Back

Prevalence and determinants of cervicovaginal, oral, and anal HPV infection in a population of transgender and gender diverse people assigned female at birth

McIntosh, R. D.; Andrus, E. C.; Walline, H. M.; Sandler, C. B.; Goudsmidt, C. M.; Moravek, M. B.; Stroumsa, D.; Kattari, S. K.; Brouwer, A.

2023-08-16 epidemiology
10.1101/2023.08.15.23294129 medRxiv
Show abstract

IntroductionHPV causes oral, cervicovaginal, and anogenital cancer, and cervical cancer screening options include HPV testing of a physician-collected sample. Transgender and gender diverse (TGD) people assigned female at birth (AFAB) face discrimination and stigma in many healthcare settings; are believed to be a lower risk for cervical cancer by many physicians; are less likely to be up to date on preventive health care services such as pelvic health exams; and are more likely to have inadequate results from screening tests. Self-sampling options may increase access and participation in HPV testing and cancer screening. MethodsWe recruited 137 TGD individuals AFAB for an observational study, mailing them a kit to self-collect cervicovaginal, oral, and anal samples at home. We tested samples for HPV genotypes 6, 11, 16, 18, 31, 33, 35, 39, 45, 51, 52, 56, 58, 59, 66, 68, 73 and 90 using a PCR mass array test. Results102 participants completed the study. Among those with valid tests, 8.8% were positive for oral HPV, 30.5% were positive for cervicovaginal HPV, and 39.6% were positive for anal HPV. A large fraction of anal (50.0%) and oral (71.4%) infections were concordant with a cervicovaginal infection of the same type. ConclusionsHPV infection in TGD people AFAB may be just as high, if not higher, than in cisgender women. It is essential that we reduce barriers to cancer screening for TGD populations, such as through the development of a clinically approved self-screening HPV test.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.