Annual Pap Test Research Articles

Hotspots of Anal Cancer Screening in a High-risk Population: A Clinical Study on Free Provision, Best Method, Self-sampling, and Independent Risk Factors.

As of 2024, anal cancer (AC) has been steadily increasing worldwide but, due to insufficient evidence, anal cancer screening (ACS) has yet to be standardized. Furthermore, most high-risk people in the world have no help paying for it. Therefore, our primary endpoint was to assess the best screening method for these subjects through a provision that was free of charge (all costs were covered by the Italian public health service). Awareness-raising campaign, determination of risk factors, education on anal self-examination, and sampling (ASS) were secondary objectives. Screening was on a voluntary basis. Engaging in receptive anal intercourse and having a history of cervical dysplasia were the main inclusion criteria. Level 1 ACS tools included digital ano-rectal examination, anoscopy, anal Pap, and anal human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA test (both through self- and proctologist- sampling); high-resolution anoscopy (HRA) with (HRAB) or without biopsy comprised level 2 screening. High-risk people were enrolled until the available funds were exhausted. Fifty high-risk people (40 men who had sex with men -MSM-, 9 women, and 1 heterosexual man) were enrolled. AC was found in one HIV-seropositive MSM, high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion in 10 (20%) MSM, low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion LSIL in 13 cases (12 MSM and 1 woman). The combination of HRAB and Pap smear screening achieved the highest values for sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy. ASS HPV DNA test provided excellent results comparable to clinician retrieval. Overweight and college education were identified as independent factors for the risk of and prevention of AC, respectively. A free ACS not only appears justified but also recommended to people screened for AC. Excess weight represents a further risk for this population.

Anal cancer risk and HPV infection knowledge and awareness among Hispanic persons living with HIV in Puerto Rico.

Persons living with HIV (PLWH) have a higher risk of persistent infection with human papillomavirus (HPV) and anal cancer. We evaluated knowledge and awareness of HPV infection and risk factors for anal cancer among PLWH in Puerto Rico (PR). Data from a cross-sectional study (2020-2021) were analyzed (n=212). Inclusion criteria included PLWH, aged ≥ 26 years, and living in PR. Telephone interviews collected information on sociodemographic, lifestyle and clinical characteristics. Two 13-item scales were used to assess knowledge of HPV and anal cancer risk factors; adequate knowledge for both scales were defined as scoring >70%. Logistic regression models using generalized linear models were used to determine the association between 1) HPV infection awareness, 2) HPV infection knowledge, and 3) Anal cancer risk factors knowledge. The median age was 54 years (IQR: 46,58), 67.5% were male, 71.7% reported having an income <$20,000, and 54.3% had an education level of more than high school. HPV awareness was high (82.1%), but only 40.2% and 3.8% had adequate knowledge of HPV and anal cancer risk factors, respectively. In adjusted logistic regression models, men who have sex with men (OR: 1.26, 95%CI: 1.07-1.47) and women (OR: 1.35, 95%CI: 1.15-1.59) aged ≥50 years had higher odds of HPV awareness than heterosexual men in that age group. Moreover, those with history of anal Pap test aged <50 years had more HPV awareness (OR 1.34, 95%CI: 1.08-1.66) than their counterparts. Adequate HPV knowledge was higher among participants with an education level of more than high-school (OR:1.28, 95%CI: 1.10-1.50) and with a history of HPV diagnosis (OR:1.33, 95%CI: 1.08-1.65) than their counterparts. In addition, people with good/very good/excellent health perception had higher odds of HPV knowledge (OR:1.23, 95%CI: 1.03-1.47) than those who reported poor/regular health perception. For anal cancer risk factors, PLWH for ≥15 years had increased odds of having adequate knowledge (OR:1.07, 95%CI: 1.02-1.14) than their counterparts. Despite high awareness of HPV, limited knowledge about HPV and anal cancer risk factors was observed among PLWH. Results from our study highlight the need for educational efforts within this population as an anal cancer prevention strategy.

Demonstrating a Statistically Significant Association Between Anal High-Grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesion and Positive OncoE6 Anal Test in Men Who Have Sex With Men and Are Living With HIV.

The aim of the study is to determine whether a positive OncoE6 Anal Test result has statistically significant higher odds of being associated with high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) and to calculate sensitivity and specificity of this test for predicting HSIL in adult men who have sex with men and are living with HIV (MSMLWH). Men living with HIV 18 years or older having ≥atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance-grade anal cytology results were eligible to enroll in this cross-sectional study. Anal samples were collected just before the high-resolution anoscopy procedure. OncoE6 Anal Test results were compared with histology, the reference standard. Sensitivity, specificity, and odds ratio were calculated using HSIL as the threshold. Two hundred seventy-seven consented MSMLWH were enrolled between June 2017 and January 2022. Of these, 219 (79.1%) had biopsies obtained and histology performed; 81 of 219 participants (37%) had 1 or more biopsies with HSIL results while the remaining 138 of 219 (63%) had only low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion or were negative for dysplasia. Anal samples from 7 participants (8.6%, 7/81) with HSIL and 3 (2.2%, 3/138) with low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion had positive OncoE6 Anal Test results. Odds of having HSIL were 4.26 times higher among participants testing positive for HPV16/HPV18 E6 oncoprotein(s) (OR = 4.26, 95% CI = 1.07-16.95, p = .04). The OncoE6 Anal Test demonstrated excellent specificity, 97.83% (93.78-99.55), but poor sensitivity, 8.64% (3.55-17.0). In this highest-risk population for anal cancer, one could combine the OncoE6 Anal Test, having excellent specificity, with the anal Pap test, having higher sensitivity. Patients found having both an abnormal anal Pap and positive OncoE6 Anal Test result could be triaged for rapid scheduling of their high-resolution anoscopy.

Do age-based discontinuation recommendations influence cervical cancer screening rates? Evidence from the United States' Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, 2016 and 2018

The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends that women with adequate prior screening and average cervical cancer risk discontinue routine cervical cancer screening after age 65. This study's objective was to estimate how the USPSTF recommendation affects Papanicolaou (Pap) test rates among women at age 66 in the United States. We used nationally representative 2016 and 2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data for women ages 56–76 (n = 226,031) and a regression discontinuity design to estimate changes in annual Pap test rates at age 66. Among women age 66–76, 22.5% reported receiving a Pap test within the past one year. At age 66, annual Pap rates declined by 5.9 percentage points (p.p.) (95% Confidence Interval [CI]: −7.7, −4.1) off a pre-66 rate of 39%. The change varied by race/ethnicity, education, and marital status. Pap rates did not change discretely for non-Hispanic Black women (0.8 p.p.; 95% CI: −5.4, 7.1) but did for women from other racial/ethnic groups. The decline was larger for women who graduated college (−9.0 p.p.; 95% CI: −12.0, −5.9) than for women without a college degree and for women who were never married (−9.4 p.p., 95% CI: −17.3, −1.5) than for women who were married/partnered or divorced/separated. The USPSTF recommendation to discontinue cervical cancer screening after age 65 leads to a sharp decline in Pap test rates at age 66 but disparately affects women based on race, education and marital status. Further study is needed to assess the consequences of these changes.

Multi-institutional 10-year retrospective review of amoeba diagnosed on cytologic evaluation of anal pap tests: what is the significance?

Intestinal amoebae are usually transmitted via ingestion of amoebic cysts in fecally contaminated water or food. However, other modes of transmission include sexual contact through anal-oral sex. While the primary role of anal cytology is the detection of anal cancer and precursor lesions, organisms can also be identified. Despite this, assessment of the clinical significance of cytologic identification of amoebae is lacking in the literature. A 10-year retrospective review of the pathology archives of 2 institutions in Boston, Massachusetts was conducted. Anal Pap tests that identified amoeba were reviewed and correlated with the medical records for investigation into clinical parameters and patient management. A total of 46 cases were identified between the 2 sites. The majority of patients were male (95.7%) and endorsed having sex with men (84.8%). Only a minority endorsed recent travel (6.5%). Most of the patients were also HIV (human immunodeficiency virus)-positive (71.1%) with all of these patients being well-controlled on antiretroviral therapy. Most patients were asymptomatic (87.0%). On review of the anal Pap tests, the average organism number per case was 35.4. In the majority of cases, follow-up microbiology testing for confirmation and/or speciation was not performed (89.1%) and were not treated (93.5%). While identification of amoeba is possible on anal cytology, the clinical significance remains unclear as most patients were asymptomatic and not treated in this series. Ultimately, the clinical setting likely plays an important role in determination of management.

Abstract 4179: Anal cancer risk factors and utilization of cancer preventive strategies in people living with HIV in Puerto Rico

Abstract Introduction: Anal cancer (AC) risk is greatly elevated among persons living with HIV (PLWH), particularly men who have sex with men (MSM). The incidence of anal cancer among PLWH in Puerto Rico is 60.5 per 100,000 in MSM. Smoking and sexual behaviors may enhance anal cancer risk among PLWH. Therefore, we describe the prevalence of risk factors for AC, overall and by sexual risk group (MSM, women, and men who have sex with women [MSW]). We also evaluated receipt of cancer preventive strategies: HPV vaccination and AC screening, among a sample of PLWH in Puerto Rico. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted (Sept 2020 - Dec 2021) among PLWH ≥26 aged in Puerto Rico (n=212). Participants answered a phone interview that collected information on relevant characteristics. AC risk factors evaluated were current smoking, age of sexual initiation (≤15 years), lifetime anal sex, 10 or more lifetime sexual partners, history of AIDS, genital warts, and HPV infection. HPV vaccination and AC screening status were also evaluated. The overall and sexual risk group specific prevalence of AC risk factors and preventive behaviors were described. In addition, the prevalence ratio (PR) of the variables of interest, comparing the sexual risk groups, was estimated with 95% confidence intervals using Poisson regression. Results: Mean age of participants was 52.8 ± (SD=10.2); 44.1% were MSM, 23.2% were MSW, and 32.7% were women. Most PLWH had public health insurance (84.4%), an education level of high-school or less (45.7%), and 9.5% had a history of intravenous drug use. Regarding the prevalence of AC risk factors, 58.3% had 10 or more lifetime sex partners, 51% had their first sexual relationship at age ≤15 years, 29.3% were current smokers, and 75.8% of women had history of anal sex. In addition, 20.8% reported being diagnosed with AIDS, 16.5% had a history of genital warts, and 12.0% had HPV infection. Only 7.5% reported HPV vaccination and 52.2% reported ever having had an anal pap test. MSM had the highest prevalence of risky sexual behaviors, although no statistical difference was seen in the PRs. For preventive strategies, women (PR: 3.13, 95% CI 1.52-6.46) and MSM (PR: 3.42, 95% CI 1.70-6.90) had higher prevalence of anal pap uptake than MSW. Conclusion: Persons living with HIV in Puerto Rico had high prevalence of current smoking use and risky sexual behavior. Despite their increased risk of AC, and only over half had been screened for AC. Continued education and awareness about AC risk factors, smoking cessation, and importance of prevention strategies are important among PLWH. Citation Format: Sandra I. Garcia-Camacho, Jeslie M. Ramos-Cartagena, Marievelisse Soto-Salgado, Vivian Colon-Lopez, Karen J. Ortiz-Ortiz, Ashish A. Deshmukh, Ana P. Ortiz. Anal cancer risk factors and utilization of cancer preventive strategies in people living with HIV in Puerto Rico. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2023; Part 1 (Regular and Invited Abstracts); 2023 Apr 14-19; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(7_Suppl):Abstract nr 4179.

Influence of previous experience with and beliefs regarding anal cancer screening on willingness to be screened among men living with HIV

BackgroundImplementation of anal cancer screening requires the procedure to be acceptable to the target population. Our objective was to assess the beliefs of men living with HIV regarding anal cancer screening and identify factors associated with their willingness to participate in screening.MethodsWe developed a cross-sectional questionnaire using the Theory of Planned Behavior to examine beliefs regarding prevention of human papillomavirus (HPV)-related diseases, administered to men living with HIV in 2016–2017 in a multi-site HIV clinical cohort. Correspondence analysis was used to examine the interrelationships between men’s beliefs and willingness to undergo anal cancer screening. We used multivariable proportional odds models to identify factors associated with increasing willingness. Results were reported as adjusted odds ratios (aOR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).ResultsAmong 1677 male participants, the vast majority (90%) would be willing to undergo screening by “anal Pap test”; willingness clustered with positive beliefs (e.g. confident they can get screened; disagree that they will feel pain) in the correspondence analysis. Higher self-perceived risk for anal cancer and positive beliefs regarding screening were associated with higher willingness to be screened. Gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men had higher willingness (aOR = 1.62; 95% CI: 1.15, 2.29) than heterosexual men. Racialized men reported lower willingness (aOR = 0.68; 95% CI: 0.54, 0.89) than white men.ConclusionsMen generally had positive beliefs and were willing to undergo screening, though there were differences by sexual orientation and racial identity. Tailored community-led initiatives could focus on men’s understanding of their risk and expectations of anal cancer screening to facilitate participation.

439. Anal Dysplasia Screening Cascade within a Single-Center Outpatient HIV Clinic

Abstract Background HIV-positive men who have sex with men (MSM) are recommended to have anal Pap tests annually to screen for high-grade anal squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL). In this population, removal of HSIL reduces the risk of progression to anal cancer. This study aims to assess the effectiveness of the anal dysplasia screening cascade in a single-center outpatient clinic. Methods We conducted a single-center retrospective cohort study at Johns Hopkins. All adult HIV-positive MSM patients who had in-person encounters in the Bartlett Clinic between October 1, 2019-April 30, 2021 were included. Clinical information and dates of anal pap smears and HRAs were provided via an Epic data extraction. Manual chart review was conducted for anal pap and HRA pathology results. Descriptive analysis was performed. The primary outcome was successful navigation of the institutional anal dysplasia screening cascade, defined as annual anal Pap testing and completion of HRA if pap results were abnormal. This study was IRB exempt. Results 779 HIV-positive MSM patients were seen for in-person visits during the study period. 24% (190/779) of patients underwent at least one screening anal Pap, with 29 having multiple anal pap smears leading to a total of 219 anal pap smears done. 40% (87/219) were abnormal. Among those with an abnormal pap, 72% (63/87) had a referral for HRA placed but only 26% (23/87) underwent HRA. 39% (9/23) of HRAs identified HSIL in patients with lower-grade lesions on Pap test and one patient with HSIL on Pap had anal cancer detected on HRA. In total, 120 patients navigated the anal cancer screening cascade appropriately. This compromised 15% (120/779) of eligible MSM patients seen for at least one in-person clinic visit and 63% (120/190) of patients who underwent an anal Pap. Conclusion Completion of a screening cascade for anal dysplasia among HIV-positive MSM at our clinic was low. The largest gaps were seen in initiating annual anal Pap screening and scheduling referrals for HRA in surgical subspecialty clinics. Increased attention and clinic resources should be directed toward narrowing these gaps to ensure HSIL and anal cancers are detected early within this high-risk population. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures.

Wide Variability in Documentation of Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, and Preventive Health Screenings in a Diverse Sample of U.S. Community Health Centers.

Purpose: This study was conducted to characterize documentation of sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) and provision of screening and preventive services in a diverse sample of community health centers (CHCs). Methods: Twelve CHCs provided data submitted to the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) in 2018 from their Uniform Data System (UDS) reports. Prevalence of SOGI documentation, screenings, and preventive services were calculated. Sociodemographic correlates of documentation were analyzed using Fisher's exact test and Wilcoxon rank sum/Mann-Whitney U test. Results: Patient data recording sexual orientation (SO) were missing in 2%-93% of UDS reports from the 12 CHCs, and gender identity (GI) data were missing from 0% to 96% of UDS reports. CHCs were most likely to report body mass index and tobacco screening and least likely to report hepatitis A or B vaccination, independent of SO or GI. Transgender females were less likely to have mammography documented than cisgender females. Transgender males were less likely to have anal Pap tests, be vaccinated for hepatitis B, or be referred for risky alcohol use compared to cisgender males. Patients who identified as "another gender" were less likely to be referred for risky alcohol use, undergo mammography or anal Pap testing, or receive hepatitis A vaccination than cisgender people. Individuals who did not disclose their GI were less likely to be vaccinated for hepatitis A or B than cisgender people. Conclusion: SOGI status was often not documented by a diverse array of CHCs. However, when SOGI status was documented, we saw evidence of disparities in preventive interventions and referrals, particularly for transgender patients. Clinical trial registration number: NCT03554785.

New Screening Strategy Combining Anal Papanicolaou and Human Papillomavirus Tests for Human Papillomavirus-Related Anal Cancer: A Prospective, Single-Center Study.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the performance of a combined approach of liquid-based anal cytology and human papillomavirus (HPV) testing in predicting patients who should undergo high-resolution anoscopy for the early detection of anal cancer and anal intraepithelial neoplasia (AIN)-2+. We conducted a prospective single-center quality improvement study. We consecutively enrolled men who had sex with men (MSM) attending our sexually transmitted disease clinic to undergo anal Papanicolaou (Pap) and HPV tests. All patients with an abnormal anal Pap test result and/or positive HPV test result underwent high-resolution anoscopy. We enrolled 217 MSM, 80 HIV-positive patients, and 137 HIV-negative patients. Cytology showed a sensitivity of 100%, a specificity of 64.1%, an accuracy of 66.7%, a positive predictive value (PPV) of 15.7%, and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 100% for the detection of AIN-2+. The high-risk (HR)-HPV test showed sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, PPV, and NPV of 100%, 36.4%, 40%, 9.4%, and 100%, respectively. The combination of abnormal cytology with identification of infection by at least 1 HR-HPV strain on the HPV test had a sensitivity of 100%, a specificity of 73%, an accuracy of 74.6%, a PPV of 19.1%, and an NPV of 100%. Anal HR-HPV testing, complementary to cytology, improves the diagnostic accuracy of screening for anal cancer.

Knowledge, Attitudes, and Experiences of Anal Cancer and Anal Cancer Screening Among a Clinical Sample of Hispanic Women.

Anal cancer screening has been recommended for women with lower genital tract neoplasia, lupus, Crohn disease, HIV, and/or organ transplantation recipients. This study described and compared knowledge, attitudes, and experiences related to anal cancer and anal cancer screening between women at high risk for anal cancer and their counterparts. This is a cross-sectional study within colposcopy and gynecology oncology clinics in Puerto Rico; 278 women 21 years or older and with prior diagnosis of gynecological neoplasia completed an interviewer-administered questionnaire. Women were categorized according to their medical history as being high risk or non-high risk for anal cancer. The high-risk group included women with a history of lower genital tract neoplasia, lupus, Crohn disease, HIV, and/or organ transplantation. Overall, 40.7% of the study population were at high risk for developing anal cancer. History of anal cancer screening was low among high-risk and non-high-risk women (11.5% vs 5.6%, p > .05). Less than 1% of all women reported to have had a high-resolution anoscopy. Most women (87.6%) had little knowledge about anal Pap test but were willing to have one if their doctors recommended it (96.5%). No major differences in knowledge, attitudes, or screening history were observed between high-risk and non-high-risk women. Although experts do not recommend routine anal cancer screening for the general population, they do recommend it for women within certain high-risk groups. Study findings highlight the importance of increasing education and awareness of anal cancer among high-risk patients and physicians, to promote better preventive methods, achieve early detection, and improve disease outcomes.

Screening for cancers of the cervix and vagina for women exposed to diethylstilbestrol (DES) in utero

ObjectivesIn total, 80,000 women were exposed to diethylstilbestrol (DES) in utero in France (DES daughters) between 1950 and 1977. After having been dominated by the management of infertility and pregnancy accidents, monitoring must adapt to the increased risk of cancer of the cervix and vagina: doubling of the frequency of severe dysplasia and a risk of late clear-cell adenocarcinoma (CCA). Two recent changes in cervical cancer screening in France, the introduction of HPV tests in first-line screening and organized screening, should consider the particular situation of DES daughters. We aimed to assess the compliance of DES daughters with previous recommendations and propose specific screening practices in the new context. MethodA non-profit organization carried out a questionnaire survey of its members who were exposed to DES in utero. ResultsAmong the 570 participants, 64 % had annual PAP tests, 25 % within the last three years, and 11 % more than three years before or never. The reasons for "dropout" were: 1) ignorance of the recommendations by practitioners (38 %) or patients (30 %), 2) fatigue (32 %) or apprehension of the exams (14 %), and 3) difficult access to care: time to get an appointment (26 %), difficulty in finding a doctor (28 %), or cost (6 %). ConclusionThese results concern women who were sufficiently aware of the issue to be a member of an association. They are encouraging but show a need to improve the dissemination of information to all “DES daughters” and health professionals. Patient associations can play a growing role in this “rare disease” by addressing patients and healthcare professionals. We propose that screening for these women include an annual screen of not only the cervix, but also the vagina, and that it continues beyond 65 years of age and after hysterectomy, with cytological examination, because ACC is unrelated to HPV.

Anal Cancer and Anal Cancer Screening Knowledge, Attitudes, and Perceived Risk Among Women Living With HIV.

The aims of the study were (1) to describe anal cancer knowledge, perceived risk, screening barriers, and acceptability of sample self-collection among women living with HIV (WLWH) at an integrated safety-net system and (2) to describe differences in demographic and psychosocial variables among a subsample of WLWH with a history of abnormal cervical cytology results versus those with normal results. We conducted telephone surveys with English- and Spanish-speaking WLWH (N = 99) and used electronic health record data to extract insurance type, CD4+ cell count, RNA viral load, and cervical cytology results. We calculated descriptive statistics for participant demographics, HIV laboratory results, and psychosocial variables. Among the subsample of women who completed a recent cervical Pap, we used Fisher exact test to assess differences in demographic variables, CD4+ counts, RNA viral loads, knowledge, awareness, acceptability, and perceived risk by cervical cytology results. Most participants (70%) reported knowing nothing about anal cancer; 28% correctly responded that HIV increases one's chance of getting anal cancer. Most (68%) never heard of an anal Pap test. Forty percent would get an anal Pap if they could self-collect the sample, whereas 59% were neutral or disagreed. The 2 most commonly cited barriers to obtaining an anal Pap were "I do not know enough about it" (n = 15) and "It might hurt" (n = 9). This study highlights a gap in knowledge and awareness among WLWH regarding their heightened risk for anal cancer. It indicates the need for health education and suggests an opportunity for a self-collection intervention.

Unintended Consequences: The Impact of Cervical Cancer Screening Guidelines on Rates of STI Screening in Primary Care.

In 2012, cervical cancer screening guidelines in Ontario shifted from recommending yearly Pap testing to recommending Pap tests every 3 years. We sought to investigate how these changes have impacted rates of sexually transmitted infection (STI) screening in young women. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 600 patients aged 19-25 years who presented to 1 of 2 community family health teams from May 1, 2009 to April 30, 2012 (the annual Pap test group) or from Nov 1, 2012 to Oct 31, 2015 (the triennial Pap test group). The primary outcome was the number of visits at which STI screening was performed. Secondary outcomes were presence/absence of STI screening over a 3-year period and method of screening used. A significant decrease was observed in the number of visits at which STI screening was performed, with the annual group averaging 1.21 visits/patient compared with 0.82 visits/patient for the triennial group (P = 0.001). A decrease in the proportion of patients screened over 3 years was also observed (66.8% vs. 52.8%, P = 0.007). A significant decrease in the use of endocervical culture (1.06 vs. 0.57 tests/patient, P <0.001), and a non-significant increase in urine NAAT (0.09 vs. 0.17, P = 0.07) and serum STI screening (0.37 vs. 0.47, P = 0.16) was observed. The 2012 Ontario cervical cancer screening guidelines were associated with a decrease in STI screening among women aged 19-25 years in the primary care setting. This unintended effect of guideline changes highlights a need for STI screening practices that are independent of routine pelvic examinations.

Anal PAP, HPV tests and magnifying chromoendoscopy with biopsies in the diagnosis of anal intraephitelial neoplasia

IntroductionAnal intraepithelial neoplasia (AIN) is the most likely precursor of squamous cells cancer which represents 90% of anal cancers. The use of biomolecular tests as a screening method has been extended by gynecology. Given the similarities that exist between the HPV disease in the lower genital tract and anorectal sectors, it is expected that HPV tests can provide information for the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up for AIN-affected patients. ObjectivesComparing the performance of anal cytology, PAP and HPV tests (Hybrid Capture and Papillocheck) against the histology of the diagnosis of low- and high-grade AIN in risk groups. Material and methodsA cross-sectional study was carried out to evaluate diagnostic methods for low- and high-grade AIN in 73 patients. Samples for anal PAP, Papillocheck and Hybrid Capture were taken from all patients who then, regardless of the results, underwent magnifying chromoendoscopy (MCE) along with biopsy. Diagnostic test performances and their 95% confidence intervals (CI: 95%) were calculated as well as the likelihood ratio for each test. ResultsOf the 73 patients, 49 (67%) were women. The average age of the patients was 38 years. In 38 patients (52%), the histology was positive with 10 (14%) grade II AIN or higher. There were no statistically significant differences in sensitivity nor in specificity for low- and high-grade AINs between any of the tests. ConclusionAnal PAP, the Hybrid Capture test (HC2, Qiagen) and PapilloCheck (Greiner Bio One) were highly sensitive but not specific for low- and high-grade AINs. Therefore, a biopsy should be conducted against a positive result of any of the tests to confirm AIN and the degree of dysplasia. The screening method selection depend on the availability but also costs of the test should be considered, since all the diagnostic tests have similar performance.

Abstract C126: Challenges implementing anal cancer screening for women living with HIV: Clinical providers and staff perspectives

Abstract Purpose: The HIV Medicine Association recommends anal Pap tests for women living with HIV (WLWH) with a history of abnormal cervical Pap tests, ano-receptive intercourse, or genital warts. This study describes current anal cancer screening practices and provider- and staff-identified challenges conducting anal cancer screening for WLWH in an integrated safety-net healthcare institution and community healthcare organization serving underinsured patients in a metropolitan city in Texas. Findings inform our understanding of factors that need to be addressed prior to implementation of system-level anal cancer screening policies and protocols for WLWH, a population at increased risk for anal cancer due to persistent HPV infection. Methods: We purposefully sampled providers, clinical staff, and administrative staff to participate in in-person semi-structured interviews assessing participant experiences with anal cancer screening, documentation, and follow up, and attitudes toward future anal cancer screening among WLWH. Audio-recorded interviews and field notes were transcribed and thematically analyzed using an iterative deductive and inductive coding scheme. Results: We completed interviews with 25 individuals: providers (n=11: 7 safety-net, 4 community), clinical staff (n=10: 8 safety-net, 2 community), and administrative staff (n=4: safety-net). Current practices. No system-level policies or protocols for anal cancer screening existed within the safety-net institution or community organization for WLWH. Instead, HIV providers performed anal Pap tests ad hoc, most frequently as diagnostic evaluations based on visual inspections or patient-reported symptoms. To follow up on abnormal test results, providers referred patients to Proctology Clinic, where wait for an appointment was about one year. Challenges. Without anal cancer screening policies or protocols, clinical teams were unclear on whether the HIV team or gynecology specialty team should lead screening efforts. Electronic health records only recorded cervical Pap test results in the “Pap” field, leaving providers to record anal Pap results in a notes section. This limited the ability to produce systematic reports or track screening. Finally, providers and staff expressed reluctance to conduct systematic anal cancer screening until greater infrastructure existed to manage referrals for abnormal anal Pap test results. Conclusions: Anal cancer screening and follow-up for WLWH require organization and coordination between multiple care teams, and protocols should clarify clinical pathways and responsibilities as patients transition between HIV, gynecology, and proctology teams. Further, clinical information systems must be updated to facilitate teams’ communication and to support anal Pap test ordering and documentation. Finally, downstream infrastructure to support follow-up must accompany upstream implementation of an anal cancer screening policy. Citation Format: Serena A Rodriguez, Robin T Higashi, Andrea B Betts, Cynthia Ortiz, Jasmin A Tiro, Amneris Luque, Arti Barnes. Challenges implementing anal cancer screening for women living with HIV: Clinical providers and staff perspectives [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Twelfth AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2019 Sep 20-23; San Francisco, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2020;29(6 Suppl_2):Abstract nr C126.

Anal Cancer Screening Attitudes and Practices in Maryland Healthcare Providers: Implications for National Trends

Background: Anal cancer incidence is increasing in the US. Though formally established national anal cancer screening guidelines are nonexistent, many providers advocate screening to avoid late disease presentation. This study assesses the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of anal cancer screening among providers to identify the degree of variation and barriers to screening. Methods: Healthcare providers from two academic medical centers and a statewide community primary care group were surveyed using a questionnaire adapted from the National Survey of Primary Care Physicians’ Recommendations and Practice for Cancer Screening. Descriptive statistics were performed to explore providers’ responses and Fisher’s exact test to explore variation. Results: 86 providers completed the questionnaire (response rate 24.2%): 81.4% physicians, 18.6% advanced practitioners. 48.2% of respondents perform anal cancer screening. 5.8% correctly identified all high-risk patient factors. “HIV+ patient” was identified most frequently as high-risk (93.5%), “organ transplant recipient” (42.9%) least frequently. Anal pap test was the most recommended first-line screening test (76.6%) followed by digital anorectal exam (19.2%), HPV test (8.5%), and high-resolution anoscopy (HRA) (6.4%). Clinical evidence (72.3%) and national guidelines (70.2%) were most influential in guiding providers’ screening recommendations. Lack of qualified screening providers (34.1%), lack of patient follow-up after positive test results (22.7%), and patient non-compliance to initial screening (15.9%) were identified as “usual” barriers. Conclusions: Anal cancer screening attitudes and practices vary among providers. Development of national practice guidelines that define a multidisciplinary team approach from primary care anal cancer screening to specialist referral for HRA may reduce screening variability.

Diagnosing uncertainty: The challenges of implementing medical screening programs for minority sub-populations in Canada

The social science literature on medical screening has documented a notable disjuncture between the promises of population-based screening programs and the complex realities of their rollout in everyday practice. We contribute to this scholarship by examining how healthcare providers confront numerous uncertainties associated with the implementation of anal cancer screening programs in Canada given the absence of standardized national evidence-based guidelines. The data was derived from in-depth interviews conducted with 13 physicians and 2 clinical researchers about anal cancer screening for gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men living with HIV, the minority sub-population at the highest risk for HPV-associated anal cancer. Despite having unknown utility and low specificity, an initial anal Pap test was used to triage patients into anal dysplasia clinics for high-resolution anoscopy. This process led to technological scepticism toward the Pap's accuracy, diagnostic ambiguity related to the interpretation of the cytology results and increased patient anxiety regarding abnormal results. Physicians navigated a tension between wanting to avoid exposing their patients to additional uncertainties caused by screening and pre-cancer treatment and wanting to ensure that their patients did not develop anal cancer under their care. A high number of abnormal anal Pap results paradoxically reintroduced some of the capacity issues that the Pap was meant to resolve, as the existing dysplasia clinics were incapable of seeing all patients with abnormal results. We define this sequence as the epistemic-capacity paradox, a dynamic whereby seeking evidence to improve healthcare capacity simultaneously produces evidence that introduces capacity challenges and generates additional uncertainty. The epistemic-capacity paradox demonstrates the limitations of evidence-based medicine frameworks at determining best practices in the context of rarer health conditions affecting minority sub-populations, where smaller population numbers and limited institutional support pose systemic challenges to the acquisition of sufficient evidence.

Anal Intraepithelial Neoplasia Screening With Anal Pap Tests: Follow-up and Corresponding Histology

BackgroundAnal cytology is used as a screening tool in the detection of precancerous anal squamous lesions. Follow-up clinical examination after abnormal anal cytology is recommended. The objective of this study was to determine how often abnormal cytology was followed by a clinical examination at our institution and how often cytology predicted histologic outcome. Materials and methodsA retrospective chart review was performed (2008-2018) on patients with anal cytology, demonstrating either low-grade or high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion. Clinical examination within 1 y (digital rectal examination, anoscopy, or high-resolution anoscopy) was recorded. The probability of anal intraepithelial neoplasm on biopsy after dysplasia on cytology was calculated, and McNemar's test was used to determine if there was correspondence between cytology and histology. ResultsA total of 327 anal cytology results demonstrated dysplasia (75% low grade and 25% high grade) in 182 patients. Seventy-five percent of dysplastic anal cytology were followed by clinical examination within 1 y, and 50% were biopsied. The probability of dysplasia on histology after dysplasia on cytology was 72% (95% confidence interval: 64%-78.5%). Twenty-eight percent of low-grade cytology results were upgraded to advanced disease (high-grade or invasive cancer) on histology. A low-grade cytology result was unable to preclude high-grade histology in our population. ConclusionsThere is room for improvement at our institution to consistently follow-up with clinical examination after abnormal anal cytology. Our data suggest this is especially important considering anal cytology is an imperfect predictor of histologic anal intraepithelial neoplasia and invasive disease. Clinical examination is a critical component of anal dysplasia screening and follow-up.

A cancer screening crisis for transgender patients: Discrimination, patient unease, provider ignorance, and a highly gendered health care system are impeding cancer screening and risk assessment in the transgender population. In this article, the first of a 2-part series, we explore how clinicians can begin to address those barriers.

A cancer screening crisis for transgender patients: Discrimination, patient unease, provider ignorance, and a highly gendered health care system are impeding cancer screening and risk assessment in the transgender population. In this article, the first of a 2-part series, we explore how clinicians can begin to address those barriers.