Screening for anal cancer precursors among patients living with HIV in the absence of national guidelines: practitioners’ perspectives
- 1 Downloads
Immunocompromised populations including people living with HIV (PLWH) suffer disproportionate burden from anal cancer, a rare cancer caused by persistent infection of the anal canal with oncogenic strains of human papillomavirus. In the US, there are no nationally adopted screening guidelines for anal cancer. In the absence of such guidelines, this study explores healthcare practitioners’ screening practices for early signs of anal cancer among PLWH.
Between November 2017 and June 2018, the research team completed 25 interviews among a diverse sample of healthcare practitioners who provide care for PLWH.
Providers expressed frustration that screening and treatment guidelines for anal cancer were scant, and they varied in their screening practices. The majority of providers screened PLWH for anal dysplasia via the anal Pap smear; few providers were trained and had the medical equipment to conduct high-resolution anoscopy-guided biopsies, a more sensitive and specific screening method. Others screened through digital ano-rectal examinations (DARE) and both visually and with a DARE. Participants discussed how providers may be over-treating their patients who have high-grade anal intraepithelial neoplasia (AIN) and the role of biomarkers to determine whether the lesion is carcinogenic.
Practitioners who provide care for PLWH are proactive in screening to help prevent and control anal cancer, a rare and slow-growing disease. Continuing to regularly surveil high-risk populations, particularly PLWH previously diagnosed with high-grade lesions, is critical to prevent and control anal cancer.
KeywordsAnal cancer Anal intraepithelial neoplasia Human papillomavirus Human immunodeficiency virus
This research was funded by a grant from the Arizona Area Health Education Centers (AHEC) Program. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of Arizona AHEC.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
All authors present no potential conflicts of interest.
This study received institutional review board approval, and all participants completed informed consent prior to participating in this study.
- 9.Castle PE, Sideri M, Jeronimo J, Solomon D, Schiffman M (2007) Risk assessment to guide the prevention of cervical cancer. Am J Obstet Gynecol 197(356):e1–e6Google Scholar
- 15.Kuper A, Reeves S, Levinson W (2008) An introduction to reading and appraising qualitative research. BMJ 337:404–407Google Scholar
- 16.Lombard M, Snyder-Duch J, Bracken CC (2004) Practical resources for assessing and reporting intercoder reliability in content analysis research projects. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Cheryl_Bracken/publication/242785900_Practical_Resources_for_Assessing_and_Reporting_Intercoder_Reliability_in_Content_Analysis_Research_Projects/links/0deec52e14791a0d6f000000.pdf. Accessed 15 June 2018
- 17.Sutton J, Austin Z (2015) Qualitative research: data collection, analysis, and management. Can J Hosp Pharm 68:226–231Google Scholar
- 18.Ando H, Cousins R, Young C. (2014) Achieving saturation in thematic analysis: Development and refinement of a codebook. Compr Psychol 3: Article 4Google Scholar
- 25.Walhart T (2013) The application of Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Theory for human papillomavirus-related anal intraepithelial neoplasia. J Adv Nurs 69:2413–2422Google Scholar
- 29.Richel O, de Vries HJ, van Noesel CJ, Dijkgraaf MG, Prins JM (2013) Comparison of imiquimod, topical fluorouracil, and electrocautery for the treatment of anal intraepithelial neoplasia in HIV-positive men who have sex with men: an open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 14:346–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 31.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Arizona State Health Profile. https://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/stateprofiles/pdf/Arizona_profile.pdf. Accessed 29 May 2018