CollegeFootballPoll.com Message Board

Since Prostate Cancer takes such a back seat to Breast Cancer...I found these facts interesting...

Prostate Cancer
It is estimated that 217,730 men will be diagnosed with and 32,050 men will die of cancer of the prostate in 2010.
Incidence & Mortality
SEER Incidence

From 2004-2008, the median age at diagnosis for cancer of the prostate was 67 years of age3. Approximately 0.0% were diagnosed under age 20; 0.0% between 20 and 34; 0.6% between 35 and 44; 9.1% between 45 and 54; 30.7% between 55 and 64; 35.3% between 65 and 74; 19.9% between 75 and 84; and 4.4% 85+ years of age.

The age-adjusted incidence rate was 156.0 per 100,000 men per year. These rates are based on cases diagnosed in 2004-2008 from 17 SEER geographic areas.

Breast Cancer
It is estimated that 207,090 women will be diagnosed with and 39,840 women will die of cancer of the breast in 2010.
SEER Incidence

From 2004-2008, the median age at diagnosis for cancer of the breast was 61 years of age3. Approximately 0.0% were diagnosed under age 20; 1.9% between 20 and 34; 10.2% between 35 and 44; 22.6% between 45 and 54; 24.4% between 55 and 64; 19.7% between 65 and 74; 15.5% between 75 and 84; and 5.6% 85+ years of age.

The age-adjusted incidence rate was 124.0 per 100,000 women per year. These rates are based on cases diagnosed in 2004-2008 from 17 SEER geographic areas.

*(My note: that about 1.2 of the 124/100,000 is breast cancer in men.)

These figures come from:
http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/prost.html
http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/breast.html

I get more upset about the difference in attention to these 2 diseases when I think of detection, recovery period, and quality of life following removals for each case. I think the awareness for breast cancer far out weighs the awareness of prostate cancer...that is the only way I see it is more significant.

As of July 2009, the Prostate Cancer Foundation has raised over $380 million. (As of 2009 , meaning from the beginning to 09.)
In the 2009-2010 fiscal year, "Susan G. Komen for the Cure" reported approximately US $400 million in earnings....alone.


(Don't get me wrong they both are horrible and I am so sick and tired of hearing the word cancer, it nearly makes me ill.)

I think it is more an age thing as far as attention goes.

Age is a factor...prostate occurrence on average is like 10 years later. But treatment for prostate is more debilitating and the surgery more invasive...thus it also costs more (twice as much), and is more difficult to detect. It even costs more than lung cancer.

From US News, "Medicare Costs for Cancer Treatment Soar" http://health.usnews.com/health-news/family-health/articles/2008/06/10/medicare-costs-for-cancer-treatment-soar
"Over the course of the study, the average cost for treating a lung cancer patient went up $7,139, to an average of $39,891. With prostate cancer, the average price tag for treatment went up $5,345, to an average of $41,134. The cost of treating breast cancer went up $4,189, to an average cost of $20,964."

My wife says it is because of breast cancer being more emotionally damaging. To which I replied, "So 2 of the things we spend our whole life getting in trouble over, staring at breasts (to which we are told women are much more than that) to which I agree. And then also, we have a one track mind, always thinking about sex, and "not thinking with our brains"...so I can disregard all of that!" I then had a nice quiet room to watch my football played in pink shoes.

BTW, how much money does it cost to make these pink hats, shoes, gloves and other accoutrements? Pin on some pink ribbons and donate that money too. I bet the NFL spends about a Million on that!

For my money, I'm waiting on somebody to really tackle Male-Pattern Baldness. Hey, it does have a very high occurrence rate and is an emotional issue. I'd be ashamed to admit how much it bothered me from my early 20's until I was nearly 30.

Men and woman are so different in that regard. Men aren't nearly as appearance conscience as women. It is the reason mens clothes sizes are uniform and womens clothes are all over the place. Men wouldn't put up with it, they don't care that much. I've never tried on clothes in a store. except for having a suit made, i pick my size and head to the check out. It takes my wife all day for the same amount of clothes.

Man, I wish I could just buy my size! If it is a polo shirt I can go by the shoulder width as to whether I buy a L or XL. All shaky after that, jeans 35 or 36 presently for the most part. Depending on brand and style of cut I could even wear a 34 or 38, and there is a big difference in how well they fit. A buttoned dress shirt, oh Lord, help me....all over the place. And that was impossible when I was 20 and I lifted weights, I had to have all of them tailored, and this was the case until I went to college at 28 and got fat. And slacks, usually a 38 right now and they are still tight in the hips and butt, loose in the waist. Shoes, forget about it, I have to try on about everything they have...13 or 14 in sneakers. 12.5 to 13 in dress shoes...probably. And the fit from shoes is just allover the place! This means I hate shopping even more than most men. (I prefer to traverse any store at about 8.5 mph.)

Susan G Komen has about a 90% overhead. Meaning that at least 90 cents of every dollar does NOT go to research.

I'm sorry, when I see Delta painting everything pink and employees wearing pink for an entire month, I get very upset at the double standard. It's not fair that it get's so much attention, while others are downplayed, and I think there is something incredibly wrong with it.

I do not give this org the honor of calling them a charity, I call them a Political Action Committee.

Derek wrote:Susan G Komen has about a 90% overhead. Meaning that at least 90 cents of every dollar does NOT go to research.

I'm sorry, when I see Delta painting everything pink and employees wearing pink for an entire month, I get very upset at the double standard. It's not fair that it get's so much attention, while others are downplayed, and I think there is something incredibly wrong with it.

I do not give this org the honor of calling them a charity, I call them a Political Action Committee.

I am with you on this one...as well as most others. When I feel like there is a cause I would like to contribute to, I just give a little more to an organization that I like an feel is getting the money to where the issue lies. Then I do not have to worry. There is a consistent theme that when anything is politicized, it goes South...that is figuratively speaking...maybe...and most prevalent in legitimate social issues.