Advertisement

Screening for anal cancer precursors among patients living with HIV in the absence of national guidelines: practitioners’ perspectives

  • Alexis M. KoskanEmail author
  • Stephanie A. Brennhofer
  • Deborah L. Helitzer
Original Paper
  • 1 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

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.

Methods

Between November 2017 and June 2018, the research team completed 25 interviews among a diverse sample of healthcare practitioners who provide care for PLWH.

Results

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.

Conclusions

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.

Keywords

Anal cancer Anal intraepithelial neoplasia Human papillomavirus Human immunodeficiency virus 

Notes

Acknowledgments

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.

Ethical approval

This study received institutional review board approval, and all participants completed informed consent prior to participating in this study.

References

  1. 1.
    Shiels MS, Pfeiffer RM, Chaturvedi AK, Kreimer AR, Engels EA (2012) Impact of the HIV epidemic on the incidence rates of anal cancer in the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst 104:1591–1598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Silverberg MJ, Lau B, Justice AC et al (2012) Risk of anal cancer in HIV-infected and HIV-uninfected individuals in North America. Clin Infect Dis 54:1026–1034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Van Dyne EA, Henley SJ, Saraiya M, Thomas CC, Markowitz LE, Benard VB (2018) Trends in human papillomavirus–associated cancers—United States, 1999–2015. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 67:918–924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Patel P, Hanson DL, Sullivan PS et al (2008) Incidence of types of cancer among HIV-infected persons compared with the general population in the United States, 1992–2003. Ann Intern Med 148:728–736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Palefsky JM (2009) Anal cancer prevention in HIV-positive men and women. Curr Opin Oncol 21:433–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Palefsky J (2017) Human papillomavirus infection and its role in the pathogenesis of anal cancer. Semin Colon Rectal Surg 28:57–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Berry JM, Jay N, Cranston RD et al (2014) Progression of anal high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions to invasive anal cancer among HIV-infected men who have sex with men. Int J Cancer 134:1147–1155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Machalek DA, Poynten M, Jin F et al (2012) Anal human papillomavirus infection and associated neoplastic lesions in men who have sex with men: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Oncol 13:487–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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
  10. 10.
    Ostör A (1993) Natural history of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a critical review. Int J Gynecol Pathol 12:186–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Devaraj B, Cosman BC (2006) Expectant management of anal squamous dysplasia in patients with HIV. Dis Colon Rectum 49:36–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pineda CE, Berry JM, Jay N, Palefsky JM, Welton ML (2008) High-resolution anoscopy targeted surgical destruction of anal high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions: a ten-year experience. Dis Colon Rectum 51:829–837CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rosa-Cunha I, Cardenas GA, Dickinson G, Metsch LR (2010) Addressing anal health in the HIV primary care setting: a disappointing reality. AIDS Patient Care STDS 24:533–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Apaydin KZ, Fontenot HB, Shtasel DL, Mayer KH, Keuroghlian AS (2018) Primary care provider practices and perceptions regarding HPV vaccination and anal cancer screening at a Boston community health center. J Community Health 43:792–801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kuper A, Reeves S, Levinson W (2008) An introduction to reading and appraising qualitative research. BMJ 337:404–407Google Scholar
  16. 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. 17.
    Sutton J, Austin Z (2015) Qualitative research: data collection, analysis, and management. Can J Hosp Pharm 68:226–231Google Scholar
  18. 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
  19. 19.
    Kwong JJ, Cook P, Bradley-Springer L (2011) Improving anal cancer screening in an ambulatory HIV clinic: experience from a quality improvement initiative. AIDS Patient Care STDs 25:73–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Panther LA, Wagner K, Proper J et al (2004) High resolution anoscopy findings for men who have sex with men: inaccuracy of anal cytology as a predictor of histologic high-grade anal intraepithelial neoplasia and the impact of HIV serostatus. Clin Infect Dis 38:1490–1492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sowah LA, Buchwald UK, Riedel DJ et al (2015) Anal cancer screening in an urban HIV Clinic: provider perceptions and practice. J Int Assoc Provid AIDS Care 14:497–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ong JJCM, Grulich AE, Fairley CK (2014) Regional and national guideline recommendations for digital ano-rectal examination as a means for anal cancer screening in HIV positive men who have sex with men: a systematic review. BMC Cancer 14:557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ong JJ, Walker S, Grulich A et al (2018) 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. J Int AIDS Soc 21:e25192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ong JJ, Fairley CK, Carroll S et al (2016) Cost-effectiveness of screening for anal cancer using regular digital ano-rectal examinations in men who have sex with men living with HIV. J Int AIDS Soc 19:20514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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
  26. 26.
    Koskan A, Leblanc N, Rosa-Cunha I (2016) Exploring the perceptions of anal cancer screening and behaviors among gay and bisexual men infected with IHV. Cancer Control 23:52–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Margenthaler JA, Dietz DW, Mutch MG, Birnbaum EH, Kodner IJ, Fleshman JW (2004) Outcomes, risk of other malignancies, and need for formal mapping procedures in patients with perianal Bowen’s disease. Dis Colon Rectum 47:1655–1661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Long KC, Menon R, Bastawrous A, Billingham R (2016) Screening, surveillance, and treatment of anal intraepithelial neoplasia. Clin Colon Rectal Surg 29:057–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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
  30. 30.
    Marks DK, Goldstone SE (2012) Electrocautery ablation of high-grade anal squamous intraepithelial lesions in HIV-negative and HIV-positive men who have sex with men. JAIDS J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 59:259–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Health SolutionsArizona State UniversityPhoenixUSA
  2. 2.Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public HealthUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA
  3. 3.College of Health SolutionsArizona State UniversityPhoenixUSA

Personalised recommendations