Circumcision could prevent prostate cancer... if it's performed after the age of 35

Micrograph showing prostatic acinar adenocarcinoma (the most common form of prostate cancer) Credit: Wikipedia

Researchers at the University of Montreal and the INRS-Institut-Armand-Frappier have shown that men circumcised after the age of 35 were 45% less at risk of later developing prostate cancer than uncircumcised men.

This is one of the findings that resulted from a study undertaken by Andrea Spence and her research directors Marie-Élise Parent and Marie-Claude Rousseau. The researchers interviewed 2114 men living on the Island of Montreal. Half of them had been diagnosed with between 2005 and 2009, while the others participated in the study as the control group. The questions covered their lifestyle and medical history, if they were circumcised, and if so, the age at which the operation had been performed.

Greater benefit for Black men

Across the board, the participants who were circumcised were 11% less likely to later develop a prostate cancer compared to those who weren't. The size of the reduction is not statistically significant. "This proportion reflects what has been shown in other studies," Parent explained. However, babies who were circumcised before the age of one were 14% less likely to develop prostate cancer. Moreover, the removal of the foreskin at a young age provides protection, over the long term, against the most aggressive forms of cancer.

Prostate cancer is rare amongst Jewish or Muslim men, the majority of whom are circumcised. While the specific causes of this cancer remain unknown, three risk factors have been identified: aging, a family history of this cancer, and Black African ethnic origins.

Amongst the 178 Blacks who took part in the study – of whom 78% were of Haitian origin – the risk of prostate cancer was 1.4 times higher than amongst Whites. 30% of the Black men were circumcised compared to 40% of the White men. Interestingly, the protective effect of the circumcision was limited to the Black men, whose risk of developing prostate cancer was decreased by 60%, with a very significant statistical effect.

Circumscribing the discovery

Researchers do not know what mechanism enables circumcision to protect men from prostate cancer. However, many studies have shown that this operation reduces the risk of acquiring a sexually transmitted infection (STI). "Unlike the skin that covers our bodies, the inner surface of the foreskin is composed of mostly non-keratinized mucosal epithelium, which is more easily penetrated by microbes that cause infections," Parent explained. Removing the foreskin could therefore reduce the risk of an infection that might be associated with prostate cancer. In any case, the protective effect of circumcision (in particular the effect observed in the Black population) must be confirmed by other studies, especially in consideration of the relatively few Black who participated in research.

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Circumcision may help protect against prostate cancer

Mar 12, 2012

A new analysis led by researchers at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center has found that circumcision before a male's first sexual intercourse may help protect against prostate cancer. Published early online in Cancer, a peer ...

Implications of very low risk prostate cancer assessed

Sep 20, 2013

(HealthDay)—The risk of adverse findings at surgery for men with very low risk (VLR) prostate cancer is significantly lower than for those with low risk (LR), according to research published in the October ...

Recommended for you

Blood biomarker may detect lung cancer

10 hours ago

A new study shows that patients with stage I to stage III non-small cell lung cancer have different metabolite profiles in their blood than those of patients who are at risk but do not have lung cancer. The study abstract ...

ACG: Recent increase in incidence of young-onset CRC

Oct 20, 2014

(HealthDay)—The incidence of young-onset colorectal cancer (CRC) is increasing, and the disease is more aggressive pathologically. These findings are being presented at the annual meeting of the American ...

User comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

truthquest
5 / 5 (3) Apr 07, 2014
"Prostate cancer is rare among Jewish/Muslim men" OH REALLY? If we live long enough, we (men), all have prostate cancer, whether we are sexual mutilates or not.
If, and that's a big if, there is anything of significance in this statistical analysis, an ethical researcher would follow up to find our why this so. This is not a report on research, is it?
It is another shill piece designed to scare parents into mutilating the genitals of their son.
Nothing is more suspect than a discredited, unjust, brutal and senseless mutilation, that suddenly finds a brand new reason it needs to be done.

I thought PhysOrg. was a good headline service for the sciences. How disappointing it is to see it become a mouthpiece for those who are so desperate to cut off sexual parts, they resort to lies and call it research.

Isn't it time we researched the inner motivations of sexual mutilators?
StillWind
5 / 5 (1) Apr 08, 2014
Seriously...this is worse than your promotion of the AGW hoax. Mutilating men and baby boys is good for them... yeah right.
sigoldberg1
not rated yet Apr 11, 2014
I assume by now that you have discovered the error in this article, namely that the disease referenced is actually penile cancer, not prostate cancer. I haven't checked to see at which level the error crept in, but it's the only answer which makes sense. please review this article for accuracy.