Some Cancers are more “fashionable” than others

[Mittens67]

Society consistently appalls me but one of the most depressing things I have come across is how some cancers receive more media coverage than others and so get more donations and better charitable funding. For all I know this also affects nhs funding too because the wealthier charities can afford lobbyists to drive political decisions and policy.
Even the bloody coloured ribbons are divisive. Breast cancer gets pretty pink whilst melanoma gets dull black for christs sake. Who wants to wear black to promote cancer?
Pancreatic cancer which is very challenging to treat gets very little coverage compared to breast cancer or testicular cancer. Are balls and boobs more promotable because both are important to men and as we all know what matters to men is still what drives the world.
Cancer is shite and any help is of course welcome but this popularity contest disgusts me.

Agreed my dad as a non smoker had a type of lung cancer and I now don’t say what type of big c got him in the end as people hear lung and think oh you deserved it as a smoker!!! Except he wasn’t a smoker

Certainly there’s a lot more funding for research and awareness of certain cancers like breast cancer. It can definitely have an impact on prognosis.

I think pancreatic cancer does get a lot of exposure- maybe that’s because my family push its research a lot within our circle as we have lost two family members to it and haven’t experienced any other cancers.

Isn't it more to do with what's common than being 'fashionable'. Breast cancer is one of the most common types of cancer. Most people will know someone who has been impacted by it. As we humans are essentially quite selfish then we're more likely to give to charities that have some sort of link to our own experiences.
I see a lot about bowel cancer and that's presumably because it is also one of the most common cancers.

I agree with you OP. DF has been diagnosed with prostate cancer for nearly a decade now. It's got a popular charity on its side which footballers support and as a result Dad has been involved in some research programmes and drug trials which have definitely benefited him.

If it turned out to be true that the greater promotional activity in relation to some cancers included lobbying activities that skewed NHS funding, then I would agree with your post.
But leaving that possibility aside I'm not sure there is any benefit to having a 'fashionable' cancer that is often presented in adverts, TV shows, etc. I find all the messaging around these promotional things really distasteful, horrible. It often seems that cancer is just being exploited as a bit of branding for the companies that support these campaigns, or as cheap and easy content for TV and media.
The messaging is so smug, facile, eg "let's beat cancer", which almost personifies it and pressures patients to have a certain 'fighting' attitude towards it.
It isn't just 'unfashionable cancers' that are overshadowed by all this self-interested performative bollocks in the media and adverts. It is ALL of the other illnesses that aren't cancer. Does that really harm anyone? Assuming that it doesn't affect funding, then, no. I'd rather deal with illness outside of this moronic glitter stream.

Prostate, breast and bowel are cancers that can be successfully treated if caught early. People survive them and then go on to raise awareness. Unfortunately pancreatic cancer does not have a good survival rate, so this doesn’t happen.

I agree about research etc, it should be equal, but some cancers are easier to treat. Probably because more research has been done. They are also the more common cancers, so this may be why.

I had a 'popular' cancer!
Three years NED!

So grateful for our amazing scientists and NHS.

Only approx 2% of cancer research funding is allocated to childhood cancers. It’s disgusting.

And then of course there's all the other diseases that aren't cancer but can still be fatal/life-threatening/life-changing. They tend to get less attention than cancer.

There's a very easy positive useful message for breast and testicular cancer. "Check for lumps, then if you find it early it can be treated". Similarly for skin cancers, which includes melanomas, there's clear prevention and detection advice you can get out there. Bowel cancer has a well-advertised screening programme and a well known first symptom to trigger investigation.

What are they going to usefully say about pancreatic cancer? Apart from "don't smoke, drink to excess or be obese" which I'm pretty sure we know already. There's very little that awareness can achieve: it's all about research.

Agree that the knock on effects of greater fundraising are significant. I was investigated for suspected ovarian cancer in 2018. Thankfully I did not have it, but the diagnostic process took more than 3 months from the initial call from the GP with concerning test results and 2 week referral. There were many appointments for Investigations and imaging. The uncertainty was massively stressful, as was the thought of cancer going untreated for that long.

By contrast when I had a lump in my breast and was referred to the breast clinic under a 2 week referral, all of the diagnostics were done in a single (long) appointment under one roof - bloods, two lots of imaging and a consultant examination with all results accessible on the day. I was told it was a benign cyst which was then drained by an advanced nurse practitioner, and I was back home for my lunch.

I was very glad to have the latter experience, but it made me reflect that this is how things could have been with the former.

I’m a scientist working in this field. It is true that more money is raised for some cancers than others, historically breast and now perhaps bowel. But the money isn’t ring fenced just for research into those cancers, but can go into treatments that help multiple types. Eg cancer research uk have a funding priority now that defines glioblastoma, pancreatic, some types of lung cancer as higher priority for scientists. I think this is a good thing.

This is absolutely true. There are clear early warnings signs with some cancers and others - like childhood brain cancers - there just aren’t. So public information campaigns I guess focus on things the public can do

Absolutely true about life limiting disease that’s not cancer. Caring for people in the last year of life it’s easy to access charity support (financial) for people with cancer. The help is not there for conditions such as COPD and organ failure.

Why do you think this is disgusting? 84% of children with childhood cancers survive for over 5 years.

Funding and awareness campaigns are concentrated on cancers which are treatable if discovered early.

Even some forms of pancreatic cancer can be survivable if discovered early enough. Sadly that is rarely the case and it can be devastatingly quick from diagnosis to death.

If you are diagnosed with one of these cancers you won’t give a sh*t how fashionable it is honestly. My dm has just been through breast cancer and it was absolutely horrendous for her.

Agreed my dad as a non smoker had a type of lung cancer and I now don’t say what type of big c got him in the end as people hear lung and think oh you deserved it as a smoker!!! Except he wasn’t a smoker

What I find quite worrying is that there seems to be a stronger narrative now that all cancer is an impact of lifestyle. I’ve seen it very often on here and definitely amongst younger people. Obviously being healthy is good but being healthy doesn’t mean you won’t get cancer.

Is is just a simpke case that the ‘trendy’ cancers have better marketing machines behind them?

Yes. It's devastating caring for a loved one who has a serious condition but not a cancer. Not that you want them to have cancer but it feels like there's a strange instinctive "hierarchy" in people's minds

My friend has horrible crippling arthritis. She's only in her early thirties. She can't work full time, has given up all her hobbies she loved so much.. takes horrible medication with unpleasant and dangerous side effects

Yet a group of her oldest friends berated her for not joining in with their "fun run" for another friend with breast cancer. They showered the friend with breast cancer with gifts and attention. That friend is now better and reached the 5 years. My friend has been very unwell for over a decade but is just seen by them as "whining". These are her oldest school friends. She doesn't want the gits and fuss (although I doubt she would complain) but as a minimum she would like to be able to talk about the dark days and medication side effects without being seen as a winger.

One of the historical reasons for pushing messaging around "intimate" cancers like breast, prostate and testicular is people would not check or get checked through shame or ignorance. People were literally dying of shame. My great grandmother died of breast cancer because she was too ashamed to show the male doctor her breasts.

There has also been a correction in the way we see and talk about cancer. Not too long ago cancer was seen as something so awful and shameful it simply wasn't talked about in public. My grandmother told me that sometimes patients weren't even told they had cancer as it was seen as kinder.

I think the same applies to bowel cancer too in a way - who wants to talk about their poo and they're bleeding from the bottom? It's not like you can bring it up round the dinner table is it!

That's so sad about your great grandmother. I suspect a lot of cancers are missed because people are embarrassed.

I don't think it's anything to do with 'fashion'. Some cancers get more press because they are more common- there are more awareness campaigns around them because we are more likely to develop them, and because they are more treatable famous people survive and then talk about them in the press.

Would that not be because children are mainly afflicted with head and neck cancers, for which existing treatment options (chemo, radio, etc) have limited efficacy because of the blood/brain barrier?