Social determinants of health and US cancer screening interventions: A systematic review.

There remains a need to synthesize linkages between social determinants of health (SDOH) and cancer screening to reduce persistent inequities contributing to the US cancer burden. The authors conducted a systematic review of US-based breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer screening intervention studies to summarize how SDOH have been considered in interventions and relationships between SDOH and screening. Five databases were searched for peer-reviewed research articles published in English between 2010 and 2021. The Covidence software platform was used to screen articles and extract data using a standardized template. Data items included study and intervention characteristics, SDOH intervention components and measures, and screening outcomes. The findings were summarized using descriptive statistics and narratives. The review included 144 studies among diverse population groups. SDOH interventions increased screening rates overall by a median of 8.4 percentage points (interquartile interval, 1.8-18.8 percentage points). The objective of most interventions was to increase community demand (90.3%) and access (84.0%) to screening. SDOH interventions related to health care access and quality were most prevalent (227 unique intervention components). Other SDOH, including educational, social/community, environmental, and economic factors, were less common (90, 52, 21, and zero intervention components, respectively). Studies that included analyses of health policy, access to care, and lower costs yielded the largest proportions of favorable associations with screening outcomes. SDOH were predominantly measured at the individual level. This review describes how SDOH have been considered in the design and evaluation of cancer screening interventions and effect sizes for SDOH interventions. Findings may guide future intervention and implementation research aiming to reduce US screening inequities.

Racial and socioeconomic disparities in lung cancer screening in the United States: A systematic review.

Nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is the leading cause of cancer deaths. Lung cancer screening (LCS) reduces NSCLC mortality; however, a lack of diversity in LCS studies may limit the generalizability of the results to marginalized groups who face higher risk for and worse outcomes from NSCLC. Identifying sources of inequity in the LCS pipeline is essential to reduce disparities in NSCLC outcomes. The authors searched 3 major databases for studies published from January 1, 2010 to February 27, 2020 that met the following criteria: 1) included screenees between ages 45 and 80 years who were current or former smokers, 2) written in English, 3) conducted in the United States, and 4) discussed socioeconomic and race-based LCS outcomes. Eligible studies were assessed for risk of bias. Of 3721 studies screened, 21 were eligible. Eligible studies were evaluated, and their findings were categorized into 3 themes related to LCS disparities faced by Black and socioeconomically disadvantaged individuals: 1) eligibility; 2) utilization, perception, and utility; and 3) postscreening behavior and care. Disparities in LCS exist along racial and socioeconomic lines. There are several steps along the LCS pipeline in which Black and socioeconomically disadvantaged individuals miss the potential benefits of LCS, resulting in increased mortality. This study identified potential sources of inequity that require further investigation. The authors recommend the implementation of prospective trials that evaluate eligibility criteria for underserved groups and the creation of interventions focused on improving utilization and follow-up care to decrease LCS disparities.

Blueprint for cancer research: Critical gaps and opportunities.

We are experiencing a revolution in cancer. Advances in screening, targeted and immune therapies, big data, computational methodologies, and significant new knowledge of cancer biology are transforming the ways in which we prevent, detect, diagnose, treat, and survive cancer. These advances are enabling durable progress in the goal to achieve personalized cancer care. Despite these gains, more work is needed to develop better tools and strategies to limit cancer as a major health concern. One persistent gap is the inconsistent coordination among researchers and caregivers to implement evidence-based programs that rely on a fuller understanding of the molecular, cellular, and systems biology mechanisms underpinning different types of cancer. Here, the authors integrate conversations with over 90 leading cancer experts to highlight current challenges, encourage a robust and diverse national research portfolio, and capture timely opportunities to advance evidence-based approaches for all patients with cancer and for all communities.

Fatigue and vigilance in medical experts detecting breast cancer.

An abundance of laboratory-based experiments has described a vigilance decrement of reducing accuracy to detect targets with time on task, but there are few real-world studies, none of which have previously controlled the environment to control for bias. We describe accuracy in clinical practice for 360 experts who examined >1 million women's mammograms for signs of cancer, whilst controlling for potential biases. The vigilance decrement pattern was not observed. Instead, test accuracy improved over time, through a reduction in false alarms and an increase in speed, with no significant change in sensitivity. The multiple-decision model explains why experts miss targets in low prevalence settings through a change in decision threshold and search quit threshold and propose it should be adapted to explain these observed patterns of accuracy with time on task. What is typically thought of as standard and robust research findings in controlled laboratory settings may not directly apply to real-world environments and instead large, controlled studies in relevant environments are needed.

Effects on Cancer Prevention from the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic led to disruption of health services around the world, including cancer services. We carried out a narrative review of the effect of the pandemic on cancer prevention services, including screening. Services were severely affected in the early months of the pandemic, and in some areas are still recovering. Large numbers of additional cancers or additional late-stage cancers have been predicted to arise over the coming years as a result of this disruption. To minimize the effects on cancer outcomes, it is necessary to return as quickly as possible to prepandemic levels of screening and prevention activity or indeed to exceed these levels. The recovery of services should address health inequalities.

Multi-Cancer Early Detection: The New Frontier in Cancer Early Detection.

The new generation of cancer early detection tests holds remarkable promise for revolutionizing and changing the paradigm of cancer early detection. Dozens of cancer early detection tests are being developed and evaluated. Some are already commercialized and available for use, most as a complement to and not in place of existing recommended cancer screening tests. This review evaluates existing single- and multi-cancer early detection tests (MCEDs), discussing their performance characteristics including sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and accuracy. It also critically looks at the potential harms that could result from these tests, including false positive and negative results, the risk of overdiagnosis and overtreatment, psychological and economic harms, and the risk of widening cancer inequities. We also review the large-scale, population-based studies that are being launched in the United States and United Kingdom to determine the impact of MCEDs on clinically relevant outcomes and implications for current practice.

Healthcare disparities, screening, and molecular testing in the changing landscape of non-small cell lung cancer in the United States: a review.

Inequitable access to care continues to hinder improvements in diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer. This review describes healthcare disparities in the changing landscape of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in the United States, focusing on racial, ethnic, sex-based, and socioeconomic trends. Furthermore, strategies to address disparities, overcome challenges, and improve patient outcomes are proposed. Barriers exist across lung cancer screening, diagnosis, and treatment regimens, varying by sex, age, race and ethnicity, geography, and socioeconomic status. Incidence and mortality rates of lung cancer are higher among Black men than White men, and incidences in young women are substantially greater than in young men. Disparities may be attributed to geographic differences in screening access, with correlating higher incidence and mortality rates in rural versus urban areas. Lower socioeconomic status is also linked to lower survival rates. Several strategies could help reduce disparities and improve outcomes. Current guidelines could improve screening eligibility by incorporating sex, race, and socioeconomic status variables. Patient and clinician education on screening guidelines and patient-level barriers to care are key, and biomarker testing is critical since ~ 70% of patients with NSCLC have an actionable biomarker. Timely diagnosis, staging, and comprehensive biomarker testing, including cell-free DNA liquid biopsy, may provide valuable treatment guidance for patients with NSCLC. Efforts to improve lung cancer screening and biomarker testing access, decrease bias, and improve education about screening and testing are needed to reduce healthcare disparities in NSCLC.

Colonoscopy vs the Fecal Immunochemical Test: Which is Best?

Although there is no debate around the effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening in reducing disease burden, there remains a question regarding the most effective and cost-effective screening modality. Current United States guidelines present a panel of options that include the 2 most commonly used modalities, colonoscopy and stool testing with the fecal immunochemical test (FIT). Large-scale comparative effectiveness trials comparing colonoscopy and FIT for colorectal cancer outcomes are underway, but results are not yet available. This review will separately state the "best case" for FIT and colonoscopy as the screening tool of first choice. In addition, the review will examine these modalities from a health economics perspective to provide the reader further context about the relative advantages of these commonly used tests.

Risk of Cancers Proximal to the Colon in Fecal Immunochemical Test Positive Screenees in a Colorectal Cancer Screening Program.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: In more than half of the colorectal cancer screening participants with a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) result, no advanced neoplasia (AN) is detected at colonoscopy. The positive FIT result could also be generated by cancers located proximal to the colon: upper gastrointestinal, oral cavity, nose, and throat cancers. We evaluated screenees' risk of being diagnosed with a cancer proximal to the colon within the 3 years and compared risks between those with a positive vs those with a negative FIT. METHODS: Data of Dutch colorectal cancer screening participants who underwent biennial FIT-based screening 2014-2018 were collected from the national screening database and linked to the National Cancer Registry. Screenees were classified into 3 groups: FIT-positives with AN (FIT+/AN+), FIT-positives without AN (FIT+/AN-), and FIT-negatives (FIT-). We compared the cumulative incidence of cancers proximal to the colon in each group 3 years after FIT. A Cox regression analysis with left truncation and right censoring, using FIT positivity as time-dependent variable and stratified for sex, was performed to compare the hazard of cancers proximal to the colon in participants who were FIT-positive vs FIT-negative. RESULTS: Three-year cumulative incidence of cancers proximal to the colon in FIT+/AN+ (n = 65,767), FIT+/AN- (n = 50,661), and FIT- (n = 1,831,647) screenees was 0.7%, 0.6%, and 0.4%, respectively (P < .001). FIT-positives were older and more frequently male than FIT-negatives (P < .001). Significantly more cancers proximal to the colon were detected among FIT-positives (P < .001; hazard ratio, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.44-1.67). CONCLUSION: FIT-positive screenees were at significantly increased risk of being diagnosed with a cancer proximal to the colon within 3 years after FIT, although the 3-year cumulative incidence was still less than 1%.

Evolving Concepts in Helicobacter pylori Management.

Helicobacter pylori is the most common chronic bacterial infection worldwide and the most significant risk factor for gastric cancer, which remains a leading cause of cancer-related death globally. H pylori and gastric cancer continue to disproportionately impact racial and ethnic minority and immigrant groups in the United States. The approach to H pylori case-finding thus far has relied on opportunistic testing based on symptoms or high-risk indicators, such as racial or ethnic background and family history. However, this approach misses a substantial proportion of individuals infected with H pylori who remain at risk for gastric cancer because most infections remain clinically silent. Moreover, individuals with chronic H pylori infection are at risk for gastric preneoplastic lesions, which are also asymptomatic and only reliably diagnosed using endoscopy and biopsy. Thus, to make a significant impact in gastric cancer prevention, a systematic approach is needed to better identify individuals at highest risk of both H pylori infection and its complications, including gastric preneoplasia and cancer. The approach to H pylori eradication must also be optimized given sharply decreasing rates of successful eradication with commonly used therapies and increasing antimicrobial resistance. With growing acceptance that H pylori should be managed as an infectious disease and the increasing availability of susceptibility testing, we now have the momentum to abandon empirical therapies demonstrated to have inadequate eradication rates. Molecular-based susceptibility profiling facilitates selection of a personalized eradication regimen without necessitating an invasive procedure. An improved approach to H pylori eradication coupled with population-level programs for screening and treatment could be an effective and efficient strategy to prevent gastric cancer, especially in minority and potentially marginalized populations that bear the heaviest burden of H pylori infection and its complications.

Portable, handheld, and affordable blood perfusion imager for screening of subsurface cancer in resource-limited settings.

Precise information on localized variations in blood circulation holds the key for noninvasive diagnostics and therapeutic assessment of various forms of cancer. While thermal imaging by itself may provide significant insights on the combined implications of the relevant physiological parameters, viz. local blood perfusion and metabolic balance due to active tumors as well as the ambient conditions, knowledge of the tissue surface temperature alone may be somewhat inadequate in distinguishing between some ambiguous manifestations of precancer and cancerous lesions, resulting in compromise of the selectivity in detection. This, along with the lack of availability of a user-friendly and inexpensive portable device for thermal-image acquisition, blood perfusion mapping, and data integration acts as a deterrent against the emergence of an inexpensive, contact-free, and accurate in situ screening and diagnostic approach for cancer detection and management. Circumventing these constraints, here we report a portable noninvasive blood perfusion imager augmented with machine learning-based quantitative analytics for screening precancerous and cancerous traits in oral lesions, by probing the localized alterations in microcirculation. With a proven overall sensitivity >96.66% and specificity of 100% as compared to gold-standard biopsy-based tests, the method successfully classified oral cancer and precancer in a resource-limited clinical setting in a double-blinded patient trial and exhibited favorable predictive capabilities considering other complementary modes of medical image analysis as well. The method holds further potential to achieve contrast-free, accurate, and low-cost diagnosis of abnormal microvascular physiology and other clinically vulnerable conditions, when interpreted along with complementary clinically evidenced decision-making perspectives.

Accurate Cancer Screening and Prediction of PD-L1-Guided Immunotherapy Efficacy Using Quantum Dot Nanosphere Self-Assembly and Machine Learning.

Accurate quantification of exosomal PD-L1 protein in tumors is closely linked to the response to immunotherapy, but robust methods to achieve high-precision quantitative detection of PD-L1 expression on the surface of circulating exosomes are still lacking. In this work, we developed a signal amplification approach based on aptamer recognition and DNA scaffold hybridization-triggered assembly of quantum dot nanospheres, which enables bicolor phenotyping of exosomes to accurately screen for cancers and predict PD-L1-guided immunotherapeutic effects through machine learning. Through DNA-mediated assembly, we utilized two aptamers for simultaneous ultrasensitive detection of exosomal antigens, which have synergistic roles in tumor diagnosis and treatment prediction, and thus, we achieved better sample classification and prediction through machine-learning algorithms. With a drop of blood, we can distinguish between different cancer patients and healthy individuals and predict the outcome of immunotherapy. This approach provides valuable insights into the development of personalized diagnostics and precision medicine.

Blood-based colorectal cancer screening in an integrated health system: a randomised trial of patient adherence.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated whether people who had not completed a faecal immunochemical test (FIT) for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening would complete a blood-based testing option if offered one during health encounters. Blood-based screening tests for CRC could add to the total number of people screened for CRC by providing another testing alternative. DESIGN: Study participants were patients aged 45-75 years at a large, integrated health system who were offered but did not complete an FIT in the prior 3-9 months and were scheduled for a clinical encounter. Individuals were randomised (1:1) to be offered a commercially available CRC blood test (Shield, Guardant Health) versus usual care. We compared 3-month CRC screening proportions in the two groups. RESULTS: We randomised 2026 patients; 2004 remained eligible following postrandomisation exclusions (1003 to usual care and 1001 to blood draw offer; mean age: 60, 62% female, 80% non-Hispanic white). Of the 1001 allocated to the blood test group, 924 were recruited following chart-review exclusions; 548 (59.3%) were reached via phone, of which 280 (51.1%) scheduled an appointment with the research team. CRC screening proportions were 17.5 percentage points higher in the blood test group versus usual care (30.5% vs 13.0%; OR 2.94, 95% CI 2.34 to 3.70; p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Among adults who had declined prior CRC screening, the offer of a blood-based screening test boosted CRC screening by 17.5 percentage points over usual care. Further research is needed on how to balance the favourable adherence with lower advanced adenoma detection compared with other available tests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05987709.

Clinical consequences of computer-aided colorectal polyp detection.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Randomised trials show improved polyp detection with computer-aided detection (CADe), mostly of small lesions. However, operator and selection bias may affect CADe's true benefit. Clinical outcomes of increased detection have not yet been fully elucidated. METHODS: In this multicentre trial, CADe combining convolutional and recurrent neural networks was used for polyp detection. Blinded endoscopists were monitored in real time by a second observer with CADe access. CADe detections prompted reinspection. Adenoma detection rates (ADR) and polyp detection rates were measured prestudy and poststudy. Histological assessments were done by independent histopathologists. The primary outcome compared polyp detection between endoscopists and CADe. RESULTS: In 946 patients (51.9% male, mean age 64), a total of 2141 polyps were identified, including 989 adenomas. CADe was not superior to human polyp detection (sensitivity 94.6% vs 96.0%) but outperformed them when restricted to adenomas. Unblinding led to an additional yield of 86 true positive polyp detections (1.1% ADR increase per patient; 73.8% were <5 mm). CADe also increased non-neoplastic polyp detection by an absolute value of 4.9% of the cases (1.8% increase of entire polyp load). Procedure time increased with 6.6±6.5 min (+42.6%). In 22/946 patients, the additional detection of adenomas changed surveillance intervals (2.3%), mostly by increasing the number of small adenomas beyond the cut-off. CONCLUSION: Even if CADe appears to be slightly more sensitive than human endoscopists, the additional gain in ADR was minimal and follow-up intervals rarely changed. Additional inspection of non-neoplastic lesions was increased, adding to the inspection and/or polypectomy workload.

Artificial intelligence-based multi-omics analysis fuels cancer precision medicine.

With biotechnological advancements, innovative omics technologies are constantly emerging that have enabled researchers to access multi-layer information from the genome, epigenome, transcriptome, proteome, metabolome, and more. A wealth of omics technologies, including bulk and single-cell omics approaches, have empowered to characterize different molecular layers at unprecedented scale and resolution, providing a holistic view of tumor behavior. Multi-omics analysis allows systematic interrogation of various molecular information at each biological layer while posing tricky challenges regarding how to extract valuable insights from the exponentially increasing amount of multi-omics data. Therefore, efficient algorithms are needed to reduce the dimensionality of the data while simultaneously dissecting the mysteries behind the complex biological processes of cancer. Artificial intelligence has demonstrated the ability to analyze complementary multi-modal data streams within the oncology realm. The coincident development of multi-omics technologies and artificial intelligence algorithms has fuelled the development of cancer precision medicine. Here, we present state-of-the-art omics technologies and outline a roadmap of multi-omics integration analysis using an artificial intelligence strategy. The advances made using artificial intelligence-based multi-omics approaches are described, especially concerning early cancer screening, diagnosis, response assessment, and prognosis prediction. Finally, we discuss the challenges faced in multi-omics analysis, along with tentative future trends in this field. With the increasing application of artificial intelligence in multi-omics analysis, we anticipate a shifting paradigm in precision medicine becoming driven by artificial intelligence-based multi-omics technologies.

Two-Year Incidence and Cumulative Risk and Predictors of Anal High-Grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesions (Anal Precancer) Among Women With Human Immunodeficiency Virus.

BACKGROUND: Detection and treatment of anal histologic high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (hHSIL) prevents anal cancer. However, anal hHSIL incidence among women with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV, WHIV) remains unknown. Performance of anal high-risk human papillomavirus ([hr]HPV), anal cytology (anal-cyt), and both for hHSIL detection longitudinally over 2 years also remains undetermined. METHODS: We determined 2-year incidence and cumulative risk estimates (2-y-CR) of anal hHSIL among WHIV using prevalence and incidence (per 100 person-years [py]) observations stratified by baseline hrHPV and/or anal-cyt results. RESULTS: In total, 229 WHIV with complete baseline data were included in the analysis; 114 women without prevalent anal hHSIL were followed with 2 annual evaluations. Median age was 51, 63% were Black, and 23% were Hispanic. Anal hrHPV or abnormal anal-cyt was associated with an increased risk of incident anal hHSIL at 2 years (18.9/100py [95% confidence interval {CI} 11.4-31.3] and 13.4/100py [95% CI 8.0-22.7], respectively) compared with no detection of anal HPV or negative cytology (2.8/100py [95% CI 1.1-7.4] and 4.2 [95% CI, 1.8-10.2]) The presence of anal hrHPV with abnormal cytology was associated with 2-y-CR of anal hHSIL of 65.6% (95% CI 55.4%-75%); negative hrHPV with negative cytology was associated with 2-y-CR of anal hHSIL of 9.2% (95% CI 7.0-16.0). CONCLUSIONS: Detection of anal hrHPV or abnormal anal cytology are comparable predictors for 2-y-CR of anal hHSIL. The absence of anal hrHPV combined with negative cytology was predictive of a lower (but measurable) risk of developing anal hHSIL. These findings provide important data to inform anal cancer screening guidelines for WHIV.

Breast density knowledge and willingness to delay treatment for pre-operative breast cancer imaging among women with a personal history of breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Following a breast cancer diagnosis, it is uncertain whether women's breast density knowledge influences their willingness to undergo pre-operative imaging to detect additional cancer in their breasts. We evaluated women's breast density knowledge and their willingness to delay treatment for pre-operative testing. METHODS: We surveyed women identified in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium aged ≥ 18 years, with first breast cancer diagnosed within the prior 6-18 months, who had at least one breast density measurement within the 5 years prior to their diagnosis. We assessed women's breast density knowledge and correlates of willingness to delay treatment for 6 or more weeks for pre-operative imaging via logistic regression. RESULTS: Survey participation was 28.3% (969/3,430). Seventy-two percent (469/647) of women with dense and 11% (34/322) with non-dense breasts correctly knew their density (p < 0.001); 69% (665/969) of all women knew dense breasts make it harder to detect cancers on a mammogram; and 29% (285/969) were willing to delay treatment ≥ 6 weeks to undergo pre-operative imaging. Willingness to delay treatment did not differ by self-reported density (OR:0.99 for non-dense vs. dense; 95%CI: 0.50-1.96). Treatment with chemotherapy was associated with less willingness to delay treatment (OR:0.67; 95%CI: 0.46-0.96). Having previously delayed breast cancer treatment more than 3 months was associated with an increased willingness to delay treatment for pre-operative imaging (OR:2.18; 95%CI: 1.26-3.77). CONCLUSIONS: Understanding of personal breast density was not associated with willingness to delay treatment 6 or more weeks for pre-operative imaging, but aspects of a woman's treatment experience were. CLINICALTRIALS: GOV : NCT02980848 registered December 2, 2016.

Assessment of barriers to cancer screening and interventions implemented to overcome these barriers in 27 Latin American and Caribbean countries.

There is a gap in the understanding of the barriers to cancer screening participation and complying with downstream management in the Community of Latin American and Caribbean states (CELAC). Our study aimed to assess barriers across the cancer screening pathway from the health system perspective, and interventions in place to improve screening in CELAC. A standardized tool was used to collect information on the barriers across the screening pathway through engagement with the health authorities of 27 member states of CELAC. Barriers were organized in a framework adapted from the Tanahashi conceptual model and consisted of the following dimensions: availability of services, access (covering accessibility and affordability), acceptability, user-provider interaction, and effectiveness of services (which includes governance, protocols and guidelines, information system, and quality assurance). The tool also collected information of interventions in place, categorized in user-directed interventions to increase demand, user-directed interventions to increase access, provider-directed interventions, and policy and system-level interventions. All countries prioritized barriers related to the information systems, such as the population register not being accurate or complete (N = 19; 70.4%). All countries implemented some kind of intervention to improve cancer screening, group education being the most reported (N = 23; 85.2%). Training on screening delivery was the most referred provider-directed intervention (N = 19; 70.4%). The study has identified several barriers to the implementation of cancer screening in the region and interventions in place to overcome some of the barriers. Further analysis is required to evaluate the effectiveness of these interventions in achieving their objectives.

International Anal Neoplasia Society's consensus guidelines for anal cancer screening.

The International Anal Neoplasia Society (IANS) developed consensus guidelines to inform anal cancer screening use among various high-risk groups. Anal cancer incidence estimates by age among risk groups provided the basis to identify risk thresholds to recommend screening. Guided by risk thresholds, screening initiation at age 35 years was recommended for men who have sex with men (MSM) and transgender women (TW) with HIV. For other people with HIV and MSM and TW not with HIV, screening initiation at age 45 years was recommended. For solid organ transplant recipients, screening initiation beginning from 10 years post-transplant was recommended. For persons with a history of vulvar precancer or cancer, screening initiation was recommended starting within 1 year of diagnosis of vulvar precancer or cancer. Persons aged ≥45 years with a history of cervical/vaginal HSIL or cancer, perianal warts, persistent (>1 year) cervical HPV16, or autoimmune conditions could be considered for screening with shared decision-making, provided there is adequate capacity to perform diagnostic procedures (high-resolution anoscopy [HRA]). Anal cytology, high-risk (hr) human papillomavirus (HPV) testing (including genotyping for HPV16), and hrHPV-cytology co-testing are different strategies currently used for anal cancer screening that show acceptable performance. Thresholds for referral for HRA or follow-up screening tests are delineated. These recommendations from IANS provide the basis to inform management of abnormal screening results, considering currently available screening tools. These guidelines provide a pivotal foundation to help generate consensus among providers and inform the introduction and implementation of risk-targeted screening for anal cancer prevention.

Self-collected versus clinician-collected anal swabs for anal cancer screening: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Anal squamous cell carcinoma (ASCC) incidence is increasing globally. International consensus guidelines published in 2024 include HPV and/or cytology testing of anal swabs in those at greatest risk of ASCC. Self-collected anal swabs may be important for increasing screening uptake, but evidence is needed as to their equivalence to clinician-collected swabs. We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL databases for publications to 13 June 2023. Studies were included if reporting data on HPV testing, cytology testing, or acceptability, for both self- and clinician-collected anal swabs. Risk of bias was assessed using the QUADAS-2 assessment tool. The primary outcome was HPV and cytology sampling adequacy. Secondary outcomes were HPV and cytology results, and acceptability of collection methods. Thirteen papers describing 10 studies were eligible. Sample adequacy was comparable between self- and clinician-collected swabs for HPV testing (meta-adequacy ratio: 1.01 [95% CI 0.97-1.05]) but slightly lower for cytology by self-collection (meta-adequacy ratio: 0.91 [95% CI 0.88-0.95]). There was no significant difference in prevalence (meta-prevalence ratio: 0.83 (95% CI 0.65-1.07) for any HR-HPV, 0.98 (95% CI 0.84-1.14) for any HPV, and 0.68 (95% CI 0.33-1.37) for HPV16), or any cytological abnormality (meta-prevalence ratio 1.01 [95% CI 0.86-1.18]). Only three papers reported acceptability results. Findings indicate self-collection gives equivalent sample adequacy for HPV testing and ~ 10% inferior adequacy for cytological testing. Meta-prevalence was similar for HPV and cytology, but confidence intervals were wide. Larger studies are required to definitively assess use of self-collected swabs in anal cancer screening programs, including acceptability.