Original Article | Published:

Clinical Research

Association of male circumcision with risk of prostate cancer: a meta-analysis

Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases volume 18, pages 352357 (2015) | Download Citation

Abstract

Background:

Although early reports have suggested an association between circumcision and prostate cancer (PCa) development, results of subsequent epidemiological studies have been conflicting. Here we examine published articles that explore this association.

Methods:

We searched MEDLINE through PubMed and Embase for articles reporting on the association between PCa and circumcision, and performed a meta-analysis of qualifying studies.

Results:

On the basis of seven reports of case–control studies published from 1971 to 2014, overall findings showed nonsignificant reduced risk (odds ratio (OR) 0.88, P=0.19) of PCa in circumcised men compared with uncircumcised men, obtained under heterogeneous conditions (I2=65%). Heterogeneity and nonsignificance were erased when the overall effect was subjected to outlier treatment and three studies omitted (OR 0.90, P=0.04, I2=0%). Furthermore, subgroup analysis showed significantly reduced risks in the following subgroups: (i) post-PSA testing publications (OR 0.88, P=0.01), (ii) population-based studies (OR 0.84, P=0.05), (iii) studies that collected data by personal interview (OR 0.83, P=0.03) and (iv) studies in black race (OR 0.59, P=0.02). The strengths of these summary effects lie in the robustness revealed by sensitivity analysis.

Conclusions:

Stability of the reduced risks observed in key subgroups suggests that the protective feature of circumcision status against PCa is best seen in the context of the post-PSA testing and population-based studies as well as in the black race subgroup.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 1.

    , , , , , . Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin 2011; 61: 69–90.

  2. 2.

    , , , . Cancer statistics, 2014. CA Cancer J Clin 2014; 64: 9–29.

  3. 3.

    . Risk factors for prostate cancer. Cancer Surv 1995; 23: 63–77.

  4. 4.

    World Health Organizations, Department of Reproductive Health and Research and Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS).Male Circumcision: Global Trends and Determinants of Prevalence, Safety and Acceptability. UNAIDS JUNPoHA, Department of Reproductive Health and Research: Geneva, Switzerland, 2007.

  5. 5.

    , . A cut above: circumcision as an ancient status symbol. Urology 2010; 76: 18–20.

  6. 6.

    , , , , , et al. A ‘snip’ in time: what is the best age to circumcise? BMC Pediatr 2012; 12: 20.

  7. 7.

    . Medical indications for circumcision. BJU Int 1999; 83: 45–51.

  8. 8.

    , , , . Prepuce: phimosis, paraphimosis, and circumcision. ScientificWorldJournal 2011; 11: 289–301.

  9. 9.

    . Why circumcision is a biomedical imperative for the 21(st) century. Bioessays 2007; 29: 1147–1158.

  10. 10.

    , , . Circumcisions performed in U.S. community hospitals, 2009: Statistical Brief #126. Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP). Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: Rockville, MD, 2012, pp 1-13. ().

  11. 11.

    , . Meta-analysis of measures of sexual activity and prostate cancer. Epidemiology 2002; 13: 72–79.

  12. 12.

    , , . Prostate cancer and sexually transmitted diseases: a meta-analysis. Fam Med 2005; 37: 506–512.

  13. 13.

    , , . Male circumcision and risk of HIV infection in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis. AIDS 2000; 14: 2361–2370.

  14. 14.

    , , , , , et al. Male circumcision for the prevention of HSV-2 and HPV infections and syphilis. N Engl J Med 2009; 360: 1298–1309.

  15. 15.

    , , , . Male circumcision and penile cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer Causes Control 2011; 22: 1097–1110.

  16. 16.

    , . Circumcision reduces prostate cancer risk. Asian J Androl 2012; 14: 661–662.

  17. 17.

    , , . Epidemiology of cancer of the prostate. Cancer 1971; 28: 344–360.

  18. 18.

    , . Sexual factors and prostatic cancer: results from a case-control study. J Gerontol 1987; 42: 259–264.

  19. 19.

    , , , , . Case-control studies of prostate cancer in blacks and whites in southern California. J Natl Cancer Inst 1987; 78: 869–874.

  20. 20.

    , , , . A case-control study of prostate cancer. Am J Epidemiol 1989; 130: 395–398.

  21. 21.

    , . A case-control study of cancer of the prostate in Somerset and east Devon. Br J Cancer 1996; 74: 661–666.

  22. 22.

    , , . Sexual factors and the risk of prostate cancer. Am J Epidemiol 2001; 153: 1152–1158.

  23. 23.

    , , . Circumcision and the risk of prostate cancer. Cancer 2012; 118: 4437–4443.

  24. 24.

    , , , . Circumcision and prostate cancer: a population-based case-control study in Montreal, Canada. BJU Int 2014; 114: E90–E98.

  25. 25.

    , , , , , The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of non-randomised studies in meta-analyses. Ottawa Hospital Research Institute. (accessed 15 January 2015).

  26. 26.

    , . Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. J Natl Cancer Inst 1959; 22: 719–748.

  27. 27.

    , . Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986; 7: 177–188.

  28. 28.

    , , . Quantitative synthesis in systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med 1997; 127: 820–826.

  29. 29.

    , . Meta-analysis: neither quick nor easy. BMC Med Res Methodol 2002; 2: 10.

  30. 30.

    , . Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 2002; 21: 1539–1558.

  31. 31.

    . A note on graphical presentation of estimated odds ratios from several clinical trials. Stat Med 1988; 7: 889–894.

  32. 32.

    , , , , , . Cyclin D1 Pro241Pro (CCND1-G870A) polymorphism is associated with increased cancer risk in human populations: a meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2008; 17: 2773–2781.

  33. 33.

    , . The appropriateness of asymmetry tests for publication bias in meta-analyses: a large survey. CMAJ 2007; 176: 1091–1096.

  34. 34.

    , , , . Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009; 6: e1000097.

  35. 35.

    , , . Case number and the financial impact of circumcision in reducing prostate cancer. BJU Int 2007; 100: 5–6.

  36. 36.

    , , . The development of a comprehensive, institution-based patient risk evaluation program: II. Validity and reliability of questionnaire data. Am J Prev Med 1988; 4: 188–193.

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Center for Research and Development, Angeles University Foundation, Angeles City, Philippines

    • N Pabalan
  2. Department of Medical Technology, College of Allied Medical Professions, Angeles University Foundation, Angeles City, Philippines

    • E Singian
  3. Environmental Monitoring and Reporting Branch, Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change, Etobicoke, ON, Canada

    • H Jarjanazi
  4. Department of Neurology, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA

    • A Paganini-Hill

Authors

  1. Search for N Pabalan in:

  2. Search for E Singian in:

  3. Search for H Jarjanazi in:

  4. Search for A Paganini-Hill in:

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to N Pabalan.

About this article

Publication history

Received

Revised

Accepted

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/pcan.2015.34

Further reading