> They found that "significant risk factors for invasive penile cancer:
> lack of circumcision during childhood, phimosis and cigarette smoking."
[quoted text clipped - 69 lines]
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?
> cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15825185&query_hl=3
2. smt_AC Sep 24, 5:44 am show options
Newsgroups: alt.circumcision
From: "smt_AC" <jun...@intactivist.org> - Find messages by this author
Date: 24 Sep 2005 05:44:42 -0700
Local: Sat, Sep 24 2005 5:44 am
Subject: Re: Penile cancer: importance of circumcision ...
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Remove | Report Abuse
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> They found that "significant risk factors for invasive penile cancer:
> lack of circumcision during childhood, phimosis and cigarette smoking."
> More:
> "Men not circumcised during childhood were at increased risk of
> invasive (penile cancer) (OR = 2.3, 95% CI 1.3-4.1)."
> "Among men not circumcised in childhood, phimosis was strongly
> associated with development of invasive penile cancer (OR = 11.4, 95%
> CI 5.0-25.9)."
> And from the main body of the study itself:
> "We posit that men who have never been circumcised may be at
> higher risk of HPV acquisition and persistence even though they
> appear to have engaged in lower-risk sexual activity than men
> who are circumcised in childhood."
> ==========================
> Penile cancer: importance of circumcision, human papillomavirus and
> smoking in in situ and invasive disease.
> Daling JR, Madeleine MM, Johnson LG, Schwartz SM, Shera KA, Wurscher
> MA, Carter JJ, Porter PL, Galloway DA, McDougall JK, Krieger JN.
> Program in Epidemiology, Division of Public Health Sciences, Fred
> Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA 98109-1024, USA.
> jdal...@fhcrc.org
> Few population-based case-control studies have assessed etiologic
> factors for penile cancer. Past infection with high-risk human
[quoted text clipped - 36 lines]
> prevent penile cancer by eliminating phimosis, a significant risk
> factor for the disease. (c) 2005 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?
> cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15825185&query_hl=3
Wow, that's great news! It looks like preventing phimosis may reduce
any risk of penile cancer to the same rates as circumcised men.
"When we restricted our analysis to men who did not have phimosis, the
risk of invasive penile cancer associated with not having been
circumcised in childhood was not elevated (OR = 0.5, 95% CI 0.1-2.5)."
Foreskins don't cause cancer, phimosis does. Phimosis is easily treated
and often preventable. Obviously, they are talking about acquired
phimosis, as all men have congenital phimosis at birth, so that must
not be a factor. The cause of acquired phimosis is poor hygiene,
repetitive forceful retraction by parents or doctors, and recurring
infection (often a result of the previously listed items). So, first,
educate doctors and parents about proper care and hygiene, then have
true acquired phimosis diagnosed and treated early on. The option of
circumcision could be considered for those rare cases with recurring
infections. Of course, not smoking is also important to prevent penile
cancer, as is not being exposed to HPV.
Thanks for that great news. This is why evidence based research is so
important for developing modern medical policies, to not only
treat/prevent disease, but also to allow a person to experience life,
and their whole body, to the fullest extent.
Briar Rabbit - 25 Sep 2005 03:31 GMT
> Foreskins don't cause cancer, phimosis does.
Dear heaven you are desperate.
Phimosis is the result of a dysfunctional foreskin. Circumcised men do
not have foreskins and therefore do not have this risk. Quite simple
really if you have an open mind.