Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Provider preferences for anal cancer prevention screening: Results of the International Anal Neoplasia Society survey.
Plotzker, Rosalyn E; Barnell, Gregory M; Wiley, Dorothy J; Stier, Elizabeth A; Jay, Naomi.
Afiliação
  • Plotzker RE; UCSF ANCRE Center, Mount Zion Hospital, 1600 Divisadero Street, 3rd Floor, San Francisco, CA, 94115, USA. Electronic address: Rosalyn.plotzker@ucsf.edu.
  • Barnell GM; Kaiser Permanente, Oakland Medical Center, Department of Surgery, 3600 Broadway, Suite 38, Oakland, CA, 94611, USA. Electronic address: Gregory.M.Barnell@kp.org.
  • Wiley DJ; UCLA School of Nursing, 700 Tiverton Avenue, Factor Building Room #4242, Los Angeles, CA, 90095-6918, USA. Electronic address: Dwiley@sonnet.ucla.edu.
  • Stier EA; Boston University School of Medicine, Boston Medical Center, 771 Albany Street, Dowling 4, Boston, MA, 02118, USA. Electronic address: Elstier@bu.edu.
  • Jay N; UCSF ANCRE Center, Mount Zion Hospital, 1600 Divisadero Street, 3rd Floor, San Francisco, CA, 94115, USA. Electronic address: Naomi.jay@ucsf.edu.
Tumour Virus Res ; 13: 200235, 2022 06.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35183808
ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE:

This study explores provider preferences regarding anal cancer screening indications, initiation age, tools, and referral threshold to high resolution anoscopy (HRA).

METHODS:

International Anal Neoplasia Society affiliates were invited to complete an online survey. Options for initiation age and tools were delineated by sub-groups. HRA referral thresholds separately queried recommendations by patient immune status.

RESULTS:

One hundred forty respondents participated. Although consensus was lacking with regard to specific screening initiation age, more respondents recommended younger initiation ages for men who have sex with men (MSM) living with HIV (LWH) compared with MSM not LWH (p < 0.01). "No age threshold" ranged 44-55% among sub-groups with lower genital tract disease. Cytology and digital anorectal exam (DARE) were the most frequently selected tools for all sub-groups (ranges 77-90% and 74-86%, respectively). HRA was recommended significantly more frequently for MSM LWH (58%) and patients with vulvar cancer (52%) compared to others (p < 0.01). "Any [test] abnormality" was more often selected as indication for HRA for immunocompromised (56%) and immunocompetent (46%) patients than a specific cytology test result (29%, 36% respectively).

CONCLUSION:

Cytology and DARE were preferred screening tools; screening initiation age and HRA referral threshold showed less consensus. Evidence-based guidelines are needed and may lead to more consistent screening practices.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Neoplasias do Ânus / Minorias Sexuais e de Gênero Tipo de estudo: Diagnostic_studies / Guideline / Qualitative_research / Screening_studies Limite: Humans / Male Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Neoplasias do Ânus / Minorias Sexuais e de Gênero Tipo de estudo: Diagnostic_studies / Guideline / Qualitative_research / Screening_studies Limite: Humans / Male Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article