22,208
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
using WallersteinE 1980
Reddy ''et al''. (1975) examined the frequency of carcinoma of the penis from 32 hospitals in India and found a wide variation in incidence that could not be explained by the intact status of the Hindus or the circumcision practices of the Muslims. <ref name="reddy1975">Reddy CR, Raghavaiah NV, Mouli KC. Prevalence of carcinoma of the penis with special reference to India. ''Int Surg'' 1975, 60: 474-6.</ref> Finally, circumcision does not explain why Japan and Denmark have lower penile cancer rates than the United States when circumcision, especially infant circumcision, is not common in those two countries.<ref name="kochen1980">Kochen M, McCurdy S. Circumcision and the risk of cancer of the penis. A life-table analysis. ''Am J Dis Child'' 1980; 134: 484-6. Swafford TD. Circumcision and the risk of cancer of the penis [letter] ''Am J Dis Child'' 1985; 139: 112.</ref>
In "Circumcision: An American Health Fallacy," [[Edward Wallerstein]] writes: ''"If infant circumcision reduces penile cancer we could expect to see proportionately less penile cancer in circumcising nations as compared to noncircumcising ones. No such difference is found."'' Wallerstein reports that, for various years between 1966 and 1972, the annual rate of new cases of penile cancer was 0.8 for the United States (where circumcision rates are high), and 0.5 for Finland, 0.9 for Denmark and 1.1 for both Norway and Sweden (all of where circumcision rates are low). None of these differences is statistically significant.<ref>Wallerstein, Edward. ''Circumcision: An American Health Fallacy''. Springer-Verlag, New York, {{WallersteinE 1980.}}</ref> Further, within the same time frame, both France and the United States had the same rate, 0.3, of deaths due to penile cancer.<ref>Hyman AB; Brownstein MH. Tyson's "Glands," ''Archives of Dermatology'', vol. 99, no. 1 (January 1969): pp. 31-37</ref>
== Incidence of penile cancer ==