Cervical Cancer and Circumcision Status
1. Journal of the American Medical Women's Association, Vol. 17, No. 9 (Sept. 1962), Elizabeth Stern, M.D., Peter Neely, Ph.D. "Cancer of the Cervix in Reference to Circumcision and Marital History"
"Since the recommendation had been made that circumcision should be used as a preventative measure against cancer of the cervix, we sought further confirmation of this hypothesis. An almost ideal population was that of the well women attending a cancer detection facility, where the population was split almost equally between women whose husbands were circumcised and those whose husbands were not. The discovery rate for cancer of the cervix among non-Jewish women whose marital partners were circumcised was no different from the rate among non-Jewish women with noncircumcised husbands. Further, the use of a sheath contraceptive by the marital partner, which has an effect equivalent to circumcision in that the cervix is protected from contact with the smegma, was found not to be associated with rate differences for cancer of the cervix."
[This study, more than the others, exposed the myth that the
presence of a foreskin or smegma had any association with the
incidence of cancer of the cervix.]
2. British Journal of Cancer, Vol. XIX, Jun, 1965, No. 2,
"Circumcision and Cancer of the Cervix" University of Aberdeen,
Dept. of Obstetrics and Gynaecology.
"These results do not support the theory that women whose husbands
are circumcised will be less likely to develop cervical cancer
than those whose husbands are uncircumcised. In this the study
agrees with the findings of Jones et al (1958), Dunn and Buell
(1959), and Boyd and Doll (1964)."
3. Journal of the American Medical Association, June 2, 1975,
p. 961, Ernst L. Wynder, M.D., American Health Foundation.
"Additional variables observed to be more frequent and of more
import among patients with cervical cancer are early age of first
intercourse, multiple sexual parners, and low socioeconomic class.
Unless there exist surgical reasons (such as phimosis) indicating
circumcision in the husband, the procedure would seem unwarranted."
4. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol., Dec. 15, 1973, "Relation of
cirumcision to cancer of the cervix" Terris, Wilson, Nelson.
"No differences were found in circumcision status of husbands of
cervical dysplasia patients and controls. The findings of this
study are consistant with those reported by Aitken-Swan and Baird.
They fail to provide evidence that circumcision status is related
to invasive carcinoma or the cervix, carcinoma in situ, or cervical
5. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol., July, 1958, Jones, et al.
"The specific items of importance which have been under scrutiny
are: dietary deficiency, estrogen excretion levels, menstrual
patterns, hygienic practices, contraceptives, circumcision of
marital and other partners, and frequency and duration of coitus;
for none of these items was there any significant difference
between the cases and their matched controls."