Advertisement

Cancer Causes & Control

, Volume 30, Issue 6, pp 559–568 | Cite as

Exploring anal self-examination as a screening tool for women at risk for anal cancer: awareness, interest, and barriers to behavioral uptake

  • David A. MoskowitzEmail author
  • Musarrat Rahman
  • Dennis H. Li
Original Paper
  • 120 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

Anal cancer is the second most common human-papillomavirus-related cancer in women, with women also at an elevated risk of incidence relative to men. Anal self-examination (ASE) is an efficient way for women to screen between provider visits for potential anal masses. While studied in male populations, no research has explored women’s awareness of the self-test.

Methods

In response, 345 women recruited from online advertisements and listservs were surveyed to assess their experiences using health care, history of Pap smears, knowledge of anal cancer, awareness and attitudes surrounding ASEs, and potential educational modalities to promote ASE enactment.

Results

Results indicated the sample failed two key anal cancer knowledge tests (receiving a 68%/100% for risk factors and 61%/100% for signs/symptoms), and only 2.3% of participants had ever heard of ASEs before the survey. Most thought ASEs would be somewhat helpful as a screening tool, but little interest was shown towards future performance. Analyses revealed this disinterest was due to lack of knowledge, perceived discomfort with performing ASEs, and perceived irrelevance of ASEs.

Conclusions

Future interventions should push for a stronger role of providers (e.g., gynecologists) in anal health, education, and screening. Additionally, campaigns should be crafted to promote the ASE as an easy, at-home screening tool that could trigger an early warning for anal disease.

Keywords

Anal cancer Anal self-examination Cancer screening HPV Women’s sexual health 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge the Division of Health Behavior and Community Health at the School of Health Sciences & Practice, New York Medical College, for its funding. We would also like to thank Atticus Ranck and Drs. Barbara Greenberg, Penny Liberatos, Ben Watson, and Jason Ong for their guidance and advice. Special recognition to Dr. Phillip Moskowitz for his medical expertise on this work and for retiring after 43 years of saving lives as a gastroenterologist.

Funding

This study was funded by the Department of Public Health at the School of Health Sciences & Practice, New York Medical College.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

A waiver of informed consent was granted by the institutional review board at the New York Medical College (L# 011915).

References

  1. 1.
    Parkin DM (2006) The global health burden of infection-associated cancers in the year 2002. Int J Cancer 118(12):3030–3044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    American Cancer Society (2018) Cancer facts & figures 2018. American Cancer Society, AtlantaGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Moscicki AB, Darragh TM, Berry-Lawhorn JM, Roberts JM, Khan MJ, Boardman LA, Chiao E, Einstein MH, Goldstone SE, Jay N, Likes WM (2015) Screening for anal cancer in women. J Lower Genital Tract Dis 19(3 0 1):S26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nelson RA, Levine AM, Bernstein L, Smith DD, Lai LL (2013) Changing patterns of anal canal carcinoma in the United States. J Clin Oncol 31(12):1569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chiu S, Joseph K, Ghosh S, Cornand RM, Schiller D (2015) Reasons for delays in diagnosis of anal cancer and the effect on patient satisfaction. Can Fam Physician 61(11):e509–e516Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mitchell E, Macdonald S, Campbell NC, Weller D, Macleod U (2008) Influences on pre-hospital delay in the diagnosis of colorectal cancer: a systematic review. Br J Cancer 98(1):60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Leeds IL, Fang SH (2016) Anal cancer and intraepithelial neoplasia screening: a review. World J Gastrointest Surg 8(1):41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wong RK, Drossman DA, Bharucha AE, Rao SS, Wald A, Morris CB, Oxentenko AS, Ravi K, Van Handel DM, Edwards H, Hu Y (2012) The digital rectal examination: a multicenter survey of physicians’ and students’ perceptions and practice patterns. Am J Gastroenterol 107(8):1157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jones RM, Devers KJ, Kuzel AJ, Woolf SH (2010) Patient-reported barriers to colorectal cancer screening: a mixed-methods analysis. Am J Prev Med 38(5):508–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ong JJ, Temple-Smith M, Chen M, Walker S, Grulich A, Fairley CK (2014) Exploring anal self-examination as a means of screening for anal cancer in HIV positive men who have sex with men: a qualitative study. BMC Public Health. 14(1):1257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Blankenship SA, Debnath P, Szlachta-McGinn AW, Maguire K, Garcia JJ, Aserlind A, Lipshultz E, Potter JE (2016) Knowledge and acceptability of anal cytology screening among women. J Lower Genital Tract Dis 20(1):90–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    D’souza G, Rajan SD, Bhatia R, Cranston RD, Plankey MW, Silvestre A, Ostrow DG, Wiley D, Shah N, Brewer NT (2013) Uptake and predictors of anal cancer screening in men who have sex with men. Am J Public Health. 103(9):e88–e95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ferris D, Lambert R, Waller J, Dickens P, Kabaria R, Han CS, Steelman C, Fawole F (2013) Women’s knowledge and attitudes toward anal Pap testing. J Lower Genital Tract Dis 17(4):463–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pitts MK, Fox C, Willis J, Anderson J (2007) What do gay men know about human papillomavirus? Australian gay men’s knowledge and experience of anal cancer screening and human papillomavirus. Sex Transm Dis 34(3):170–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Reed AC, Reiter PL, Smith JS, Palefsky JM, Brewer NT (2010) Gay and bisexual men’s willingness to receive anal Papanicolaou testing. Am J Public Health 100(6):1123–1129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Butame SA, Lawler S, Hicks JT, Wilkerson JM, Hwang LY, Baraniuk S, Ross MW, Chiao EY, Nyitray AG (2017) A qualitative investigation among men who have sex with men on the acceptability of performing a self-or partner anal exam to screen for anal cancer. Cancer Causes Control 28(10):1157–1166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nyitray AG, Hicks JT, Hwang LY, Baraniuk S, White M, Millas S, Onwuka N, Zhang X, Brown EL, Ross MW, Chiao EY (2018) A phase II clinical study to assess the feasibility of self and partner anal examinations to detect anal canal abnormalities including anal cancer. Sex Transm Infect. 94(2):124–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kaiser HF (1960) The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educ Psychol Measur 20(1):141–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cattell RB (1966) The scree test for the number of factors. Multivar Behav Res 1(2):245–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • David A. Moskowitz
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Musarrat Rahman
    • 3
  • Dennis H. Li
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Medical Social SciencesFeinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern UniversityChicagoUSA
  2. 2.Institute for Sexual and Gender Minority Health and Wellbeing (ISGMH)Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern UniversityChicagoUSA
  3. 3.Department of Public HealthSchool of Health Sciences & Practice, New York Medical CollegeValhallaUSA

Personalised recommendations