5 ms·

Wow, the disparity in male vs female incidence and mortality is astonishing - almost twice as many men as women get and die of cancer every year.

hylaride 8y ago
I wonder if it's because men are much more likely to smoke and drink heavily...
- RmDen 8y ago
  Probably also because unlike women..men will wait a long time to go to the doctor
  - redbone 8y ago
    More likely it's due to the fact that men are more likely to work in fields that force them into contact with carcinogens. Road workers, oil rig workers, construction workers, etc.
- belorn 8y ago
  Sweden has significant reduced the number of smokers, and it is the only country where more women then men smoke. Alcohol usage has also significant dropped, and the difference in usage between women and men is within a couple of percentiles: 32.1% (Women) vs 34.6% (Men). The disparity in male vs female mortality is only slightly reduced. 3.3 years (Sweden) vs 4.5 years (USA). There was a sociology study from 2008 that even claimed that the disparity is artificial small in Sweden because women smoke more then men. They said that it should be much higher (in favor of women) if we removed smoking as a factor. In context smoking is also estimated to lower mortality by 14 years.
cpursley 8y ago
There's also the male suicide rate, which is a multiple of the female rate.
fedups 8y ago
I've read that bringing male mortality rates down to that of females would have about the same impact on mortality rates as curing cancer would.
ArrayList 8y ago
But breast cancer! (note: I've never once seen a bumper sticker for prostate cancer ...)
- gknoy 8y ago
  For most of us males, prostate cancer is something we will eventually get, but is unlikely to kill us. Breast cancer seems a lot more dangerous. I of course worry about it, but it doesn't seem nearly as dangerous as breast cancer.
  - belorn 8y ago
    Using Swedish numbers of 2016: Male deaths from prostate cancer was 88 per 100,000 men. Female deaths from Breast cancer was 47 per 100,000 women. When you say that breast cancer seems a lot more dangerous, could you elaborate that a bit?
    - dagw 8y ago
      You also have to factor in the age at which people die from the different cancers. Deaths from breast cancer tend to skew a lot younger (dying from prostate cancer before you're 50 for example is less common than dying from breast cancer before you're 30). So if you instead look at 'lost' life years due to cancer (compared to the life expectancy), the picture changes dramatically. The number of women who die before 60 from breast cancer is roughly 10 times that of men who die before 60 from prostate cancer (UK numbers).
      - belorn 8y ago
        That is one way to look at it, through I will say there is more context. Treatment increases the short time risk of death, but reduces mortality in the long run. Prostate cancer screening is not done for men below the age of 50 because the risk of over treatment is deemed to be too costly, which in comparison to breast cancer means that prostate cancer is allowed to grow unchecked for longer compared to breast cancer. When I see researchers mentioning the decision to not do prostate cancer screening they often acknowledge that this pushes up the age group where the disease kills the patient. But to go back a bit, the issue that was brought up was the disparity in male vs female cancer incidence and mortality. Prostate cancer has higher incident rate in Sweden compared to breast cancer, and higher mortality rate. Because of the higher incidence rate and years that patients will suffering from it we can also see it has having higher debilitating effect. While there is some validity in counting "lost life years" I do not think it validates the claim that it dictate which disease is more dangerous. Breast cancer has higher "lost life years". Prostate cancer has higher rate of incidents, mortality, and "life debilitating years".

hylaride 8y ago

I wonder if it's because men are much more likely to smoke and drink heavily...

RmDen 8y ago
Probably also because unlike women..men will wait a long time to go to the doctor
- redbone 8y ago
  More likely it's due to the fact that men are more likely to work in fields that force them into contact with carcinogens. Road workers, oil rig workers, construction workers, etc.
belorn 8y ago
Sweden has significant reduced the number of smokers, and it is the only country where more women then men smoke. Alcohol usage has also significant dropped, and the difference in usage between women and men is within a couple of percentiles: 32.1% (Women) vs 34.6% (Men). The disparity in male vs female mortality is only slightly reduced. 3.3 years (Sweden) vs 4.5 years (USA). There was a sociology study from 2008 that even claimed that the disparity is artificial small in Sweden because women smoke more then men. They said that it should be much higher (in favor of women) if we removed smoking as a factor. In context smoking is also estimated to lower mortality by 14 years.

cpursley 8y ago

There's also the male suicide rate, which is a multiple of the female rate.

fedups 8y ago

I've read that bringing male mortality rates down to that of females would have about the same impact on mortality rates as curing cancer would.

ArrayList 8y ago

But breast cancer! (note: I've never once seen a bumper sticker for prostate cancer ...)

gknoy 8y ago
For most of us males, prostate cancer is something we will eventually get, but is unlikely to kill us. Breast cancer seems a lot more dangerous. I of course worry about it, but it doesn't seem nearly as dangerous as breast cancer.
- belorn 8y ago
  Using Swedish numbers of 2016: Male deaths from prostate cancer was 88 per 100,000 men. Female deaths from Breast cancer was 47 per 100,000 women. When you say that breast cancer seems a lot more dangerous, could you elaborate that a bit?
  - dagw 8y ago
    You also have to factor in the age at which people die from the different cancers. Deaths from breast cancer tend to skew a lot younger (dying from prostate cancer before you're 50 for example is less common than dying from breast cancer before you're 30). So if you instead look at 'lost' life years due to cancer (compared to the life expectancy), the picture changes dramatically. The number of women who die before 60 from breast cancer is roughly 10 times that of men who die before 60 from prostate cancer (UK numbers).
    - belorn 8y ago
      That is one way to look at it, through I will say there is more context. Treatment increases the short time risk of death, but reduces mortality in the long run. Prostate cancer screening is not done for men below the age of 50 because the risk of over treatment is deemed to be too costly, which in comparison to breast cancer means that prostate cancer is allowed to grow unchecked for longer compared to breast cancer. When I see researchers mentioning the decision to not do prostate cancer screening they often acknowledge that this pushes up the age group where the disease kills the patient. But to go back a bit, the issue that was brought up was the disparity in male vs female cancer incidence and mortality. Prostate cancer has higher incident rate in Sweden compared to breast cancer, and higher mortality rate. Because of the higher incidence rate and years that patients will suffering from it we can also see it has having higher debilitating effect. While there is some validity in counting "lost life years" I do not think it validates the claim that it dictate which disease is more dangerous. Breast cancer has higher "lost life years". Prostate cancer has higher rate of incidents, mortality, and "life debilitating years".