90, over 90% of them will have prostate cancer but it might not be giving them any trouble at all. A lot of men die with it, but not of it. Again the same isn't true of breast cancer - unfortunately there are several strains of the disease where the outcomes are very poor indeed, even if caught early, and that is rarely the case with prostate and testicular.



So in summary, on the whole there is a clear relationship to NHS spend vs morbidity and mortality in cancers - back to the QALY argument really (see NICE).

Answer 3

This is a very interesting question, and when you get your answers would like it if you would post a comment on www.after-cancer.com



Am writing this web site to help fellow breast cancer patients, as I have found many clinically trialled products that can help us deal with hormonal drug side effects, but doctors often don't have time to discuss these.



When I was nicely taken to task by a male browser, who told me that men also suffer from side effects of hormonal drugs - dry skin, loss of sight, etc. So it now has a Men Only section!



Verite R

Answer 4

if reality be told, attributable to those billions and the learn that has already been executed, maximum cancers IS cured on a daily basis. 60% of all maximum cancers circumstances are cured. In infants, the share is even bigger, extra advantageous than 70%. That, basically that, is a outstanding success, isn't it? And all attributable to learn which has, in an particularly tiny section, been paid for by way of those billions raised. It potential that there are a number of hundreds of human beings like me; somebody clinically determined thirty years in the past with the type, point and grade of maximum cancers I had could basically approximately relatively have died. i'm extra healthful and properly and have been in finished remission for over 9 years. no person could pretend there is not nonetheless a protracted thank you to bypass, of direction; and progression is sluggish. What we don't have is a certain treatment for any of the 200+ ailments that come under the umbrella call of 'maximum cancers'. the subject with finding a 'treatment for many cancers' is that maximum cancers is thousands of ailments, not purely one. the subject is that distinctive cancers are led to by way of various issues, so no person approach can forestall all of them, and distinctive cancers respond to distinctive treatments so no person scientific care can treatment all of them. there basically isn't a magic bullet that treatments all maximum cancers. there basically isn't a Eureka! 2nd while somebody discovers a single substance or technique which will treatment all cancers. the theory a treatment is commonplace yet hidden for reasons of earnings, as a minimum of two answerers have stated, is nonsense. think of roughly it: different than for the reality that each and each government in the international and each scientific company in the international could must be in cahoots, a treatment for many cancers could be impossible to cover. Why? by way of fact as a fashion to verify that a treatment labored, hundreds of human beings could ought to have been cured by way of it. the place are they? Why do they never tell the tale of the scientific trial they have been in touch in that led to their maximum cancers being cured? they are in a position to't all have been paid off - the rigors are random, no thank you to substantiate each physique collaborating is grasping and unscrupulous. won't be in a position of all have been killed off - that they had ought to stay out their organic lives maximum cancers-loose as a fashion to show the treatment labored. does not upload up once you extremely think of roughly it, does it?