Prostate cancer data update: numbers and sources


Data from the NHS in England shows that 50,751 men were diagnosed with prostate cancer in England in 2022, compared to 48,531 breast cancer diagnoses in the same year. The following year (2023), 55,033 men got a prostate cancer diagnosis, while there were 47,526 breast cancer cases. The UK’s leading men’s health charity also reveals today that prostate cancer cases shot up by a quarter (25%) between 2019 and 2023. Prostate cancer was impacted by the pandemic more than any other cancer. Because people were less likely to visit their GP at the height of the pandemic, more than 14,000 men who should have been diagnosed and referred for treatment were missing from the health system.
The rise of prostate cancer in the UK from April 2020 to October 2024 

As a public health issue, prostate cancer (PCa), is now comparable in scale to breast cancer (BCa). By some key numerical measures PCa has now overtaken BCa, for example in terms of UK deaths, recent UK diagnoses, and projected US new cases.

I'm not pointing this out to diminish breast cancer, but to put prostate cancer in perspective. In most countries, PCa has become a major national cancer problem warranting a focus on screening, detection, treatment, patient and partner support, and research into cure and prvention.

You can see the dramatic rise in the number of prostate cancer patients being treated in the UK since 2000 in chart at the top of this post. This is from the UK publication Urology News. (Sources for the statistics in this article are listed in the final section: Prostate Cancer Data Sources).

Prostate Cancer (PCa) in the US

The American Cancer Society has projected 333,830 new prostate cancer cases in 2026, making it the single largest named cancer category in its table of estimated new cancers. That is slightly higher than 324,580 breast cancer cases when female and male breast cancer are counted together. 

It's important to note that in terms of projected deaths, breast cancer (BCa), remains higher in the US: (42,670 versus 36,320 deaths in 2026). An accurate statement of the situation would be: prostate cancer is now numerically bigger in the US than breast cancer in terms of projected new diagnoses, but not deaths.

To put the scale of PCa in context we can look at population rates. The US National Cancer Institute’s SEER data put prostate cancer at 123.2 new cases per 100,000 men per year, with a death rate of 18.9 per 100,000 men, based on recent incidence and mortality periods. Female breast cancer is still slightly higher at 132.5 new cases per 100,000 women, with the same reported death rate of 18.9 per 100,000 women. 

The UK PCa picture

In the UK, the organization Cancer Research UK projects 57,900 new prostate cancer cases per year, or roughly 160 diagnoses a day, using 2019 and 2021–2022 data. Prostate cancer accounts for 14% of all new UK cancer cases and is the most common cancer in men, representing 28% of new male cancer cases. 

The UK incidence of PCa has risen sharply over the longer term: CRUK reports that incidence rates in males have increased by 54% since the early 1990s, and are projected to rise a further 14% between 2024–2026 and 2038–2040, reaching about 85,100 new cases a year by 2038–2040.

The UK breast cancer comparison is striking but slightly time-sensitive. CRUK’s consolidated figures still list breast cancer at about 59,400 new cases per year, just above the prostate figure in that dataset. But Prostate Cancer UK, citing the latest NHS figures, reported in January 2026 that UK prostate cancer diagnoses rose from just under 52,000 in 2021 to more than 64,000 in 2022, a 24% increase, making prostate cancer more commonly diagnosed than breast cancer.

On mortality, the UK comparison is already clearer. CRUK reports around 12,300 prostate cancer deaths per year, compared with around 11,200 breast cancer deaths. Prostate cancer is the third most common cause of cancer death in the UK overall and the second most common cause of cancer death in men. Breast cancer remains the second most common cause of cancer death in women, but numerically, prostate cancer now causes slightly more UK deaths each year.

Beyond the numbers



Prostate Cancer Data Sources

The numbers cited above come from the general and specific sources listed and linked below. These were found using a chatbot (GPT-5.5 Thinking). I have not checked all of them yet — did I mention that I'm undergoing cancer treatment that makes me tired? I suggest care and caution if using these references in your own work or sharing them with others who might not include similar disclaimers. 

Thank you for your patience, new look and feel is now live


💥 Founded in 2005, Cobb's Blog has been through many changes over the years. The old look and feel was not fit for phone viewing and needed an update. The new layout is easier to navigate on all screens 😃 

On laptops the design accommodates more items in the side menu, while presenting them in a handy burger menu on phones. A new addition is the Prostate Cancer page. Warning: graphic content 😳

If you think the colour palette is a bit weird that might be because I am colourblind 😬 I like the way it looks but let me know if it hurts your eyes, or you find any problems — Stephen

Prostate Cancer Diary: Day 115 — Therac 25 and a thankfully minor glitch in my radiotherapy


[Note to readers: I am not posting prostate cancer (PCa) diary entries every day. To be honest, I can't keep up. The hormone therapy (ADT) that I started three and a half months ago has slowed me down, as has the radiotherapy (RT) which I started on the first of July. I've been warned that the effects of RT build toward the end of the sessions and even beyond, before tapering off. Thankfully my last session is July 28. Hoping to pick up the pace mid-August. In the meantime, I will post what I can, when I can.]

July 24. 2026

This morning, I was off to a flying start at the Arden Cancer Centre. Arrived early for my 9:15 appointment thanks to light traffic. Was called in at 9:13. Bladder scan was positive and I was ushered into theatre right away. The team was in good mood, joking with M, one of the TRs I haven't met before. Apparently, she had "saved the day" the day before when a late start due to routine system checks backed up appointments pretty badly. (News that made me even more grateful that they had squeezed me in early yesterday.)

I hopped up on the scanning table, pulled my pants down, and they quickly placed the modesty wrapper in place. Then it was just a few minutes before the targeting scan was happening. Whir, whir, as the massive VersaHD head unit rotated, imaging my innards in great detail, then:

Click! The machine froze and started going beep, beep, beep...

Naturally, my first thought was: Therac-25! Quickly followed by: "Don't worry, the photon beam is not on, there's no radiation happening, this is just the targeting run." Also: "Surely they can hear this beeping."

Turns out, they could hear the beeping, and they spent several minutes trying various measures to clear the error that was causing it before coming into the room. They assured me it was nothing to worry and an engineer was on his way. They also started checking the equipment to find a way to silence the beeps. Eventually, the beeps stopped and the engineer arrived. 

The decision was made to proceed with my session on a different, identical VersaHD machine, and the bed was lowered. I pulled up my pants and was helped down. As I was putting on my shoes to walk to the other machine, I said something like:

1980s radiotherapy machine, the Therac-25
(Original source: untraceable)

"At least it's not a Therac-25." 

To which several of the team responded, "What's that?"

But to my delight, the engineer launched into a very good summary of the Therac-25 incident.

This was a series of six massive radiation overexposure accidents involving a computer-controlled radiation therapy machine called the Therac-25, between 1985 and 1987, driven by race conditions, poor software design, and removed hardware safety interlocks. These software faults caused patients to receive up to 250 times the intended radiation dose, resulting in severe burns and multiple deaths. (Wikipedia).

Fortunately, when the details of these horrific incidents came to light, the entire medical technology world took notice, and the Therac-25 was subjected to intense scrutiny. A range of problems was identified:

  • a race condition in the software that allowed the high-power beam to fire without the beam-spreader plate in place, 
  • an overconfidence in software safety that led engineers to remove hardware interlocks present in earlier models, 
  • poor error reporting that displayed cryptic codes like "Malfunction 54" instead of clear warnings, 
  • and a culture at the manufacturer, AECL, that was slow to investigate and acknowledge the reports of injury.

The fallout reshaped how the industry thinks about safety-critical software. Nancy Leveson and Clarence Turner's 1993 investigation became a foundational case study, still taught in software engineering and systems safety courses today. It clarified the dangers of relying too heavily on software alone to enforce safety without independent hardware checks.

More concretely, the incidents contributed to tighter US FDA oversight of software in medical devices, spurring the development of formal standards such as IEC 62304 for medical device software lifecycle processes and IEC 60601 for electrical safety. 

The Therac-25 failures also pushed the field toward practices like formal hazard analysis, independent redundant safety mechanisms, and rigorous change-control procedures for software updates, recognizing that a single software fix, applied without full re-verification, can introduce new failure modes just as dangerous as the ones it was meant to fix.

And that is why I was not too alarmed by today's glitch in the VersaHD that has been photon-beaming me. Although the hardware and software employed in prostate cancer radiotherapy today are orders of magnitude more complex than those of 40 years ago, I am confident they are far safer as well.