Carcinoma of the Prostate in Jews and Circumcised Gentiles

Abstract

SUMMARY A hypothesis by Ravich and Ravich (1951) that carcinoma of the prostate is rarer in men who have been circumcised in infancy is discussed. A series of 105 cases with histologically proven carcinoma of the prostate has been examined in relation to the state of the foreskin. Twenty per cent. had been circumcised in infancy. A series of benign and malignant neoplasms of the prostate has been reviewed and 4.2 per cent. of cases with prostatic cancer were Jewish (approximately the figure calculated for the general Jewish population in the age group of the disease).

Circumcision and Prostatic Cancer

“…Robb and Roemmele (19), on the other hand, found no difference in the incidence of prostatic carcinoma between Jewish and non-Jewish patients. Gibson (7) came to the same conclusion. In his series 20 per cent of the non-Jews had been circumcised in infancy.…”

“…Among elderly non-Jews there are also many circumcised. Gibson (7) reported on a material in which 20 per cent of the non-Jews were circumcised. Figures from the United States are therefore liable to be misleading as they refer to Jews and non-Jews instead of circumcised and uncircumcised.…”

Commentary on "Countries with high circumcision prevalence have lower prostate cancer mortality"

“…The issue is old and going back to 1951 2. Unfortunately, the authors have omitted the literature during the last 65 years which was not able to prove that MC would protect against PC mortality 3456789. Wachtel and coworkers draw their study data from different heterogeneous sources and different years without testing if they describe items of comparable population groups.…”

Reply to Letter by Dr. Christoph Kupferschmid: Commentary on "Countries with high circumcision prevalence have lower prostate cancer mortality"

“…Considerable strong evidence has been accumulated since 1951 3. Most of his references45678910 do not address MC and the risk of death from prostate cancer. That is a different question than MC and the risk of developing prostate cancer, which none of his references validly assess.…”