This statistic shows the number of registrations of newly diagnosed cases of prostate cancer in England in 2022, by age group. Over **** thousand new cases were reported among men aged 70 to 74 years of age in this year.

Prostate cancer incidence rates in the United States vary significantly across racial and ethnic groups, with Non-Hispanic Black men facing the highest risk. According to recent data, Non-Hispanic Black males have an incidence rate of 194.8 per 100,000 population, which is substantially higher than the overall rate of 120.2 per 100,000. This stark disparity highlights the importance of targeted screening and prevention efforts to address this health inequality. Incidence and mortality trends The burden of prostate cancer in the U.S. has grown in recent years. In 2025, approximately 313,780 men were projected to be diagnosed with prostate cancer, representing a significant increase from previous years. Despite this rising incidence, mortality rates have shown improvement. In 2022, the prostate cancer death rate was 18.7 per 100,000 men, compared to a rate of almost 39 per 100,000 in the year 1990. This decrease reflects advancements in treatment and early detection. Risk factors and survival rates Age remains a critical risk factor for prostate cancer, with men aged 65 to 84 having a 10.6 percent chance of developing the disease. However, there is encouraging news regarding survival rates. From 2014 to 2020, the five-year relative survival rate for prostate cancer patients in the U.S. was an impressive 97 percent. This high survival rate underscores the importance of early detection and the effectiveness of current treatment options.

To investigate the global incidence of prostate cancer with special attention to the changing age structures. Data regarding the cancer incidence and population statistics were retrieved from the International Agency for Research on Cancer in World Health Organization. Eight developing and developed jurisdictions in Asia and the Western countries were selected for global comparison. Time series were constructed based on the cancer incidence rates from 1988 to 2007. The incidence rate of the population aged ≥ 65 was adjusted by the increasing proportion of elderly population, and was defined as the “aging-adjusted incidence rate”. Cancer incidence and population were then projected to 2030. The aging-adjusted incidence rates of prostate cancer in Asia (Hong Kong, Japan and China) and the developing Western countries (Costa Rica and Croatia) had increased progressively with time. In the developed Western countries (the United States, the United Kingdom and Sweden), we observed initial increases in the aging-adjusted incidence rates of prostate cancer, which then gradually plateaued and even decreased with time. Projections showed that the aging-adjusted incidence rates of prostate cancer in Asia and the developing Western countries were expected to increase in much larger extents than the developed Western countries.

This dataset contains Cancer Incidence data for Prostate Cancer(All Stages^) including: Age-Adjusted Rate, Confidence Interval, Average Annual Count, and Trend field information for US States for the average 5 year span from 2016 to 2020.Data are for males segmented age (All Ages, Ages Under 50, Ages 50 & Over, Ages Under 65, and Ages 65 & Over), with field names and aliases describing the sex and age group tabulated.For more information, visit statecancerprofiles.cancer.govData NotationsState Cancer Registries may provide more current or more local data.TrendRising when 95% confidence interval of average annual percent change is above 0.Stable when 95% confidence interval of average annual percent change includes 0.Falling when 95% confidence interval of average annual percent change is below 0.† Incidence rates (cases per 100,000 population per year) are age-adjusted to the 2000 US standard population (19 age groups: <1, 1-4, 5-9, ... , 80-84, 85+). Rates are for invasive cancer only (except for bladder cancer which is invasive and in situ) or unless otherwise specified. Rates calculated using SEER*Stat. Population counts for denominators are based on Census populations as modified by NCI. The US Population Data File is used for SEER and NPCR incidence rates.‡ Incidence Trend data come from different sources. Due to different years of data availability, most of the trends are AAPCs based on APCs but some are APCs calculated in SEER*Stat. Please refer to the source for each area for additional information.Rates and trends are computed using different standards for malignancy. For more information see malignant.^ All Stages refers to any stage in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) summary stage.Data Source Field Key(1) Source: National Program of Cancer Registries and Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results SEER*Stat Database - United States Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Cancer Institute. Based on the 2022 submission.(5) Source: National Program of Cancer Registries and Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results SEER*Stat Database - United States Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Cancer Institute. Based on the 2022 submission.(6) Source: National Program of Cancer Registries SEER*Stat Database - United States Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (based on the 2022 submission).(7) Source: SEER November 2022 submission.(8) Source: Incidence data provided by the SEER Program. AAPCs are calculated by the Joinpoint Regression Program and are based on APCs. Data are age-adjusted to the 2000 US standard population (19 age groups: <1, 1-4, 5-9, ... , 80-84,85+). Rates are for invasive cancer only (except for bladder cancer which is invasive and in situ) or unless otherwise specified. Population counts for denominators are based on Census populations as modified by NCI. The US Population Data File is used with SEER November 2022 data.Some data are not available, see Data Not Available for combinations of geography, cancer site, age, and race/ethnicity.Data for the United States does not include data from Nevada.Data for the United States does not include Puerto Rico.

Legacy unique identifier: P00624

From 2018 to 2022, around 43 percent of prostate cancer cases in the United States were among men aged 65 to 74 years. During that period, the median age at diagnosis for prostate cancer was 68 years. This statistic shows the distribution of prostate cancer cases in the United States in the period 2018-2022, by age.

Number and percentage of incident cases of prostate cancer and deaths by age group.

In the period 2018-2019, 2021, it was estimated that U.S. men aged 65 to 84 years and older had a **** percent chance of developing prostate cancer. This statistic shows the probability of males in the United States developing prostate cancer in 2018-2019, 2021, by age.

Legacy unique identifier: P00629

For 2023, it was estimated that there would be 3,200 new prostate cancer cases among those aged 50 to 59 years in Canada. This statistic displays the estimated number of new prostate cancer cases in Canada among males by age group in 2023.

BackgroundThe United States Preventive Services Task Force supports individualised decision-making for prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based screening in men aged 55–69. Knowing how the potential benefits and harms of screening vary by an individual’s risk of developing prostate cancer could inform decision-making about screening at both an individual and population level. This modelling study examined the benefit–harm tradeoffs and the cost-effectiveness of a risk-tailored screening programme compared to age-based and no screening.Methods and findingsA life-table model, projecting age-specific prostate cancer incidence and mortality, was developed of a hypothetical cohort of 4.48 million men in England aged 55 to 69 years with follow-up to age 90. Risk thresholds were based on age and polygenic profile. We compared no screening, age-based screening (quadrennial PSA testing from 55 to 69), and risk-tailored screening (men aged 55 to 69 years with a 10-year absolute risk greater than a threshold receive quadrennial PSA testing from the age they reach the risk threshold). The analysis was undertaken from the health service perspective, including direct costs borne by the health system for risk assessment, screening, diagnosis, and treatment. We used probabilistic sensitivity analyses to account for parameter uncertainty and discounted future costs and benefits at 3.5% per year. Our analysis should be considered cautiously in light of limitations related to our model’s cohort-based structure and the uncertainty of input parameters in mathematical models. Compared to no screening over 35 years follow-up, age-based screening prevented the most deaths from prostate cancer (39,272, 95% uncertainty interval [UI]: 16,792–59,685) at the expense of 94,831 (95% UI: 84,827–105,630) overdiagnosed cancers. Age-based screening was the least cost-effective strategy studied. The greatest number of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) was generated by risk-based screening at a 10-year absolute risk threshold of 4%. At this threshold, risk-based screening led to one-third fewer overdiagnosed cancers (64,384, 95% UI: 57,382–72,050) but averted 6.3% fewer (9,695, 95% UI: 2,853–15,851) deaths from prostate cancer by comparison with age-based screening. Relative to no screening, risk-based screening at a 4% 10-year absolute risk threshold was cost-effective in 48.4% and 57.4% of the simulations at willingness-to-pay thresholds of GBP£20,000 (US$26,000) and £30,000 ($39,386) per QALY, respectively. The cost-effectiveness of risk-tailored screening improved as the threshold rose.ConclusionsBased on the results of this modelling study, offering screening to men at higher risk could potentially reduce overdiagnosis and improve the benefit–harm tradeoff and the cost-effectiveness of a prostate cancer screening program. The optimal threshold will depend on societal judgements of the appropriate balance of benefits–harms and cost-effectiveness.

ObjectiveUsing the latest cohort study of prostate cancer patients, explore the epidemiological trend and prognostic factors, and develop a new nomogram to predict the specific survival rate of prostate cancer patients.MethodsPatients with prostate cancer diagnosed from January 1, 1975 to December 31, 2019 in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER) database were extracted by SEER stat software for epidemiological trend analysis. General clinical information and follow-up data were also collected from 105 135 patients with pathologically diagnosed prostate cancer from January 1, 2010 to December 1, 2019. The factors affecting patient-specific survival were analyzed by Cox regression, and the factors with the greatest influence on specific survival were selected by stepwise regression method, and nomogram was constructed. The model was evaluated by calibration plots, ROC curves, Decision Curve Analysis and C-index.ResultsThere was no significant change in the age-adjusted incidence of prostate cancer from 1975 to 2019, with an average annual percentage change (AAPC) of 0.45 (95% CI:-0.87~1.80). Among the tumor grade, the most significant increase in the incidence of G2 prostate cancer was observed, with an AAPC of 2.99 (95% CI:1.47~4.54); the most significant decrease in the incidence of G4 prostate cancer was observed, with an AAPC of -10.39 (95% CI:-13.86~-6.77). Among the different tumor stages, the most significant reduction in the incidence of localized prostate cancer was observed with an AAPC of -1.83 (95% CI:-2.76~-0.90). Among different races, the incidence of prostate cancer was significantly reduced in American Indian or Alaska Native and Asian or Pacific Islander, with an AAPC of -3.40 (95% CI:-3.97~-2.82) and -2.74 (95% CI:-4.14~-1.32), respectively. Among the different age groups, the incidence rate was significantly increased in 15-54 and 55-64 age groups with AAPC of 4.03 (95% CI:2.73~5.34) and 2.50 (95% CI:0.96~4.05), respectively, and significantly decreased in ≥85 age group with AAPC of -2.50 (95% CI:-3.43~-1.57). In addition, age, tumor stage, race, PSA and gleason score were found to be independent risk factors affecting prostate cancer patient-specific survival. Age, tumor stage, PSA and gleason score were most strongly associated with prostate cancer patient-specific survival by stepwise regression screening, and nomogram prediction model was constructed using these factors. The Concordance indexes are 0.845 (95% CI:0.818~0.872) and 0.835 (95% CI:0.798~0.872) for the training and validation sets, respectively, and the area under the ROC curves (AUC) at 3, 6, and 9 years was 0.7 or more for both the training and validation set samples. The calibration plots indicated a good agreement between the predicted and actual values of the model.ConclusionsAlthough there was no significant change in the overall incidence of prostate cancer in this study, significant changes occurred in the incidence of prostate cancer with different characteristics. In addition, the nomogram prediction model of prostate cancer-specific survival rate constructed based on four factors has a high reference value, which helps physicians to correctly assess the patient-specific survival rate and provides a reference basis for patient diagnosis and prognosis evaluation.

🇸🇦 Saudi Arabia

This publication reports on newly diagnosed cancers registered in England during 2022. It includes this summary report showing key findings, spreadsheet tables with more detailed estimates, and a methodology document. Cancer registration estimates are provided for: • Incidence of cancer using groupings that incorporate both the location and type of cancer by combinations of gender, age, deprivation, and stage at diagnosis (where appropriate) for England, former Government office regions, Cancer alliances and Integrated care boards • Incidence and mortality (using ICD-10 3-digit codes) by gender and age group for England, former Government office regions, Cancer alliances and Integrated care boards This publication will report on 2022 cancer registrations only, trends will not be reported as the required re-stated populations for 2012 to 2020 are not expected to be published by the Office of National Statistics (ONS) until Winter 2024.

From 2003 to 2017, there were around 485 new cases of prostate cancer per 100,000 men aged 60 to 64 years in the United States. This statistic illustrates the rate of new prostate cancer cases in the United States from 2003 to 2017 by age, per 100,000 men.

Deaths from prostate cancer - Directly age-Standardised Rates (DSR) per 100,000 population Source: Office for National Statistics (ONS) Publisher: Information Centre (IC) - Clinical and Health Outcomes Knowledge Base Geographies: Local Authority District (LAD), Government Office Region (GOR), National, Primary Care Trust (PCT), Strategic Health Authority (SHA) Geographic coverage: England Time coverage: 2005-07, 2007 Type of data: Administrative data

Kamrup urban in the Assam state in India had age adjusted incidence rate of prostate cancer cases among men of over *** cases per million male adults between the years 2012 and 2016. Thiruvananthapuram district followed with over **** cases per million adults in that time period.

Eight-year age standardized incidence rates and crude incidence rates of prostate cancer (per 100 000 population) (2011–2018).

INTRODUCTION: Recently there have been several studies suggesting that estrogen exposure may increase the risk of prostate cancer (PCa). In this report we examine associations between PCa incidence and mortality and population-based use of oral contraceptives (OC's). We hypothesized that OC's by-products may cause an environmental contamination leading to an increased low level estrogen exposure and therefore higher PCa incidence and mortality. METHODS: The hypothesis was studied in an ecologic study. We used data from the "international agency for research on cancer" (IACR) to retrieve age-standardized rates of prostate cancer in 2007 and the "United Nations 2007 use of contraceptive report" to retrieve data on contraceptive use. We subsequently used a Pearson correlation and a multivariable linear regression to associate the percentage of women using OC's, intrauterine devices, condoms or vaginal barriers to the age standardized prostate cancer incidence and mortality. We performed these analyses by individual nation and by continent worldwide. RESULTS: OC's use was significantly associated with prostate cancer incidence and mortality in the individual nation world wide (r=0.61 and r=0.53, respectively p<0.05 for all). PCa incidence was also associated with OC's use in Europe (r=0.545 p<0.05) and by continent (r=0.522 p<0.05). All other forms of contraceptives (i.e. intra-uterine devices, condoms or vaginal barriers) were not correlated with prostate cancer incidence or mortality. On multivariable analysis the correlation with OC was independent of nation's wealth. CONCLUSION: In this hypothesis generating ecologic study we have demonstrated a significant association between OC's and PCa. We hypothesize that oral contraceptive effect may be mediated through environmental estrogen levels; this novel concept is worth further investigation.

Number of new cases and age-standardized rates of new cancer cases by stage at diagnosis from 2011 to the most recent diagnosis year available. Included are colorectal, lung, breast, cervical and prostate cancer with cases defined using the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Groups for Primary Site based on the World Health Organization International Classification of Diseases for Oncology, Third Edition (ICD-O-3). Random rounding of case counts to the nearest multiple of 5 is used to prevent inappropriate disclosure of health-related information.