Case number and the financial impact of circumcision in reducing prostate cancer

Critical evaluation of arguments opposing male circumcision: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To systematically evaluate evidence against male circumcision (MC).

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Google Scholar, EMBASE and Cochrane databases.

RESULTS

Database searches retrieved 297 publications for inclusion. Bibliographies of these yielded 101 more. After evaluation we found: Claims that MC carries high risk were contradicted by low frequency of adverse events that were virtually all minor and easily treated with complete resolution. Claims that MC causes psychological harm were contradicted by studies finding no such harm. Claims that MC impairs sexual function and pleasure were contradicted by high-quality studies finding no adverse effect. Claims disputing the medical benefits of MC were contradicted by a large body of high-quality evidence indicating protection against a wide range of infections, dermatological conditions, and genital cancers in males and the female sexual partners of men. Risk-benefit analyses reported that benefits exceed risks by 100-200 to 1. To maximize benefits and minimize risks, the evidence supported early infant MC rather than arguments that the procedure should be delayed until males are old enough to decide for themselves. Claims that MC of minors is unethical were contradicted by balanced evaluations of ethical issues supporting the rights of children to be provided with low-risk, high-benefit interventions such as MC for better health. Expert evaluations of case-law supported the legality of MC of minors. Other data demonstrated that early infant MC is cost-saving to health systems.

CONCLUSIONS

Arguments opposing MC are supported mostly by low-quality evidence and opinion, and are contradicted by strong scientific evidence.

CDC's Male Circumcision Recommendations Represent a Key Public Health Measure

Frisch and Earp, opponents of male circumcision, have criticized draft recommendations from the CDC that advocate counseling men and parents of newborn boys in the United States about the benefits and risks of male circumcision. We provide a rebuttal to Frisch and Earp's criticisms and contend that the recommendations are entirely appropriate and merit consideration for policy development.

Early infant male circumcision: Systematic review, risk-benefit analysis, and progress in policy

AIM

To determine whether recent evidence-based United States policies on male circumcision (MC) apply to comparable Anglophone countries, Australia and New Zealand.

METHODS

Articles in 2005 through 2015 were retrieved from PubMed using the keyword "circumcision" together with 36 relevant subtopics. A further PubMed search was performed for articles published in 2016. Searches of the EMBASE and Cochrane databases did not yield additional citable articles. Articles were assessed for quality and those rated 2+ and above according to the Scottish Intercollegiate Grading System were studied further. The most relevant and representative of the topic were included. Bibliographies were examined to retrieve further key references. Randomized controlled trials, recent high quality systematic reviews or meta-analyses (level 1++ or 1+ evidence) were prioritized for inclusion. A risk-benefit analysis of articles rated for quality was performed. For efficiency and reliability, recent randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, high quality systematic reviews and large well-designed studies were used if available. Internet searches were conducted for other relevant information, including policies and Australian data on claims under Medicare for MC.

RESULTS

Evidence-based policy statements by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) support infant and later age male circumcision (MC) as a desirable public health measure. Our systematic review of relevant literature over the past decade yielded 140 journal articles that met our inclusion criteria. Together, these showed that early infant MC confers immediate and lifelong benefits by protecting against urinary tract infections having potential adverse long-term renal effects, phimosis that causes difficult and painful erections and "ballooning" during urination, inflammatory skin conditions, inferior penile hygiene, candidiasis, various sexually transmissible infections in both sexes, genital ulcers, and penile, prostate and cervical cancer. Our risk-benefit analysis showed that benefits exceeded procedural risks, which are predominantly minor, by up to 200 to 1. We estimated that more than 1 in 2 uncircumcised males will experience an adverse foreskin-related medical condition over their lifetime. Wide-ranging evidence from surveys, physiological measurements, and the anatomical location of penile sensory receptors responsible for sexual sensation strongly and consistently suggested that MC has no detrimental effect on sexual function, sensitivity or pleasure. United States studies showed that early infant MC is cost saving. The evidence supporting early infant MC has further strengthened since the positive AAP and CDC reviews.

CONCLUSION

Affirmative MC policies are needed in Australia and New Zealand. Routine provision of accurate, unbiased education, and access in public hospitals, will maximize health and financial benefits.

The characteristics of circular disposable devices and in situ devices for optimizing male circumcision: a network meta-analysis

In situ device (ISD) and circular disposable device (CDD) are used for optimizing male circumcision (MC), but evidence to explore the characteristics of these two devices is insufficient. In order to explore this issue systematically and provide reliable evidence, ten published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) exploring the safety and efficacy of ISDs and CDDs were included (involving 4649 men). Moderate quality of the RCTs included was found after assessment. Pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analyses were processed in stata 13.0 and AIDDS v1.16.6 respectively. According to the outcomes that were statistically significant in both pairwise and network meta-analyses, ISD was found to have less intraoperative blood loss (IB), less operative time (OT) and less incidence of wound bleeding (WB) than conventional circumcision (CC); ISD was found to have less WB but more wound healing time (WHT) than CDD; CDD was found to have less IB and less OT than CC. CDD tended to have the best wound healing condition and least pain experience; ISD tended to have the least IB, least OT, least WB, and highest satisfaction rate. With their own superiorities in many aspects, CDD and ISD are both safe and effective devices for optimizing MC.

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

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 (I(2)=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, I(2)=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.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of circumcision with Shang Ring vs conventional circumcision

Herein, we conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the current evidence to compare the safety and efficacy of Shang Ring circumcision (SRC) with conventional circumcision (CC) for male patients. Articles were searched by 2 independent reviewers. Overall, 8 randomized controlled trials involving 3314 patients were included. Compared with the CC group, SRC is associated with shorter operative time, lower intraoperative pain score, higher satisfaction with penile appearances, less intraoperative blood loss, lower adverse event rate, and lower wound bleeding rate. SRC appears to be a safer and more effective choice in comparison with CC for male patients.

Does Male Circumcision Protect against Sexually Transmitted Infections? Arguments and Meta-Analyses to the Contrary Fail to Withstand Scrutiny

We critically evaluate a recent article by Van Howe involving 12 meta-analyses that concludes, contrary to current evidence, that male circumcision increases the risk of various common sexually transmitted infections (STIs). Our detailed scrutiny reveals that these meta-analyses (1) failed to include results of all relevant studies, especially data from randomized controlled trials, (2) introduced bias through use of inappropriate control groups, (3) altered original data, in the case of human papillomavirus (HPV), by questionable adjustments for "sampling bias," (4) failed to control for confounders through use of crude odds ratios, and (5) used unnecessarily complicated methods without adequate explanation, so impeding replication by others. Interventions that can reduce the prevalence of STIs are important to international health. Of major concern is the global epidemic of oncogenic types of HPV that contribute to the burden of genital cancers. Meta-analyses, when well conducted, can better inform public health policy and medical practice, but when seriously flawed can have detrimental consequences. Our critical evaluation leads us to reject the findings and conclusions of Van Howe on multiple grounds. Our timely analysis thus reaffirms the medical evidence supporting male circumcision as a desirable intervention for STI prevention.

Circumcision rates in the United States: rising or falling? What effect might the new affirmative pediatric policy statement have?

The objective of this review was to assess the trend in the US male circumcision rate and the impact that the affirmative 2012 American Academy of Pediatrics policy statement might have on neonatal circumcision practice. We searched PubMed for the term circumcision to retrieve relevant articles. This review was prompted by a recent report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that found a slight increase, from 79% to 81%, in the prevalence of circumcision in males aged 14 to 59 years during the past decade. There were racial and ethnic disparities, with prevalence rising to 91% in white, 76% in black, and 44% in Hispanic males. Because data on neonatal circumcision are equivocal, we undertook a critical analysis of hospital discharge data. After correction for underreporting, we found that the percentage had declined from 83% in the 1960s to 77% by 2010. A risk-benefit analysis of conditions that neonatal circumcision protects against revealed that benefits exceed risks by at least 100 to 1 and that over their lifetime, half of uncircumcised males will require treatment for a medical condition associated with retention of the foreskin. Other analyses show that neonatal male circumcision is cost-effective for disease prevention. The benefits of circumcision begin in the neonatal period by protection against infections that can damage the pediatric kidney. Given the substantial risk of adverse conditions and disease, some argue that failure to circumcise a baby boy may be unethical because it diminishes his right to good health. There is no long-term adverse effect of neonatal circumcision on sexual function or pleasure. The affirmative 2012 American Academy of Pediatrics policy supports parental education about, access to, and insurance and Medicaid coverage for elective infant circumcision. As with vaccination, circumcision of newborn boys should be part of public health policies. Campaigns should prioritize population subgroups with lower circumcision prevalence and a higher burden of diseases that can be ameliorated by circumcision.

A 'snip' in time: what is the best age to circumcise?

BACKGROUND

Circumcision is a common procedure, but regional and societal attitudes differ on whether there is a need for a male to be circumcised and, if so, at what age. This is an important issue for many parents, but also pediatricians, other doctors, policy makers, public health authorities, medical bodies, and males themselves.

DISCUSSION

We show here that infancy is an optimal time for clinical circumcision because an infant's low mobility facilitates the use of local anesthesia, sutures are not required, healing is quick, cosmetic outcome is usually excellent, costs are minimal, and complications are uncommon. The benefits of infant circumcision include prevention of urinary tract infections (a cause of renal scarring), reduction in risk of inflammatory foreskin conditions such as balanoposthitis, foreskin injuries, phimosis and paraphimosis. When the boy later becomes sexually active he has substantial protection against risk of HIV and other viral sexually transmitted infections such as genital herpes and oncogenic human papillomavirus, as well as penile cancer. The risk of cervical cancer in his female partner(s) is also reduced. Circumcision in adolescence or adulthood may evoke a fear of pain, penile damage or reduced sexual pleasure, even though unfounded. Time off work or school will be needed, cost is much greater, as are risks of complications, healing is slower, and stitches or tissue glue must be used.

SUMMARY

Infant circumcision is safe, simple, convenient and cost-effective. The available evidence strongly supports infancy as the optimal time for circumcision.

Should male circumcision be advocated for genital cancer prevention?

The recent policy statement by the Cancer Council of Australia on infant circumcision and cancer prevention and the announcement that the quadrivalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine will be made available for boys in Australia prompted us to provide an assessment of genital cancer prevention. While HPV vaccination of boys should help reduce anal cancer in homosexual men and cervical cancer in women, it will have little or no impact on penile or prostate cancer. Male circumcision can reduce cervical, penile and possibly prostate cancer. Promotion of both HPV vaccination and male circumcision will synergistically maximize genital cancer prevention.

The Strong Protective Effect of Circumcision against Cancer of the Penis

Male circumcision protects against cancer of the penis, the invasive form of which is a devastating disease confined almost exclusively to uncircumcised men. Major etiological factors are phimosis, balanitis, and high-risk types of human papillomavirus (HPV), which are more prevalent in the glans penis and coronal sulcus covered by the foreskin, as well as on the penile shaft, of uncircumcised men. Circumcised men clear HPV infections more quickly. Phimosis (a constricted foreskin opening impeding the passage of urine) is confined to uncircumcised men, in whom balanitis (affecting 10%) is more common than in circumcised men. Each is strongly associated with risk of penile cancer. These findings have led to calls for promotion of male circumcision, especially in infancy, to help reduce the global burden of penile cancer. Even more relevant globally is protection from cervical cancer, which is 10-times more common, being much higher in women with uncircumcised male partners. Male circumcision also provides indirect protection against various other infections in women, along with direct protection for men from a number of genital tract infections, including HIV. Given that adverse consequences of medical male circumcision, especially when performed in infancy, are rare, this simple prophylactic procedure should be promoted.

Why circumcision is a biomedical imperative for the 21(st) century

Circumcision of males represents a surgical "vaccine" against a wide variety of infections, adverse medical conditions and potentially fatal diseases over their lifetime, and also protects their sexual partners. In experienced hands, this common, inexpensive procedure is very safe, can be pain-free and can be performed at any age. The benefits vastly outweigh risks. The enormous public health benefits include protection from urinary tract infections, sexually transmitted HIV, HPV, syphilis and chancroid, penile and prostate cancer, phimosis, thrush, and inflammatory dermatoses. In women circumcision of the male partner provides substantial protection from cervical cancer and chlamydia. Circumcision has socio-sexual benefits and reduces sexual problems with age. It has no adverse effect on penile sensitivity, function, or sensation during sexual arousal. Most women prefer the circumcised penis for appearance, hygiene and sex. Given the convincing epidemiological evidence and biological support, routine circumcision should be highly recommended by all health professionals.