This really shouldn't be seen in terms of a male/female opposition.
Treatment of breast cancer has been so successful because it is easier to find a way of treating it. Surgery can remove the cancer entirely and if you then zap the breast with radiotherapy and chemotherapy there's a very good chance of recovery. You also have a screening programme that makes it easier to find the cancer at an earlier stage.
Lots of other cancers have a much worse prognosis, for various reasons. Ovarian, lung and pancreatic cancer, for example, all have a poor prognosis because symptoms don't become obvious till they're far advanced. And then you can't just surgically remove a lung or the pancreas in the way you can remove a breast.
Brain tumours can be very hard to treat for obvious reasons.
You can have screening for prostate cancer, but it's problematic because a lot of prostate cancers are so slow growing that you end up treating people needlessly - there's a saying that many people die "with" prostate cancer rather than "of it".
And, yes, relatively speaking, prostate cancer is a disease of old age. You hear of women in their 30s or 40s developing cancer reasonably often, but rarely hear of a man developing prostate cancer at that age.
With all these things, decisions have to be made about the best approach. About 90% of lung cancers are caused by smoking. Is it better to spend money on stopping people from smoking, or on finding ways to treat lung cancer?