Baseline findings from the Anal Cancer Examination (ACE) study: screening using digital ano-rectal examination in HIV-positive men who have sex with men

Men who have sex with men experience low anxiety and few barriers to performing anal self or companion examinations: a qualitative study of the Prevent Anal Cancer Palpation Study

While rare in the larger population, anal cancer incidence is significantly higher in groups such as sexual minority men and people living with HIV. This qualitative analysis examined participants' experiences and perceptions of barriers to anal self-examination and anal companion examination through interviews completed as a part of a larger clinical trial. Interviews were conducted online with participants (n = 131) within a week of their baseline appointment between January 2020 and October 2021. Content analysis denoted participants' thoughts and perceptions about anal self-examination and anal companion examinations. Of the 131 cisgender men interviewed (mean age 49.9 years, SD 12.7), 92.4% identified as gay, 54.9% identified as white, 22.1% identified as Black, 19.9% identified as Latino, and 44.3% of participants were living with HIV. Participants did not report feelings of excessive anxiety when an abnormality was detected. However, three salient themes emerged as to why participants may not perform an anal self-examination or anal companion examination: (1) physical limitation(s), (2) potential sexualisation of the examination, and (3) level of comfort discussing anal health. Future work must continue to explore methods that not only decrease stigma surrounding anal health but also bolster feelings of accessibility to perform self and couple examinations.

Anal Cancer and Anal Cancer Screening

This chapter provides an overview of anal cancer and contemporary approaches for anal precancer detection, beginning with a discussion of the biology and natural history of anal squamous cell carcinoma, the predominant human papillomavirus -associated histologic subtype of anal cancer. This section is followed by a description of the epidemiology of anal cancer, including trends in incidence and mortality, a discussion of populations with elevated risk for anal cancer and an overview of associated risk factors. The remainder of the chapter provides the most up-to-date evidence on tools and approaches for anal cancer prevention, screening, and early detection; including, the role of human papillomavirus vaccination for primary prevention; anal cytology, high resolution anoscopy and novel biomarkers for secondary prevention; and digital anal-rectal examination for early detection.

Do we DARE? Improving digital ano-rectal examination in men who have sex with men living with HIV: a quality improvement initiative

Men who have sex with men (MSM) living with HIV are at increased risk of anal cancer and annual screening via digital ano-rectal examination (DARE) is recommended. Baseline audit (Cycle 1) was undertaken of the medical records of MSM living with HIV aged ≥50years (n =85) from 1 January 2017 to 31 December 2018, in line with guidelines at the time. Data collection included whether DARE was discussed and offered, and whether DARE was accepted or declined. We provided staff training and altered clinic proformas aiming to increase DARE. Audit Cycle 2 (Cycle 2) was undertaken of eligible MSM (n =86) who attended between 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2020. DARE frequency increased from 4.7% in Cycle 1 to 41.8% in Cycle 2 (P <0.001) and discussion and offer of DARE increased from 8% to 64% in Cycle 2 (P <0.001).

A cross-sectional survey on attitudes of men who have sex with men towards anal self-examination for detection of anal syphilis

Studies suggest men who have sex with men (MSM) practising receptive anal sex are more likely to present with secondary syphilis, implying primary anorectal lesions are likely to be missed. If men could detect anorectal lesions in the primary stage by regular anal self-examination (ASE), transmission could be reduced by early diagnosis and treatment. We aimed to explore the attitudes of MSM on performing ASE to detect primary anorectal syphilis. An online anonymous cross-sectional survey among MSM over 18 years of age living in Australia, was conducted between July and November 2020 and recruitment was from a sexual health clinic and social media. A total of 568 MSM completed the survey (median age: 34 [IQR 27–45]): 32% (183) had previously performed ASE. Among 66% (374) who had never performed ASE, 68% (250) would consider performing ASE in the future with a preferred median frequency of 2 times per 4 weeks (IQR 1–4), whilst men who were already performing ASE were performing it at median 1 per 4 weeks (IQR 0.2–3). Almost two-thirds of MSM who had never performed ASE were willing to adopt ASE practice in the future. Studies are required to determine the effectiveness of ASE for syphilis detection.

Anal Cancer Screening and Prevention: Summary of Evidence Reviewed for the 2021 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Sexually Transmitted Infection Guidelines

In June 2019 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) convened an advisory group to assist in development of the 2021 CDC sexually transmitted infections (STI) guidelines. The advisory group on anal cancer screening and prevention met to formulate key questions in this field. The group examined published literature and abstracts to assess evidence and give recommendations for development of the CDC guidelines. This article summarizes key questions, evidence, recommendations, and areas for further research for the screening, diagnosis, and prevention of anal cancer.

Patient-reported outcomes associated with cancer screening: a systematic review

Background

Multi-cancer early detection tests have been developed to enable earlier detection of multiple cancer types through screening. As reflected by patient-reported outcomes (PROs), the psychosocial impact of cancer screening is not yet clear. Our aim is to evaluate the impact of cancer screening through PRO assessment.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and reference lists of articles from January 2000 to August 2020 for relevant publications assessing the psychosocial impact of cancer screening before and within 1 year after screening in the general asymptomatic population, including following receipt of results. Studies focused on diagnostic evaluation or involving patients previously diagnosed with cancer were excluded.

Results

In total, 31 studies (12 randomized controlled trials; 19 observational studies) were included, reflecting PRO assessments associated with lung, breast, colorectal, anal, ovarian, cervical, and prostate cancer screening procedures. The most commonly assessed construct was symptoms of anxiety, using the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Cancer-specific distress and worry were also assessed using a broad range of measures. Overall, individuals tolerated screening procedures well with no major psychosocial effects. Of note, increases in symptoms of anxiety and levels of distress and worry were generally found prior to communication of screening results and following communication of indeterminate or positive results that required further testing. These negative psychosocial effects were, however, not long-lasting and returned to baseline relatively soon after screening. Furthermore, individuals with higher cancer risk, such as current smokers and those with a family history of cancer, tended to have higher levels of anxiety and distress throughout the screening process, including following negative or indeterminate results.

Conclusions

The psychosocial impact of cancer screening is relatively low overall and short-lived, even following false-positive test results. Individuals with a higher risk of cancer tend to experience more symptoms of anxiety and distress during the screening process; thus, more attention to this group is recommended.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-022-09261-5.

Gay and Bisexual Men Who Report Anal Sex Stigma Alongside Discomfort Discussing Anal Sex with Health Workers Are Less Likely to Have Ever Received an Anal Examination or Anal Swab

Purpose: We sought to determine whether stigma toward anal sexuality was associated with having ever received an anal examination or anal swab among gay and bisexual men (GBM). Methods: In 2017, we conducted a cross-sectional online survey with 1513 adult cisgender GBM living in the United States. We used structural equation modeling to test whether the Anal Sex Stigma Scales (a validated measure comprising provider stigma, self-stigma, and silence) was negatively associated with lifetime receipt of anorectal examination or anal swabbing by a medical provider. The model assessed mediation by respondents' comfort discussing anal sex practices with health workers and adjusted for possible confounders. Results: As hypothesized, anal sex stigma was associated with less comfort discussing anal sex (β = -0.44, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.50 to -0.38, p < 0.001), and greater comfort was associated with greater likelihood of screening (β = 0.28, 95% CI: 0.19 to 0.37, p < 0.001). The model demonstrated good fit (root mean square error of approximation = 0.045, comparative fit index, and Tucker-Lewis index each = 0.99) and adjusted for everyday discrimination, social support specific to anal sex, age, income, education, medical coverage, outness, and ethnic/racial identification. Collectively, model variables accounted for 48% of the variance in screening (p < 0.001). Conclusion: GBM who endorsed less anal sex stigma reported greater comfort discussing anal sex with health workers and were more likely to have ever received anal health screening by a medical provider. To improve anal health and cancer prevention among GBM, anal sex stigma and related discomfort discussing anal sex with health workers are targets for intervention.

Sexually Transmitted Infections Treatment Guidelines, 2021

These guidelines for the treatment of persons who have or are at risk for sexually transmitted infections (STIs) were updated by CDC after consultation with professionals knowledgeable in the field of STIs who met in Atlanta, Georgia, June 11–14, 2019. The information in this report updates the 2015 guidelines. These guidelines discuss 1) updated recommendations for treatment of Neisseria gonorrhoeae, Chlamydia trachomatis, and Trichomonas vaginalis; 2) addition of metronidazole to the recommended treatment regimen for pelvic inflammatory disease; 3) alternative treatment options for bacterial vaginosis; 4) management of Mycoplasma genitalium; 5) human papillomavirus vaccine recommendations and counseling messages; 6) expanded risk factors for syphilis testing among pregnant women; 7) one-time testing for hepatitis C infection; 8) evaluation of men who have sex with men after sexual assault; and 9) two-step testing for serologic diagnosis of genital herpes simplex virus. Physicians and other health care providers can use these guidelines to assist in prevention and treatment of STIs.

The importance of anal cancer screening and high-resolution anoscopy to gastroenterology practice

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Although human papillomavirus (HPV)-related anal squamous cell cancer (ASCC) is rare, its incidence has been rising and in high-risk populations exceeds the incidence of cancers for which screening programs are implemented. Therefore, targeted screening techniques are being evaluated with high-resolution anoscopy (HRA) as the current gold standard because of its ability to detect anal intraepithelial dysplasia (AIN) and premalignant high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSILs). However, a scarcity of trained providers presents a barrier to screening.

RECENT FINDINGS

ASCC incidence is rising especially in elderly women and young black men. Premalignant HSIL may not only progress to ASCC but also regress. Biomarkers such as HPV type, p16 immunostaining and DNA methylation markers may emerge as predictors of disease progression.HRA with acetic acid and Lugol's iodine staining can be used to detect HSIL and ASCC. Recent studies suggest that anal cancer screening may have an impact on the stage of ASCC at diagnosis and the incidence of anal cancer.The Anal Cancer HSIL Outcomes Research (ANCHOR) study is underway to determine whether treating HSIL effects ASCC incidence.

SUMMARY

Although there are no consensus screening guidelines for anal cancer, it is reasonable to screen high-risk populations with physical examination, anal cytology and HRA. Gastroenterologists can support anal cancer screening programmes through identifying patients at risk, performing noninvasive screening and considering to incorporate endoscopic techniques to examine the anal canal. VIDEO ABSTRACT: http://links.lww.com/COG/A32.

Incidence, Clearance, and Persistence of Anal Human Papillomavirus in Men Who Have Sex With Men Living With Human Immunodeficiency Virus: Implications for Human Papillomavirus Vaccination

BACKGROUND

Men who have sex with men living with human immunodeficiency virus have a high risk of anal cancer. We estimate the likely benefit of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination among participants of the Anal Cancer Examination study.

METHODS

Anal swabs were collected for the detection and genotyping of anal HPV DNA by linear array (Roche Diagnostics) in this 2-year multicenter prospective cohort. We calculated the proportion of men, stratified by age, without detectable vaccine type-specific DNA.

RESULTS

Overall, 255 men, with a median age of 50 years (interquartile range, 44-56 years) contributed 488.9 person-years of follow-up. After 2 years of follow-up, 149 (58%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 52-65) had at least 1 high-risk HPV (HRHPV), and 71 (28%, 95% CI, 22-34) had HPV types 16/18 detected. Assuming that DNA-negative men would receive vaccine protection, vaccination at baseline could potentially prevent HRHPV infection in 10.2% of men (95% CI, 6.8-14.6, 26 of 255) 2 years later from incident HRHPV covered by the bivalent and quadrivalent vaccine, and 29.4% of men (95% CI, 23.9-35.4, 75/255) from incident HRHPV covered by the nonavalent vaccine.

CONCLUSION

Though there is high prevalence of anal HPV in men who have sex with men living with human immunodeficiency virus, there was also a high incidence of HRHPV vaccine types in the 2-year follow-up, indicating potential for prevention if these men were not previously infected with HPV vaccine types and were vaccinated at their baseline visit.

Acceptability of anal cancer screening tests for women living with HIV in the EVVA study

Background

Anal cancer is potentially preventable through screening. For screening to be implemented, the screening procedures must be acceptable to the affected population. The objective of the present study was to measure the acceptability of currently available anal cancer screening tests in a population of women living with hiv who had experienced the tests.

Methods

The evva study ("Evaluation of Human Immunodeficiency Virus, Human Papillomavirus, and Anal Intraepithelial Neoplasia in Women") is a prospective cohort study of adult women living with hiv in Montreal, Quebec. Participants were screened with cervical or anal hpv testing and cervical or anal cytology every 6 months for 2 years. High-resolution anoscopy (hra) and digital anal rectal examination (dare) were also performed systematically, with biopsies, at baseline and at 2 years. An acceptability questionnaire was administered at the final visit or at study withdrawal.

Results

Of 124 women who completed the acceptability questionnaire, most considered screening "an absolute necessity" in routine care for all women living with hiv [77%; 95% confidence interval (ci): 69% to 84%]. Yearly anal cytology or anal hpv testing was considered very acceptable by 81% (95% ci: 73% to 88%); hra every 2 years was considered very acceptable by 84% (95% ci: 77% to 90%); and yearly dare was considered very acceptable by 87% (95% ci: 79% to 92%). Acceptability increased to more than 95% with a longer proposed time interval. Pain was the main reason for lower acceptability.

Conclusions

Most participating women considered anal cancer screening necessary and very acceptable. Longer screening intervals and adequate pain management could further increase the acceptability of repeated screening.

Incorporating digital anorectal examinations for anal cancer screening into routine HIV care for men who have sex with men living with HIV: a prospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Men who have sex with men (MSM) living with HIV have a high risk of anal cancer, which is often detected at late stages, when morbidity and mortality are high. The objective of this study was to describe the feasibility and challenges to incorporating regular digital anorectal examination (DARE) into routine HIV care for MSM living with HIV, from the perspective of patients, physicians and the health service.

METHODS

In 2014, we recruited 327 MSM living with HIV, aged 35 and above from one major sexual health centre (n = 187), two high HIV caseload general practices (n = 118) and one tertiary hospital (n = 22) in Melbourne, Australia. Men were followed up for two years and DARE was recommended at baseline, year 1 and year 2. Data were collected regarding patient and physician experience, and health service use. An ordered logit model was used to assess the relationship between sociodemographic factors and the number of DAREs performed.

RESULTS

Mean age of men was 51 (SD ± 9) years, 69% were Australian born, 32% current smokers, and mean CD4 was 630 (SD ± 265) cells per mm3 , with no significant differences between clinical sites. Overall, 232 (71%) men received all three DAREs, 71 (22%) received two DAREs, and 24 (7%) had one DARE. Adverse outcomes were rarely reported: anal pain (1.2% of total DAREs), bleeding (0.8%) and not feeling in control of their body during the examination (1.6%). Of 862 DAREs performed, 33 (3.8%) examinations resulted in a referral to a colorectal surgeon. One Stage 1 anal cancer was detected.

CONCLUSION

Incorporation of an early anal cancer detection programme into routine HIV clinical care for MSM living with HIV showed high patient acceptability, uncommon adverse outcomes and specialist referral patterns similar to other cancer screening programmes.

Acceptability of high-resolution anoscopy for anal cancer screening in HIV-infected patients

OBJECTIVES

HIV-infected individuals are at increased risk of anal cancer. Screening for anal cancer precursors using high-resolution anoscopy (HRA) may be clinically beneficial. In this study, we examined patient tolerability of this procedure.

METHODS

The acceptability of HRA was evaluated among HIV-infected patients who completed a first-time HRA between July 2008 and December 2013 at Kaiser Permanente Northern California. We reviewed electronic medical records to identify lack of HRA acceptability, which was defined as receipt of HRA with sedation, dispensation of opioid analgaesia, and/or an urgent care visit following HRA, and to evaluate factors associated with patients not returning for a recommended repeat HRA (proxy for HRA acceptability). HRA acceptability was also assessed via a survey mailed to patients who completed HRA between January 2014 and August 2014. Logistic regression was used to model lack of acceptability of initial HRA and likelihood of not returning for a repeat HRA.

RESULTS

Of 1857 HIV-infected patients, 94 were prescribed opioids and one had an urgent care visit. Lack of HRA acceptability was more likely in patients with pre-existing anal conditions [e.g. warts or fissure; adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 4.02; 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.4-6.7], those who had ever smoked (aOR 1.6; 95% CI 1.0-2.5) and women (aOR 5.3; 95% CI 1.6-17.5). Fifty per cent of patients returned for a repeat HRA, with younger patients less likely to return (per 10-year age interval, aOR 0.8; 95% CI 0.7-0.9). Of 48 survey respondents, 91.7% reported acceptable pain levels and all reported willingness to return for a repeat HRA.

CONCLUSIONS

HRA was generally well tolerated and may be an acceptable screening approach for patients at high risk of anal cancer.

Patterns of repeated anal cytology results among HIV-positive and HIV-negative men who have sex with men

Background

Men who have sex with men (MSM) are at increased risk for anal cancer. In cervical cancer screening, patterns of repeated cytology results are used to identify low- and high-risk women, but little is known about these patterns for anal cytology among MSM.

Methods

We analyzed Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study (MACS) data for MSM who were offered anal cytology testing annually (HIV-positive) or every 2 years (HIV-negative) for 4 years.

Results

Following an initial negative (normal) cytology, the frequency of a second negative cytology was lower among HIV-positive MSM with CD4 ≥ 500 (74%) or CD4 < 500 (68%) than HIV-negative MSM (83%) (p < 0.001). After an initial abnormal cytology, the frequency of a second abnormal cytology was highest among HIV-positive MSM with CD4 < 500 (70%) compared to CD4 ≥ 500 (53%) or HIV-negative MSM (46%) (p = 0.003). Among HIV-positive MSM with at least three results, 37% had 3 consecutive negative results; 3 consecutive abnormal results were more frequent among CD4 < 500 (22%) than CD4 ≥ 500 (10%) (p = 0.008).

Conclusions

More than one-third of HIV-positive MSM have consistently negative anal cytology over three years. Following abnormal anal cytology, a repeated cytology is commonly negative in HIV-negative or immunocompetent HIV-positive men, while persistent cytological abnormality is more likely among HIV-positive men with CD4 < 500.

Prevention of human papillomavirus (HPV)-related tumors in people living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)

INTRODUCTION

In comparison to their HIV-negative counterparts, people living with HIV (PLWH) have a higher prevalence of human papillomavirus (HPV) infection in various anatomical sites coupled with increased HPV persistence, higher risk of HPV-related tumors, and faster disease progression. Areas covered: Gender-neutral prevention strategies for HPV-related cancers in PLWH discussed: ABC approach, HPV vaccination, antiretroviral treatment (ART), anal cancer screening, and smoking cessation. Gender specific strategies: cervical cancer screening reduces the incidence and mortality of cervical cancer and circumcision might reduce the risk of HPV infections in men. Expert commentary: HPV-related cancer incidence has not declined (e.g. cervical cancer) and has even increased (e.g. anal cancer) in the ART era, demanding an effective HPV prevention strategy. HPV vaccination should be introduced into national prevention programs worldwide immediately because current prophylactic vaccines are safe, tolerable, and immunogenic in PLWH. HPV vaccine efficacy trials in PLWH are essential to determine the most appropriate immunization schedule. The population most at risk of anal cancer is HIV-positive men who have sex with men, who are not protected by herd immunity if only the female population is vaccinated. Unvaccinated PLWH need enhanced surveillance for early detection of HPV-related cancers and their precursors.

Cost-effectiveness of screening for anal cancer using regular digital ano-rectal examinations in men who have sex with men living with HIV

Introduction

Anal cancer in men who have sex with men (MSM) living with HIV is an important issue but there are no consistent guidelines for how to screen for this cancer. In settings where screening with anal cytology is unavailable, regular anal examinations have been proposed in some guidelines but their cost-effectiveness is unknown.

Methods

Our objective was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of regular anal examinations to screen for anal cancer in HIV-positive MSM living in Australia using a probabilistic Markov model. Data sources were based on the medical literature and a clinical trial of HIV-positive MSM receiving an annual anal examination in Australia. The main outcome measures for calculating effectiveness were undiscounted and discounted (at 3%) lifetime costs, life years gained, quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

Results

Base-case analysis estimated the average cost of screening for and management of anal cancer ranged from $195 for no screening to $1,915 for lifetime annual screening of men aged ≥ 50. Screening of men aged ≥ 50 generated ICERs of $29,760 per QALY gained (for screening every four years), $32,222 (every three years) and $45,484 (every two years). Uncertainty for ICERs was mostly influenced by the cost (financially and decrease in quality of life) from a false-positive result, progression rate of anal cancer, specificity of the anal examination, the probability of detection outside a screening program and the discount rate.

Conclusions

Screening for anal cancer by incorporating regular anal examinations into routine HIV care for MSM aged ≥ 50 is most likely to be cost-effective by conventional standards. Given that anal pap smears are not widely available yet in many clinical settings, regular anal exams for MSM living with HIV to detect anal cancer earlier should be implemented.