Cancer Incidence and Cancer Screening Practices Among a Cohort of Persons Receiving HIV Care in Washington, DC

Evaluation of cancer screening services provided for people living with HIV in Botswana, 2022-2023

People living with human immunodeficiency virus (PLHIV) have an increased risk of cancers. Currently, Botswana has no screening guidelines for common cancers in PLHIV except cervical cancer. Also, the proportion of PLHIV who are screened for cancer is unknown. This study aimed to evaluate cancer screening services for PLHIV receiving care in the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) clinics. Resources for cancer screening were assessed and medical records of adults initiating antiretroviral therapy (ART) from 2020 to 2021 in 20 high-volume HIV clinics in Gaborone and Francistown were reviewed. Questionnaires assessing knowledge and practices of cancer screening were administered to health workers. The majority of clinics had the required resources for cancer screening (specifically cervical cancer). Of the 62 health workers working at the HIV clinics, 57 (91.9%) completed the questionnaire: 35 (62.5%) nurses and 22 (37.5%) doctors. Only 26.3% of the health workers were trained in cervical cancer screening. Doctors were more likely to report practicing routine screening of other cancers (e.g. breast) (p = 0.003) while more nurses reported assessing patients for cancer history during follow-up visits (p = 0.036). Most health workers did not perform physical examinations to detect cancer at initial or follow-up visits. Of the 1000 records of PLHIV reviewed, 57.3% were females, and only 38% of these were screened for cervical cancer. Besides cervical cancer, almost all (97.8%) were not screened for any cancer at ART initiation and during follow-up. These findings highlight the need to improve cancer screening services of PLHIV in Botswana through the training of health workers, and the development and enhanced use of screening guidelines.

Cancer screening in people living with HIV

BACKGROUND

Cancer is the leading cause of mortality in people living with HIV (PWH) and is expected to account for a growing fraction of deaths as PWH age.

METHODS

In this literature review, we have compiled the most recent developments in cancer screening and screening performance in PWH, which are currently primarily implemented in well-resourced settings. This includes an assessment of the associated benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness. The article also addresses unmet needs and potential strategies for tailored screening in the HIV population.

FINDINGS

Incidence and mortality due to screenable cancer are higher in PWH than in the general population, and diagnosis is frequently made at younger ages and/or at more advanced stages, the latter amenable to improved screening. Adequate evidence on the benefits of screening is lacking for most cancers in the HIV population, in whom standard practice may be suboptimal. While cancer surveillance has helped reduce mortality in the general population, and interest in risk-based strategies is growing, implementation of screening programs in the HIV care settings remains low.

INTERPRETATION

Given the devastating consequences of a late diagnosis, enhancing early detection of cancer is essential for improving patient outcomes. There is an urgent need to extend the investigation in cancer screening performance to PWH, evaluating whether personalized measures according to individual risk could result in higher efficiency and improve patient outcomes.

Lung Cancer Screening in People With HIV: A Mixed-Methods Study of Patient and Provider Perspectives

INTRODUCTION

People with HIV are at higher risk of lung cancer; however, there is limited research on attitudes, barriers, and facilitators to lung cancer screening in people with HIV. The objective of this study was to understand the perspectives on lung cancer screening among people with HIV and their providers.

METHODS

Surveys of people with HIV and HIV-care providers were complemented by qualitative focus groups and interviews designed to understand the determinants of lung cancer screening in people with HIV. Participants were recruited through an academic HIV clinic in Seattle, WA. Qualitative guides were developed by integrating the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and the Tailored Implementation of Chronic Diseases checklist. Themes that emerged from thematic analyses of qualitative data were compared with surveys in joint displays. All study components were conducted between 2021 and 2022.

RESULTS

Sixty-four people with HIV completed surveys, and 43 participated in focus groups. Eleven providers completed surveys, and 10 were interviewed for the study. Themes from joint displays show overall enthusiasm for lung cancer screening among people with HIV and their providers, particularly with a tailored and evidence-based approach. Facilitators in this population may include longstanding engagement with providers and health systems and an emphasis on survivorship through preventive healthcare interventions. People with HIV may also face barriers acknowledged by providers, including a high level of medical comorbidities and competing issues such as substance abuse, mental health concerns, and economic instability.

CONCLUSIONS

This study reveals that people with HIV and their providers have overall enthusiasm toward screening. However, tailored interventions may be needed to overcome specific barriers, including complex decision making in the setting of medical comorbidity and patient competing issues.

Interactive or tailored digital interventions to increase uptake in cervical, breast, and colorectal cancer screening to reduce health inequity: a systematic review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Significant health inequities exist in screening uptake for certain types of cancer. The review question was to identify and describe interactive, tailored digital, computer, and web-based interventions to reduce health inequity in cancer screening and review the effectiveness of such interventions in increasing screening rates versus usual care.

METHODS

We searched four medical literature databases for randomized control trials (RCTs) published until 12 January 2023 that evaluated interventions aimed at increasing the percentage of breast, prostate, cervical, or colorectal cancer screening uptake. Meta-analysis was not conducted due to heterogeneity among studies.

RESULTS

After screening 4200 titles and abstracts, 17 studies were included. Studies focused on colorectal ( n  = 10), breast ( n  = 4), cervical ( n  = 2), and prostate ( n  = 1) cancer screening. All were based in the USA except two. Most studies focused on ethnicity/race, while some included low-income populations. Intervention types were heterogeneous and used computer programs, apps, or web-based methods to provide tailored or interactive information to participants about screening risks and options. Some studies found positive effects for increasing cancer screening uptake in the intervention groups compared to usual care, but results were heterogeneous.

CONCLUSION

Interventions that use individual and cultural tailoring of cancer screening educational material should be further developed and investigated outside of the USA. Designing effective digital intervention strategies, with components that can be adapted to remote delivery may be an important strategy for reducing health inequities in cancer screening during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.

Interventions to reduce cancer screening inequities: the perspective and role of patients, advocacy groups, and empowerment organizations

BACKGROUND

Health inequities lead to low rates of cancer screening in certain populations, such as low-income and ethnic minority groups. Different interventions to address this have been developed with mixed results. However, interventions are not always developed in collaboration with the people they target. The aim of our article is to present the viewpoint of patients, survivors, advocates, and lay persons on interventions to increase cancer screening from a health inequity perspective.

METHODS

We prepared talking points to guide discussions between coauthors, who included representatives from nine patient and survivor advocacy groups, organizations working for citizen/patient empowerment, and health equity experts. Perspectives and opinions were first collected through video conferencing meetings and a first draft of the paper was prepared. All authors, read through, revised, and discussed the contents to reach an agreement on the final perspectives to be presented.

RESULTS

Several themes were identified: it is important to not view screening as a discrete event; barriers underlying an individual's access and willingness to undergo screening span across a continuum; individually tailored interventions are likely to be more effective than a one-size fits-all approach because they may better accommodate the person's personal beliefs, knowledge, behaviors, and preferences; targeting people who are unknown to medical services and largely unreachable is a major challenge; including professional patient advocacy groups and relevant lay persons in the cocreation of interventions at all stages of design, implementation, and evaluation is essential along with relevant stakeholders (healthcare professionals, researchers, local government and community organizations etc).

CONCLUSIONS

Interventions to address cancer screening inequity currently do not adequately solve the issue, especially from the viewpoint of patients, survivors, and lay persons. Several core pathways should be focused on when designing and implementing interventions: advancing individually tailored interventions; digital tools and social media; peer-based approaches; empowerment; addressing policy and system barriers; better design of interventions; and collaboration, including the involvement of patients and patient advocacy organizations.

HPV knowledge, screening barriers and facilitators, and sources of health information among women living with HIV: perspectives from the DC community during the COVID-19 pandemic

Background

High-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) causes 99% of cervical cancer cases. Despite available prevention methods through the HPV vaccine and two screening modalities, women continue to die from cervical cancer worldwide. Cervical cancer is preventable, yet affects a great number of women living with HIV (WLH). Low screening rates among WLH further exacerbate their already high risk of developing cervical cancer due to immunosuppression. This study explores WLH’s current cervical cancer knowledge, screening barriers and facilitators, and sources of health information.

Methods

Focus group discussions were conducted with 39 WLH aged 21 years old or older, who resided in the Washington-Baltimore Metropolitan Area. Emergent themes were classified and organized into overarching domains and assembled with representative quotations.

Results

The women had limited knowledge of HPV and the cervical cancer screening guidelines for WLH. Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has amplified screening barriers due to decreased accessibility to usual medical appointment and cervical cancer screenings. Screening facilitators included knowing someone diagnosed with cervical cancer and provider recommendations. WLH indicated that they obtained health information through in-person education (providers, peer groups) and written literature. Due to the pandemic, they also had to increasingly rely on remote and technology-based communication channels such as the internet, social media, television, radio, email, and short message service (SMS) text messaging.

Conclusions

Future health interventions need to explore the possibility of sharing messages and increasing cervical cancer and HPV knowledge of WLH through the use of SMS and other technology-based channels.

Cervical Cancer Prevention and High-Risk HPV Self-Sampling Awareness and Acceptability among Women Living with HIV: A Qualitative Investigation from the Patients’ and Providers’ Perspectives

Routine cervical cancer screening is important for women living with HIV (WLH) due to the greater incidence and persistence of high-risk HPV (HR-HPV) infection. HR-HPV self-sampling has been proposed to overcome barriers to in-office cervical cancer screening in underserved populations. However, little is known about baseline knowledge of HR-HPV and the acceptability of HR-HPV self-sampling among WLH. This paper describes WLH’s experiences and needs regarding cervical cancer screening, specifically HR-HPV self-sampling, and seeks to reconcile their experiences with the views of their providers. In total, 10 providers and 39 WLH participated in semi-structured interviews and group discussions, respectively. Knowledge of cervical cancer and HR-HPV was generally limited among WLH; when present, it was often due to personal experience of or proximity to someone affected by cervical cancer. Most WLH were not familiar with HR-HPV self-sampling but, despite some of the providers’ skepticism, expressed their willingness to participate in a mail-based HR-HPV self-sampling intervention and highlighted convenience, ease of use, and affordability as facilitators to the uptake of HR-HPV self-sampling. The experiences identified can be used to guide patient-centered communication aimed at improving cervical cancer knowledge and to inform interventions, such as HR-HPV self-sampling, designed to increase cervical cancer screening among under-screened WLH.