Back

The accuracy of anal self- and companion exams among sexual minority men and transgender women: The Prevent Anal Cancer Palpation Study

Nyitray, A. G.; McAuliffe, T. L.; Liebert, C.; Swartz, M. D.; Deshmukh, A. A.; Chiao, E. Y.; Weaver, L.; Almirol, E.; Kerman, J.; Schneider, J. A.; Wilkerson, J. M.; Hwang, L.-Y.; Smith, D.; Hazra, A.

2023-10-19 sexual and reproductive health
10.1101/2023.10.19.23297209
Show abstract

BackgroundSquamous cell carcinoma of the anus (SCCA) annual incidence among sexual minority men (SMM) with and without HIV is 85/100,000 and 19/100,000 persons, respectively, which is significantly higher than the overall incidence (2/100,000). Since SCCA tumours average [≥]30 mm at diagnosis, we assessed the accuracy of individuals to self-detect anal abnormalities. MethodsThe study enrolled 714 SMM and transgender women (SMM/TW), aged 25 to 81 years, in Chicago, Illinois and Houston, Texas during 2020-2022. Individuals were taught the anal self- and companion examinations (ASE/ACE). Then, a clinician performed a digital anal rectal examination (DARE) before participants conducted the ASE or ACE. Accuracy was measured along with factors associated with ASE/ACE and DARE concordance. FindingsThe median age was 40 years (interquartile range, 32-54), 36.8% were living with HIV, and 47.0%, 23.4%, and 23.0% were non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic Black, and Hispanic. Clinicians detected 245 individuals with abnormalities (median diameter 3 mm). Sensitivity and specificity of the ASE/ACE was 59.6% (95%CI 53.5-65.7%) and 80.2% (95%CI 76.6-83.8%), respectively. Overall concordance was 0.73 (95% CI 0.70-0.76) between ASE/ACE and DARE and increased with increasing anal canal lesion size (p=0.02). However, concordance was lower for participants aged [≥]55 years (compared to 25-34 years) and when the ASE/ACE trainer was a lay person rather than a clinician. InterpretationSMM/TW who complete an ASE or ACE are likely to detect SCCA at an early stage when malignant lesions are much smaller than the current median dimension at presentation of [≥]30 mm. FundingNational Cancer Institute Research in contextO_ST_ABSEvidence before this studyC_ST_ABSWhile squamous cell carcinoma of the anus (SCCA) incidence is substantially elevated in people with HIV, there are currently no consensus recommendations on how to screen for it, nor is there widespread technological infrastructure for one prevailing method, high-resolution anoscopy. In the absence of screening programs, the size of SCCA tumours at diagnosis are > 30 mm. We searched PubMed for articles between January 1, 2000 and June 15, 2023 using the search terms anus neoplasm and self-examination. We found no studies assessing the accuracy of self-examinations to detect anal masses other than our prior feasibility study. Added value of this studyThe primary goal of the Prevent Anal Cancer Palpation Study was to assess the accuracy of lay self-examinations and companion examinations to recognise abnormalities in the anal region. Clinicians conducted a digital anal rectal examination and recorded all lesions observed at the perianus or anal canal. The median size of lesions was 3 mm. Participants conducted lay examinations and these results were judged against a clinicians examination. The sensitivity and specificity of the lay examinations, for any lesion at the anal canal or perianal region was 59.6% and 80.1%, respectively. As lesions increased in size, concordance increased between clinicians exam and the lay exam. Implications of all the available evidenceIt is now known that high-resolution anoscopy can reduce the risk for SCCA but the infrastructure using this technology is very limited in high-resource settings and almost non-existent in low resource settings, especially where HIV prevalence is highest. The evidence suggests that self- and partner examination of the anal region is feasible and that lay persons can detect lesions that are much smaller than the prevailing size of SCCA tumours.

Matching journals

1
Sexually Transmitted Infections
BMJ · based on 20 published papers
#1
311× avg
2
BMJ Open
BMJ · based on 553 published papers
Top 10%
2.9× avg
3
PLOS ONE
Public Library of Science (PLoS) · based on 1737 published papers
Top 54%
8.3%
4
Scientific Reports
Springer Science and Business Media LLC · based on 701 published papers
Top 48%
3.1%
5
Preventive Medicine
Elsevier BV · based on 11 published papers
#1
59× avg
6
eLife
eLife Sciences Publications, Ltd · based on 262 published papers
Top 10%
2.5× avg
7
BMC Public Health
Springer Science and Business Media LLC · based on 148 published papers
Top 13%
2.4× avg
8
PLOS Global Public Health
Public Library of Science (PLoS) · based on 287 published papers
Top 15%
1.7%
9
PLOS Medicine
Public Library of Science (PLoS) · based on 95 published papers
Top 8%
3.2× avg
10
Health Expectations
Wiley · based on 12 published papers
Top 0.5%
26× avg
11
Cancer Medicine
Wiley · based on 17 published papers
Top 2%
12× avg
12
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) · based on 14 published papers
Top 2%
13× avg
13
British Journal of Cancer
Springer Science and Business Media LLC · based on 22 published papers
Top 3%
9.3× avg
14
European Journal of Human Genetics
Springer Science and Business Media LLC · based on 25 published papers
Top 1%
17× avg
15
Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities
Springer Science and Business Media LLC · based on 11 published papers
Top 0.7%
22× avg
16
Archives of Clinical and Biomedical Research
Fortune Journals · based on 18 published papers
Top 1%
12× avg
17
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology
Frontiers Media SA · based on 22 published papers
Top 3%
6.2× avg
18
The Journal of Molecular Diagnostics
Elsevier BV · based on 24 published papers
Top 2%
10× avg
19
BMJ Public Health
BMJ · based on 18 published papers
Top 0.6%
13× avg
20
Microbiology Spectrum
American Society for Microbiology · based on 86 published papers
Top 3%
7.9× avg
21
American Journal of Gastroenterology
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health) · based on 15 published papers
Top 1%
8.3× avg
22
BMC Infectious Diseases
Springer Science and Business Media LLC · based on 110 published papers
Top 15%
1.8× avg
23
Gut
BMJ · based on 17 published papers
Top 2%
7.0× avg
24
Clinical Microbiology and Infection
Elsevier BV · based on 54 published papers
Top 4%
5.0× avg
25
Vaccines
MDPI AG · based on 131 published papers
Top 5%
2.7× avg
26
Journal of Medical Internet Research
JMIR Publications Inc. · based on 81 published papers
Top 15%
0.7%
27
PLOS Digital Health
Public Library of Science (PLoS) · based on 88 published papers
Top 12%
0.7%