Friday, 21st of September 2012 |
Male circumcision: a cancer prevention strategy?
The Lancet Oncology, Volume 10, Issue 5, Page 431, May 2009
On March 26, 2009, the New England Journal of Medicine reported findings from a Ugandan trial on the effect of male circumcision on the prevalence of viral sexually transmitted infections, showing reduced incidence of HSV2 infection by 25% and of HPV infection by 35%. Previously, the same study group reported that male circumcision decreased HIV infection by 50—60%. In low-to-middle income countries cancer burden is increasing substantially, and infection is often the underlying cause. Given that less than 20% of males are circumcised in many developing countries, and that male circumcision is relatively simple and reduces viral infection, might this practice be more widely used as a preventive measure against cancer?
HPV and HIV associated cancers are responsible for a considerable number of cancer deaths in low-to-middle income countries. Cancers such as Kaposi's sarcoma and cervical cancer are well-recognised, but equally important are lymphoma, and carcinomas of the head and neck, penis, anus, and vulva. Additionally, developing countries have to face other challenges such as a paucity of screening, late presentation and difficulty of implementing effective interventions, and maintaining patients' follow-up—all compounded by lack of resource and infrastructure. Thus, prevention is more crucial than cure.
In developing countries, male circumcision could thus have a vital role in specific segments of the population. However, if circumcision is to be considered a prevention strategy, a number of questions will need detailed thought and investigation. First, scientific questions remained unanswered: how, precisely, is circumcision protective—what are the biological mechanisms? Does decreased viral acquisition or duration of infection or shedding actually reduce cancer incidence? Will this reduction translate easily to a protective effect in sexual partners? Second, questions related to infrastructure also need consideration. As a one-time surgical procedure, male circumcision is likely to be more feasible and cost effective than other virus prevention strategies, such as vaccination or screening, which require several visits. However, cost-effectiveness and modelling data are needed to provide suitable supportive evidence, and studies need to be done to estimate the potential population-level benefit of the procedure.
Wide-scale implementation of male circumcision also raises cultural, ethical, legal, and human rights issues. The easiest way to effectively implement the strategy—ie, in young infants—would take at least one generation before any prevention effect becomes measurable and raises ethical issues surrounding a child's body integrity and of consent. Male circumcision can also have symbolic meanings that raise additional barriers: it is sometimes seen as a traditional practice with religious or cultural significance, or a practice related to hygiene, or simply unfamiliar and foreign.
Despite these issues, lessons can be learned from programmes on HIV prevention. Since 2007, WHO/UNAIDS have recommended safe and voluntary male circumcision as an important strategy for the prevention of HIV infection in areas with high prevalence and low levels of male circumcision. This programme has been reasonably well-received, suggesting that uptake of male circumcision is not as contentious as one might think. Indeed, cancer prevention strategies in developing countries are often limited and have to compete against HIV for funding, but existence of the WHO/UNAIDS programme could bring a welcome secondary benefit of cancer prevention and could also allow rollout of more comprehensive cancer prevention measures via piggy-backing on existing infrastructure. Monitoring incidence of HIV-associated cancer among men currently being circumcised for HIV containment within the WHO/UNAIDS programme would provide useful insight into the possible effectiveness circumcision might offer against HPV-associated cancers.
Any intervention should be locally relevant and evidence-based. Discussions around male circumcision strategies should be encouraged within the context of cancer prevention, and these should include local communities alongside assessments of current capacities, measurable targets, cost analyses and modelling, and the development of practicable guidelines, so as to place male circumcision within the possible options available for disease prevention.
Are three drugs for malaria better than two?
Friday, 24th of April 2020 |
Public health Interventions and epidemic intensity during the 1918 influenza pandemic
Thursday, 16th of April 2020 |
Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine as available weapons to fight COVID-19
Tuesday, 17th of March 2020 |
Using models to shape measles control and elimination strategies in low- and middle-income countries: A review of recent applications
Monday, 17th of February 2020 |
Immunization Agenda 2030
Tuesday, 11th of February 2020 |
41133098 |
www.measlesinitiative.org www.technet21.org www.polioeradication.org www.globalhealthlearning.org www.who.int/bulletin allianceformalariaprevention.com www.malariaworld.org http://www.panafrican-med-journal.com/ |