Male specific cancer free screening

Gerrup Outta Dat! · 10-11-2017 11:21PM #1

Is there anywhere I can get my prostate checked or testicles checked for free as a man?

There’s plenty of freee breast and cervical checks which is great but is there any free testicle and prostate checks provided by the government?

Why isn’t the HPV vaccine offered to boys when it can cause throat and penile cancer in boys and men?

Victor · 10-11-2017 11:43PM

Gerrup Outta Dat! wrote: »

Is there anywhere I can get my prostate checked or testicles checked for free as a man?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qzpe-hSyaM

There’s plenty of freee breast and cervical checks which is great but is there any free testicle and prostate checks provided by the government?

Only about 5% of breast cancer cases are in men. Cervical cancer is, to my knowledge, unheard of in men.

I imagine prostrate checks are carried out in many GP offices and Genito Urinary Medicine (GUM) departments at hospitals, paid for however the person normally accesses their healthcare.

Why isn’t the HPV vaccine offered to boys when it can cause throat and penile cancer in boys and men?

The plan is that it would be expanded, yes.

Gerrup Outta Dat! · 10-11-2017 11:45PM

Victor wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qzpe-hSyaM

Only about 5% of breast cancer cases are in men. Cervical cancer is, to my knowledge, unheard of in men.

I imagine prostrate checks are carried out in many GP offices and Genito Urinary Medicine (GUM) departments at hospitals, paid for however the person normally accesses their healthcare.
The plan is that it would be expanded, yes.

If you bothered to read my post.

Breast and cervical screening is free that’s great.

Why should I have to pay when women can get their specific screening for free?

maudgonner · 10-11-2017 11:55PM

I dunno about testicular cancer checks, but as for prostate:

The Board of the NSS undertook a review of currently available evidence in relation to the potential effectiveness of introducing a national, population based prostate cancer screening programme. Current evidence is insufficient to recommend a population based screening programme because of concerns that it may not improve survival or quality of life and may ultimately cause more harm than good. The Board will continue to assess new evidence as it becomes available.

http://www.screeningservice.ie/developments.html

11-11-2017 12:00AM

Don’t know really.

I don’t see why the HPV vacinne isn’t offered to boys. It should be.

Free Breast checks are only between the ages of 50 and 65. Outside of those ages you are supposed to do self checks. As you would also be recommend to do for testicular cancer. With cervical cancel you can’t exactly do a self check as samples must be sent away.

_Brian · 11-11-2017 12:04AM

It’s all down to the numbers.

The frequency of Brest cancers is way higher and so a public screening will have a noticeable reduction in the actual numbers of deaths.

The frequency of prostate or testicular cancers is lower and so the reduction in deaths as a result wouldn’t be sufficient to warrant the spend.

Also any gp can do prostate screening.

It’s about ROI from a public health perspective. More lives are saved by brest screening than if prostate or testicular screening were introduced. It’s not about gender equality, it’s about science and scientific results, and results for money spent.

If it weren’t about results for money spent them we would screen everyone for everything possible, but that’s just not justified spend of public money.

_Dara_ · 11-11-2017 12:08AM

And even breast screening hasn’t reduced deaths. 40,000 women died of breast cancer yearly in the US twenty years ago and that number hasn’t budged since. The population has increased a bit of course but that represents a very small decrease in the death rate. We need cures, not early detection (since nobody can know for sure that they are cured and cancer can recur even 20 years later) but that is a long way off unfortunately. And screening carries its own risks.

gctest50 · 11-11-2017 12:08AM

Gerrup Outta Dat! wrote: »

Is there anywhere I can get my prostate checked or testicles checked for free as a man?

There’s plenty of freee breast and cervical checks which is great but is there any free testicle and prostate checks provided by the government?

Why isn’t the HPV vaccine offered to boys when it can cause throat and penile cancer in boys and men?

not get yer tax bill no ?

_Brian · 11-11-2017 12:10AM

_Dara_ wrote: »

And even breast screening hasn’t reduced deaths. 40,000 women died of breast cancer yearly in the US twenty years ago and that number hasn’t budged since. The population has increased a bit of course but that represents a very decrease in the death rate. We need cures, not early detection (since nobody can know for sure that they are cured and cancer can recur even 20 years later) but that is a long way off unfortunately. And screening carries its own risks.

What risk does screening present.

Or
Is that a case of “ I’m not going to tue hospital, they’ll just find something wrong with me”

_Dara_ · 11-11-2017 12:26AM

_Brian wrote: »

What risk does screening present.

Or
Is that a case of “ I’m not going to tue hospital, they’ll just find something wrong with me”

Mammograms are x-rays, biopsies are invasive, CT scans also involve x-ray. For example, if you introduced screening for male breast cancer, you’d probably cause more deaths than you'd save as so few men die from it (10 or so per year in Ireland). Not everyone in cancer research and the medical profession are happy with the level of breast screening for various reasons. In fact, in some countries, tentative advice is being given that every two years is fine for mammography. And many indolent cancers are being picked up that never would have killed. The treatment is pretty horrific for something that wouldn’t have killed AND the survival stats are skewed by these folks. Which then comes as a surprise to the early stage patient who thought her cancer was cured (because, like, NOBODY dies of breast cancer if it’s detected early, right?) but turns out she’s now metastatic.

It’s an interesting topic. But the early screening = 100% cure thinking is very flawed.

gctest50 · 11-11-2017 12:30AM

_Brian wrote: »

What risk does screening present. ........

because you might get treated for it even if it's minor

To reduce the harms of screening, a routine screening interval of two years or more may be preferred over annual screening in those men who have participated in shared decision-making and decided on screening. As compared to annual screening, it is expected that screening intervals of two years preserve the majority of the benefits and reduce over diagnosis and false positives.

Water John · 11-11-2017 12:39AM

PSA test is not that accurate. Need to have physical examination by a medical doctor also.

Tenigate · 11-11-2017 12:44AM

Nothing is "free". Someone is paying for those female screenings.

Go to your go and get your tests done.

I'm not sure exactly why male taxpayers should be required to contribute but there ya go.

_Dara_ · 11-11-2017 12:44AM

Water John wrote: »

PSA test is not that accurate. Need to have physical examination by a medical doctor also.

Yeah, can give false positives. And in older men, prostate cancer often won’t kill, much like indolent breast cancers. And the treatments for prostate cancer can cause horrible complications.

I understand why people cling to cancer screening - for most cancers, it’s all we’ve got - but definitive cures would be so much better.

Water John · 11-11-2017 12:55AM

Its the underdedection that would be more worrying. Physical change is more accurate.

Victor · 11-11-2017 12:55AM

_Dara_ wrote: »

And even breast screening hasn’t reduced deaths. 40,000 women died of breast cancer yearly in the US twenty years ago and that number hasn’t budged since. The population has increased a bit of course but that represents a very small decrease in the death rate. We need cures, not early detection (since nobody can know for sure that they are cured and cancer can recur even 20 years later) but that is a long way off unfortunately. And screening carries its own risks.

Actually, if you look at the population size of 40-70 year ond women, prime cancer candidates, that population has increase by about 50% in the 1997-2010 period. Population up, deaths about the same, suggests you are wrong.

11-11-2017 01:00AM

Regardless of whether there should be free screenings, what should also be addressed is an almost complete lack of awareness about male-specific cancers. It isn't talked about anywhere near as much as female-specific cancers are.

I can only think of one instance of it being mentioned in any sort of display setting - and that's in Galway by the Marie Keating Foundation, which had stories up from survivors.

_Dara_ · 11-11-2017 01:10AM

Water John wrote: »

Its the underdedection that would be more worrying. Physical change is more accurate.

I don’t know about prostate cancer, but overdiagnosis is a problem in BC, both subjecting women to harsh treatment who don’t need it, and masking the recurrence rates for women with invasive BC, painting a rosier picture of survival odds than is actually the case.

_Dara_ · 11-11-2017 02:20AM

Victor wrote: »

Actually, if you look at the population size of 40-70 year ond women, prime cancer candidates, that population has increase by about 50% in the 1997-2010 period. Population up, deaths about the same, suggests you are wrong.

I’ve worked this out before. If you took the 1996 US breast cancer death rate and assumed it was the same now and inputted that rate against the current population, it would work out as 48,000 deaths. We’re currently at around 40,000 deaths a year. That’s 40,000 dying of, not with it. Considering how much money is raised for breast cancer charities, the screening initiatives undertaken and the widespread perception that it’s now a curable disease, that’s not a great improvement, is it?

There is also the issue that the older you are at diagnosis, the less time there is for the cancer to recur. So if the population is aging and therefore, the age of diagnosis is creeping up, a lot of women may die of something else before their breast cancer has a chance to come back and metastasise. That would be another factor in the death rate dropping by a small amount. It doesn't necessarily represent a great improvement in treatments for primary cancer. The under 50s - and a not insignificant percentage are diagnosed at younger than this age - have much more time left for the cancer to make a reappearance. I’ve no idea why you’d exclude under 40s, who I believe make up something like 15% of cases and for whom the prognosis is often much worse due to more aggressive cancers and diagnosis at later stages. It's not comforting for younger women that older women are dying before a recurrence can occur.

It's estimated than between 20-30% of early breast cancers will metastasise and that's in addition to the people who are metastatic at diagnosis. All of these women will die of their cancer. Well, a small percentage will die of something else but for most, the terminal cancer they now have will kill them.

Breast cancer is a great case study for why screening is flawed and should only be seen as a temporary measure in lieu of a cure. For all cancers.

eyerer · 11-11-2017 02:30AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Regardless of whether there should be free screenings, what should also be addressed is an almost complete lack of awareness about male-specific cancers. It isn't talked about anywhere near as much as female-specific cancers are.

I can only think of one instance of it being mentioned in any sort of display setting - and that's in Galway by the Marie Keating Foundation, which had stories up from survivors.

Agree with that. Noone cares about male specific cancer..

_Dara_ · 11-11-2017 02:48AM

eyerer wrote: »

Agree with that. Noone cares about male specific cancer..

Movember? It's a start at least. The numbers participating have been decreasing year on year but I think that's because fundraising initiatives need to be constantly evolving.

Tenigate · 11-11-2017 02:59AM

_Dara_ wrote: »

Movember? It's a start at least. The numbers participating have been decreasing year on year but I think that's because fundraising initiatives need to be constantly evolving.

Nah, it's because ppl are well and truly fed up of the number of charities raising money to "raise awareness"

_Dara_ · 11-11-2017 03:22AM

Tenigate wrote: »

Nah, it's because ppl are well and truly fed up of the number of charities raising money to "raise awareness"

Well, I agree and a lot of that is down to the very OTT breast cancer awareness machine. Pink everything for one month every year. We honestly need to rethink cancer fundraising so that it's more equitable and so that much more money goes towards research and supporting cancer patients. Awareness isn't cure.

Victor · 11-11-2017 03:48AM

_Dara_ wrote: »

Well, I agree and a lot of that is down to the very OTT breast cancer awareness machine. Pink everything for one month every year. We honestly need to rethink cancer fundraising so that it's more equitable and so that much more money goes towards research and supporting cancer patients. Awareness isn't cure.

Well awareness and education could help in prevention through changing lifestyles, but that involves effort and doesn't involve half as many cute ducklings and fluffy kittens.

_Dara_ · 11-11-2017 04:17AM

Victor wrote: »

Well awareness and education could help in prevention through changing lifestyles, but that involves effort and doesn't involve half as many cute ducklings and fluffy kittens.

Even lifestyle is troublesome to hone in on. A recent large study at John Hopkins found that random genetic errors are the cause of most cancers. That makes sense because cancer incidence increases with age (for most cancers) and it makes sense that the aging body is more error prone in its cell-replication.

Sure, there are a handful of cancers where lifestyle choices are a big factor, the biggy being lung cancer. But even in lung cancer, 15% of cases are non-smokers.

Amongst young people, many who diagnosed are fit and healthy. I am one. And I am part of support groups filled with young and middle-aged people. Marathon runners, yoga enthusiasts etc. I was 28 and of a healthy weight when first I detected what was later diagnosed as cancer. I'd had my wayward partying college years but they were long since behind me. I probably liked chocolate too much but my meals were healthy and I cycled everywhere. There is no genetic link. I've been tested. I would love to know what I realistically did to bring this on myself.

And many research oncologists support the view that too much weight is put on personal lifestyle choices. It's not viewed to be as big a factor as was once thought. And many of the lifestyle factors only ever slightly elevated risk.

Wider environmental issues might factor in more, where certain regions experience higher incidences of certain cancers.

I inwardly sigh when I hear people talk about their healthy lifestyles, cocksure that that will 100% safeguard them against cancer or other illnesses. I was once like that. And the insidious part of that is the attendant if unspoken assumption that anyone who gets cancer brought it on themselves. As if we don't have enough to contend with.

Outlaw Pete · 11-11-2017 04:38AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Regardless of whether there should be free screenings, what should also be addressed is an almost complete lack of awareness about male-specific cancers. It isn't talked about anywhere near as much as female-specific cancers are.

One of the main reasons for that is that men really don't have advocacy groups anywhere near as mobilized as women do and lobby groups get a hell of a lot done.

Here's one page from an NWCI manifesto for example:

_Dara_ · 11-11-2017 04:45AM

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

One of the main reasons for that is that men really don't have advocacy groups anywhere near as mobilized as women do and lobby groups get a hell of a lot done.

But what is bolstering it is that the movement got to a level where companies cynically started to hop on board. Companies use breast cancer awareness month to boost their own profit margins whilst donating pitifully small amount to the cause. There is so much to be gained commercially from it now that it won't be changing anytime soon.

DEFTLEFTHAND · 11-11-2017 07:18AM

My grandad was a cattle dealer. A rural 'mans man' type.

He was diagnosed with final stage lung cancer 3 weeks before he died. The doctor told us afterwards that he would have known that something was wrong for about a year.

The stuborn old proud clown refused to acknowledge that he'd anything more wrong than a cold. He hated docs and hospitals.

It's an old school culchie man thing. They'd rather die than go to a doctor.

notsoyoungwan · 11-11-2017 08:48AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Regardless of whether there should be free screenings, what should also be addressed is an almost complete lack of awareness about male-specific cancers. It isn't talked about anywhere near as much as female-specific cancers are.

I can only think of one instance of it being mentioned in any sort of display setting - and that's in Galway by the Marie Keating Foundation, which had stories up from survivors.

Wasn't there an awareness campaign about prostate cancer with Micheal O Muircheartaigh and others, run by the Irish Cancer Society? Probably a few years ago now. And IIRC Gay Byrne and a retired newsreader (Michael Murphy?) did a lot of publicity about their diagnosis and treatment.

_Dara_ · 11-11-2017 12:02PM

To be honest it’s not even really that women’s cancers are more publicised. Even within women’s cancers, there are divisions. I don’t think sufferers of ovarian and uterine cancer would agree that their disease gets a disproportionate amount of attention.

And even if you have breast cancer, if it’s not early stage, you’ll be marginalised because you’re suffering from the fatal form.

It’s all a bit fucked.

As I heard someone dryly comment once upon a time, you’ll never see a campaign for anal cancer awareness.

Gerrup Outta Dat! · 11-11-2017 12:06PM

Why is the hpv vaccine not offered to boys? It can prevent anal, penile and throat cancers.

Are the NWCI behind the refusal of giving it to boys?

Male specific cancer free screening

Comments