4.2 Article

Anal cancer screening in men who have sex with men

期刊

CURRENT OPINION IN HIV AND AIDS
卷 4, 期 1, 页码 64-67

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/COH.0b013e32831a6fe0

关键词

anal cancer; anal cytology; anal intraepithelial neoplasia; natural history; treatment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose of review To determine whether current evidence and expert opinion support the routine use of anal cytology and high-resolution anoscopy in men who have sex with men. Recent findings Most recently published guidelines do not recommend routine anal cytology, but anal cancer is undoubtedly a serious and growing problem for HIV-positive patients. Two recent cohort studies have provided data that suggest that the precursor lesion (high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion) might not be more prevalent in patients on highly active antiretroviral therapy than in historical pre-highly active antiretroviral therapy cohorts or in HIV-negative men who have sex with men. If substantiated by further studies, this would make it easier to focus intervention with high-resolution anoscopy on a smaller group of patients. This would be helpful because high-resolution anoscopy remains a resource that is both costly and difficult to access in most countries. The sensitivity and specificity of anal cytology is poor and adjuncts to cytology such as p16(ink4a) staining and human papillomavirus viral loads might be utilized to further reduce the number of patients requiring high-resolution anoscopy. Despite the burden of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion in HIV negative men who have sex with men, anal cancer remains uncommon in this group. Summary Although routine anal cytology is not advisable for men who have sex with men at present, be they HIV positive or negative, clinicians should be regularly performing digital rectal examination in those at high risk of anal cancer, both to facilitate early detection of anal cancer and in the interests of health promotion.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据