Also I would like to note that prostate cancer exist in the same amounts as breast cancer, and has much less research funding...
And there are some nasty politics related to that, including prostate cancer researchers being labelled "misogynists" or "patriarchalists" just because they called our that breast cancer has more funding.
It's a little more nuanced than that. 1.47% of women aged 40 will develop breast cancer within ten years, but only 0.34% of men aged 40 will develop prostate cancer over a similar time period (according to the CDC risk statistics).
0.01% of 30 year old men will develop prostate cancer within ten years, as opposed to 0.44% for women/breast cancer. That's a huge difference.
One of the reasons there is more funding for breast cancer is that it often manifests itself earlier, meaning the benefits of treating it in terms of years saved is much greater.
Lots of men die of old age with prostate cancer, not because of it. Breast cancer is a far deadlier disease, one that strikes more young people, women and men (rate of incidence about 1% that of women).
Prostate cancer is dramatically less virulent, isn't it? To the point where the medical community is starting to say early screening can be a negative thing, because loads of folks get surgery for cancer that never would've killed them?
And there are some nasty politics related to that, including prostate cancer researchers being labelled "misogynists" or "patriarchalists" just because they called our that breast cancer has more funding.