Improving anal cancer screening in an ambulatory HIV clinic: experience from a quality improvement initiative

Provider Preferences for Anal Cancer Prevention Screening: Results of the International Anal Neoplasia Society Survey

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.

Satisfaction with high-resolution anoscopy for anal cancer screening among men who have sex with men: a cross-sectional survey in Abuja, Nigeria

Background

Men who have sex with men (MSM) living with HIV are at increased risk for anal cancer. We evaluated satisfaction with first-time anal cancer screening using high resolution anoscopy (HRA) as a cross sectional survey among men who have sex with men (MSM) attending a community-engaged clinic in Abuja, Nigeria.

Methods

Between March and August 2017, 342 MSM underwent screening and 307 (89%) completed a satisfaction survey that evaluated 8 domains related to expectations, convenience, staff interpersonal skills, physical surroundings, technical competence, pain/discomfort, general satisfaction, and intention to re-screen if symptomatic. The 22-item questionnaire used 5-point Likert scales ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). For each domain, responses to specific items were averaged, aggregated, and converted to a 100-point scaled score (SS) with 25 and 75 corresponding to disagree and agree, respectively.

Results

Median age was 24 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 22–28), median years since anal coital debut was 7 (IQR: 4–12), and 58% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 52–64%) were living with HIV. Despite respondents reporting pre-procedure anxiety (SS:73), most were comfortable with the setting and procedure and reported overall satisfaction (SS:74–76). Willingness to undergo future screening had the lowest score (SS:69) within the general satisfaction domain. The lowest scoring domains were pain/discomfort (SS:57) and agreement to re-screen if symptomatic (SS:59), which correlated with lower overall satisfaction (p < 0.001). Domain responses did not differ by HIV infection after adjusting for multiple comparisons (p > 0.006) or number of anal biopsies (all p > 0.05).

Conclusions

Overall, HRA was satisfactory for those naïve to screening but moving forward necessitates monitoring levels of discomfort with pain scales and normalizing dialogue around clinical symptoms of anal cancer and overall anal health to sustain future screening.

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

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.

Baseline findings from the Anal Cancer Examination (ACE) study: screening using digital ano-rectal examination in HIV-positive men who have sex with men

OBJECTIVE

Cytological screening for anal cancer precursors is not always possible. We investigated digital ano-rectal examination (DARE) as a means of early anal cancer detection in HIV-positive men who have sex with men (MSM).

METHODS

We recruited 327 HIV-positive MSM aged 35 and over from clinics with HIV physicians in Melbourne, Australia, to receive an annual DARE. We analyzed baseline data from patient questionnaires regarding general, anal and sexual health, adverse effects from the anal examination, cancer worry, and quality of life.

RESULTS

The majority of men (82%, 95% CI:78-87) felt relaxed during the DARE, 1% (95% CI:0-3) complained of pain, and 1% (95% CI:0-4) reported bleeding after the examination. Nearly all men (99%, 95% CI:96-100) were willing to continue with an annual DARE. Quality of life was unaffected with utility scores of 0.76 before examination vs. 0.77 two weeks after examination, (p = 0.41). An anal abnormality was detected in 86 men (27%, 95% CI:22-31), with one anal cancer identified. The specialist referral rate following DARE was 5% (95% CI:3-8). Recruitment rates were significantly associated with the clinic setting (sexual health centre 78%, general practice 13%, hospital 14%, p = 0.002) and specialty (sexual health physician 67%, general practitioner 20%, infectious disease physician 14%, p = 0.031).

CONCLUSION

Annual DARE to detect anal cancer in HIV-positive MSM was acceptable for patients, with minimal side effects. Strategies to increase HIV physician's patient recruitment would be needed if DARE were to be implemented in anal cancer screening.

Exposing the gaps in awareness, knowledge and estimation of risk for anal cancer in men who have sex with men living with HIV: a cross-sectional survey in Australia

Introduction

The incidence of anal cancer is significantly higher in men who have sex with men (MSM) living with HIV when compared to the general population. We aimed to assess their awareness, knowledge and perceived level of personal risk for anal cancer to help inform educational strategies targeting this group.

Methods

A cross-sectional study of 327 HIV positive MSM in Melbourne, Australia, attending clinical settings (a sexual health centre, tertiary hospital HIV outpatients and high HIV caseload general practices) completed a written questionnaire in 2013/14. Poor knowledge was defined as those who had never heard of anal cancer, or scored 5 or less out of 10 in knowledge questions amongst those who reported ever hearing about anal cancer. Underestimation of risk was defined as considering themselves as having the same or lower risk for anal cancer compared to the general population.

Results

Of 72% (95% confidence interval (CI): 67–77) who had heard of anal cancer, 47% (95% CI: 41–53) could not identify any risk factors for anal cancer. Of total men surveyed, 51% (95% CI: 46–57) underestimated their risk for anal cancer. Multivariate analysis showed that men who underestimated their risk were older (OR 1.04 (per year increase in age), 95% CI: 1.01–1.07), had poor anal cancer knowledge (OR 2.06, 95% CI: 1.21–3.51), and more likely to have ever had an anal examination (OR 2.41, 95% CI: 1.18–4.93). They were less likely to consult a physician if they had an anal abnormality (OR 0.54, 95% CI: 0.31–0.96), to have had receptive anal sex (OR 0.12, 95% CI: 0.02–0.59) or speak English at home (OR 0.28, 95% CI: 0.09–0.90).

Conclusions

This survey of MSM living with HIV demonstrated limited awareness, knowledge level and estimation of risk for anal cancer. Further educational and public health initiatives are urgently needed to improve knowledge and understanding of anal cancer risk in MSM living with HIV.

Why are we not screening for anal cancer routinely - HIV physicians' perspectives on anal cancer and its screening in HIV-positive men who have sex with men: a qualitative study

Background

Anal cancer is a priority health issue in HIV positive men who have sex with men. Anal cancer screening may be aimed at either detecting the precursor lesion (high grade anal intraepithelial neoplasia(HGAIN)) or early anal cancer. To date no qualitative study has explored the views of HIV physicians regarding anal cancer and its screening.

Methods

We conducted indepth interviews with 20 HIV physicians (Infectious diseases, Immunology, Sexual health, General practice) in different settings (hospital, sexual health centres, general practice) from around Australia. Framework analysis was used to identify themes.

Results

HIV physicians viewed anal cancer as a significant health issue and all agreed on the importance of anal cancer screening amongst HIV positive MSM if a valid screening method was available. Barriers for utilizing anal cytology was based primarily on the theme of insufficient evidence (e.g. no studies demonstrating reduction in mortality following screening or effective treatments for HGAIN). Barriers for utilizing DARE for early cancer detection were based on systemic factors (e.g. lack of opportunity, lack of priority, differences in HIV care practices); health provider factors (lack of evidence, difficulty discussing with patients, lack of confidence in DARE) and patient factors (perceived discomfort of DARE for patients, low anal cancer risk awareness). Physicians were willing to consider the idea of patient self-examination and partner-examination although concerns were raised regarding its reliability and issues surrounding partner dynamics.

Conclusions

HIV physicians remain ambivalent regarding the most effective means to screen for anal cancer. More research is needed to address the physicians’ concerns before anal cancer screening can be implemented into routine HIV care.

The inside story. Physicians' views on digital ano-rectal examination for anal cancer screening of HIV positive men who have sex with men

OBJECTIVE

Anal cancer is relatively common amongst HIV positive men who have sex with men (MSM), but little is known about the anal cancer screening practices of HIV physicians, and whether digital ano-rectal examination (DARE) is utilized for this. To determine the practice of anal cancer screening among HIV physicians, and to identify any barriers for implementing DARE as a method for anal cancer screening.

METHODS

36 physicians from a sexual health centre, 2 tertiary hospital infectious diseases outpatient clinics, and 2 general practices completed a questionnaire on their practice of anal cancer screening amongst HIV positive MSM. Physicians were asked about their confidence in using DARE for anal cancer screening, and whether they perceived barriers to implementing this in their clinic.

RESULTS

Most physicians (86%, 95% CI: 71-95) thought that anal cancer screening was important, but only 22% (95% CI: 10-39) were currently screening. Reasons for not screening were the absence of guidelines (87%, 95% CI: 60-98), lack of time (47%, 95% CI: 30-65), and concern about patient acceptability of DARE (32%, 95% CI: 17-51). Whilst 67% (95% CI: 49-81) of physicians felt confident in performing a DARE, only 22% (95% CI: 10-39) were confident in recognizing anal cancer using DARE.

CONCLUSION

Although HIV physicians were aware of the need for anal cancer screening among the HIV + MSM population, few were routinely screening. If DARE were to be incorporated into routine HIV care, guidelines recommending screening and up-skilling of HIV physicians to recognize anal cancer are needed.

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

Background

Although anal cancer is common in HIV positive men who have sex with men, few centres offer systematic screening. Regular digital ano-rectal examination (DARE) is a type of screening that has been recommended by some experts. How widely this forms part of HIV management guidelines is unclear.

Methods

The protocol was registered prospectively (CRD42013005188; http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/). We systematically reviewed 121 regional and national HIV guidelines and searched for guidelines from http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/global?page=cr-00-04#SauguidelineX, PubMed and Web of Science databases up to 5^th August 2013 for recommendations of DARE as a means of anal cancer screening in HIV positive MSM. Guidelines were examined in detail if they were clinical guidelines, including both prevention and treatment protocols and were in English. Guidelines were excluded if they were restricted to limited areas (e.g. antiretroviral therapy only, children or pregnant women, strategies for prevention/testing). Information was extracted regarding recommendation of DARE as a screening method, the frequency of DARE recommended, target population for screening and the strength of evidence supporting this.

Results

30 regional and national guidelines were included and examined in detail. Only 2 recommended DARE. The ‘European AIDS Clinical Society Guidelines’ recommends DARE every 1–3 years for HIV positive MSM whilst the ‘US Guideline for prevention and treatment of opportunistic infections in HIV-infected adults and adolescents’ recommends an annual DARE for the HIV + population in general. None of these guidelines specify the age of commencing screening. In each case, the highest level of evidence supporting these two recommendations was expert opinion.

Conclusions

Few HIV guidelines discuss or recommend DARE as a means of anal cancer screening. Studies of the efficacy, acceptability and cost-effectiveness of DARE are needed to assess its role in anal cancer screening.

HIVQUAL-T: monitoring and improving HIV clinical care in Thailand, 2002-08

OBJECTIVE

We report experience of HIVQUAL-T implementation in Thailand.

DESIGN

Program evaluation.

SETTING

Twelve government hospital clinics.

PARTICIPANTS

People living with HIV/AIDS (PLHAs) aged ≥15 years with two or more visits to the hospitals during 2002-08.

INTERVENTION

HIVQUAL-T is a process for HIV care performance measurement (PM) and quality improvement (QI). The program includes PM using a sample of eligible cases and establishment of a locally led QI infrastructure and process. PM indicators are based on Thai national HIV care guidelines. QI projects address needs identified through PM; regional workshops facilitate peer learning. Annual benchmarking with repeat measurement is used to monitor progress.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Percentages of eligible cases receiving various HIV services.

RESULTS

Across 12 participating hospitals, HIV care caseloads were 4855 in 2002 and 13 887 in 2008. On average, 10-15% of cases were included in the PM sample. Percentages of eligible cases receiving CD4 testing in 2002 and 2008, respectively, were 24 and 99% (P< 0.001); for ARV treatment, 100 and 90% (P= 0.74); for Pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia prophylaxis, 94 and 93% (P= 0.95); for Papanicolau smear, 0 and 67% (P< 0.001); for syphilis screening, 0 and 94% (P< 0.001); and for tuberculosis screening, 24 and 99% (P< 0.01). PM results contributed to local QI projects and national policy changes.

CONCLUSIONS

Hospitals participating in HIVQUAL-T significantly increased their performance in several fundamental areas of HIV care linked to health outcomes for PLHA. This model of PM-QI has improved clinical care and implementation of HIV guidelines in hospital-based clinics in Thailand.

Assessing urine human papillomavirus polymerase chain reaction testing as a tool for screening anal HPV infection in HIV-positive MSM

Multiple types of human papillomavirus (HPV) are responsible for most cervical cancers but also cause anal cancers-especially in HIV-positive patients. Furthermore, men who have sex with men (MSM) are twice as likely to develop anal cancers as non-MSM. A simple screening test for HPV infection would be useful in these patients. The aim of our study was to evaluate the detection of HPV by real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) in urine as a marker of anal infection in MSM. The study included 52 HIV-positive MSM treated at Amiens University Hospital (Amiens, France). After obtaining informed consent, we performed an anal swab and gathered 10 mL of first-void urine. Samples were extracted and amplified in a real-time PCR. Genotypes were determined with a PapilloCheck(®) system (Greiner Bio-One, Frickenhausen, Germany). The anal test was the gold standard for calculating the characteristics of the urine test. The sensitivity of the urine test for diagnosing anal HPV infection was 15%, the specificity was 66%, the positive predictive value was 87.5%, and negative predictive value was 4.5%. The prevalence of anal HPV infection in the study population was 94%. Genotype 42 was the most common. The anal HPV viral load was significantly lower in men in a stable relationship than in single men. However, there was no statistically significant relationship between anal viral load and anal intraepithelial lesions. We conclude that urine-based HPV is a poor predictor of anal HPV infection in HIV-positive MSM.