Search

BackgroundPrimary human papillomavirus (HPV) screening (PHS) utilizes oncogenic human papillomavirus (oncHPV) testing as the initial cervical cancer screening method and typically, if positive, additional reflex-triage (eg, HPV16/18-genotyping, Pap testing). While US guidelines support PHS usage in the general population, PHS has been little studied in women living with HIV (WLWH).MethodsWe enrolled n = 865 WLWH (323 from the Women's Interagency HIV Study [WIHS] and 542 from WIHS-affiliated colposcopy clinics). All participants underwent Pap and oncHPV testing, including HPV16/18-genotyping. WIHS WLWH who tested oncHPV[+] or had cytologic atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance or worse (ASC-US+) underwent colposcopy, as did a random 21% of WLWH who were oncHPV[-]/Pap[-] (controls). Most participants additionally underwent p16/Ki-67 immunocytochemistry.ResultsMean age was 46 years, median CD4 was 592 cells/µL, 95% used antiretroviral therapy. Seventy WLWH had histologically-determined cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or greater (CIN-2+), of which 33 were defined as precancer (ie, [i] CIN-3+ or [ii] CIN-2 if concurrent with cytologic high grade squamous intraepithelial lesions [HSILs]). PHS had 87% sensitivity (Se) for precancer, 9% positive predictive value (PPV), and a 35% colposcopy referral rate (Colpo). "PHS with reflex HPV16/18-genotyping and Pap testing" had 84% Se, 16% PPV, 30% Colpo. PHS with only HPV16/18-genotyping had 24% Colpo. "Concurrent oncHPV and Pap Testing" (Co-Testing) had 91% Se, 12% PPV, 40% Colpo. p16/Ki-67 immunochemistry had the highest PPV, 20%, but 13% specimen inadequacy.ConclusionsPHS with reflex HPV16/18-genotyping had fewer unnecessary colposcopies and (if confirmed) could be a potential alternative to Co-Testing in WLWH.

BackgroundMen who have sex with men (MSM) have a high prevalence of anal and penile human papillomavirus (HPV) infections with MSM living with HIV (MSMLH) bearing the highest rates. Data on anogenital high-risk HPV (hrHPV) among MSM in Rwanda and the associated risk factors are scant.MethodsWe recruited 350 self-identified MSM aged 18 years living in Kigali, Rwanda, with 300 recruited from the community and 50 from partner clinics. Anal and penile specimens from all participants were analyzed for hrHPV using the AmpFire platform. Logistic regression was used to calculate crude odds ratios (ORs) and adjusted ORs (aORs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) as a measure of association between various factors and anal and penile hrHPV infection prevalence.ResultsAnal hrHPV prevalence was 20.1%, was positively associated with having receptive anal sex with more partners (aOR: 9.21, 95% CI: 3.66 to 23.14), and was negatively associated with having insertive anal sex with more partners (aOR: 0.28, 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.66). Penile hrHPV prevalence was 35.0%, was negatively associated with having receptive anal sex with more partners (aOR: 0.29, 95% CI: 0.13 to 0.66), and differed significantly by HIV status, with 55.2% and 29.7% for MSMLH and HIV-negative MSM, respectively (P < 0.01).ConclusionPenile hrHPV prevalence was higher than that of anal hrHPV and it was significantly higher in Rwandan MSMLH than in HIV-negative MSM. The prevalence of anal and penile HPV infections is likely variable at different locations in Africa, according to a number of factors including HIV status and sexual practices.

Infection by human papillomavirus (HPV) type 16, the most oncogenic HPV type, was found to be the least affected by HIV-status and CD4 count of any of the approximately 13 oncogenic HPV types. This relative independence from host immune status has been interpreted as evidence that HPV16 may have an innate ability to avoid the effects of immunosurveillance. However, the impact of immune status on other individual HPV types has not been carefully assessed. We studied type-specific HPV infection in a cohort of 2,470 HIV-positive (HIV[+]) and 895 HIV-negative (HIV[-]) women. Semi-annually collected cervicovaginal lavages were tested for >40 HPV types. HPV type-specific prevalence ratios (PRs), incidence and clearance hazard ratios (HRs), were calculated by contrasting HPV types detected in HIV[+] women with CD4

Context.—Lower Anogenital Squamous Terminology (LAST) standardization recommended p16INK4a immunohistochemistry (p16 IHC) for biopsies diagnosed morphologically as cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 2 (CIN2) to classify them as low-grade or high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSILs).Objective.—To describe the relationships of p16 IHC and other biomarkers associated with cervical cancer risk with biopsy diagnoses.Design.—A statewide, stratified sample of cervical biopsies diagnosed by community pathologists (CPs), including 1512 CIN2, underwent a consensus, expert pathologist panel (EP) review (without p16 IHC results), p16 IHC interpretation by a third pathology group, and human papillomavirus (HPV) genotyping, results of which were grouped hierarchically according to cancer risk. Antecedent cytologic interpretations were also available.Results.—Biopsies were more likely to test p16 IHC positive with increasing severity of CP diagnoses, overall (Ptrend ≤ .001) and within each HPV risk group (Ptrend ≤ .001 except for low-risk HPV [Ptrend < .010]). All abnormal grades of CP-diagnosed biopsies were more likely to test p16 IHC positive with a higher HPV risk group (Ptrend < .001), and testing p16 IHC positive was associated with higher HPV risk group than testing p16 IHC negative for each grade of CP-diagnosed biopsies (P < .001). p16 IHC-positive, CP-diagnosed CIN2 biopsies were less likely than CP-diagnosed CIN3 biopsies to test HPV16 positive, have an antecedent HSIL+ cytology, or to be diagnosed as CIN3+ by the EP (P < .001 for all). p16 IHC-positive, CP-diagnosed CIN1 biopsies had lower HPV risk groups than p16 IHC-negative, CP-diagnosed CIN2 biopsies (P < .001).Conclusions.—p16 IHC-positive, CP-diagnosed CIN2 appears to be lower cancer risk than CP-diagnosed CIN3. LAST classification of "HSIL" diagnosis, which includes p16 IHC-positive CIN2, should annotate the morphologic diagnosis (CIN2 or CIN3) to inform all management decisions, which is especially important for young (

BackgroundHuman papillomavirus (HPV)-related biomarkers have shown good cross-sectional performance for anal precancer detection in human immunodeficiency virus-positive (HIV+) men who have sex with men (MSM). However, the long-term performance and risk stratification of these biomarkers are unknown. Here, we prospectively evaluated high-risk (HR) HPV DNA, HPV16/18 genotyping, HPV E6/E7 messenger RNA (mRNA), and p16/Ki-67 dual stain in a population of HIV+ MSM.MethodsWe enrolled 363 HIV+ MSM between 2009-2010, with passive follow-up through 2015. All had anal cytology and a high-resolution anoscopy at baseline. For each biomarker, we calculated the baseline sensitivity and specificity for a combined endpoint of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) and anal intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or more severe diagnoses (HSIL/AIN2+), and we estimated the 2- and 5-year cumulative risks of HSIL/AIN2+ using logistic and Cox regression models.ResultsThere were 129 men diagnosed with HSIL/AIN2+ during the study. HR-HPV testing had the highest positivity and sensitivity of all assays, but the lowest specificity. HPV16/18 and HPV E6/E7 mRNA had high specificity, but lower sensitivity. The 2- and 5-year risks of HSIL/AIN2+ were highest for those testing HPV16/18- or HPV E6/E7 mRNA-positive, followed by those testing dual stain-positive. Those testing HR-HPV- or dual stain-negative had the lowest 2- and 5-year risks of HSIL/AIN2+.ConclusionsHPV-related biomarkers provide long-term risk stratification for anal precancers. HR-HPV- and dual stain-negativity indicate a low risk of HSIL/AIN2+ for at least 2 years, compared with negative anal cytology; however, the high positivity of HR-HPV in HIV+ MSM may limit its utility for surveillance and management in this population.

IntroductionMen who have sex with men (MSM) are disproportionately impacted by HIV/AIDS resulting from risky sexual behaviors. Social and contextual factors are known to mediate risk behaviors, but there is limited information about the prevalence of risky sexual practices of Rwandan MSM and the concomitant socio-contextual determinants making it difficult to assess implications for preventing HIV/STI transmission in this key population.MethodsUsing exploratory qualitative design, we obtained socio-contextual information regarding prevalence of risky sexual behavior and assessed implications for HIV/ STIs transmission and preventive measures taken by MSM to improve sexual health and wellbeing. Thirty MSM were recruited to participate in in-depth interviews using respondent-driven sampling from LGBT associations in Kigali. Data were analyzed using standard qualitative data analysis procedures.ResultsRespondents' were between 18-40 years old; all completed primary education and are mostly low-socioeconomic status. Risky sexual practices were common, but differed by peculiar individual and contextual factors. Older MSM often reported occasional sexual relations with women to avoid suspicion and social stigma. Younger MSM's risky sexual practices are mostly transactional and mediated by the need for social acceptance and support. Knowledge of STIs was poor, but prevalence, especially of HPV was high. The options for improving sexual wellbeing are limited and mostly clandestine.ConclusionRisky sexual behavior of Rwandan MSM has major implications for HIV/STI transmission. An environment of intense social stigma and social isolation makes it difficult to obtain information or services to improve sexual health. Effective interventions that address individual and contextual determinants of risk and access to health services are urgently needed to limit the consequence of MSM as a bridge for HIV transmission to the general population.

There are marked disparities in cancer survival in low‐income countries compared to high‐income countries, yet population‐based data in the first is largely lacking. In this study, data from the national cancer registry of Rwanda were examined for 542 patients diagnosed with eight of the most common cancers of adults stomach (C16), colorectum (C18‐20), liver (C22), breast (female) (C50), cervix (C53), ovary (C56), prostate (C61), and non‐Hodgkin lymphomas (C82‐85) between 2014 and 2017. Subjects were randomly selected for active followed‐up to calculate 1‐, 3‐, and 5‐year observed and relative survival (RS) by cancer type and stage. Overall, 53.7% of cases had died within 5 years of diagnosis. Five‐year RS varied by malignancy and ranged from 17.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 6.7%–32.6%) for liver cancer to 68% (CI: 51.6%–79.8%) for cancers of the prostate. Stage was assigned for 71.6% of patients (n = 388 of 542), with over half (58%) having advanced stage (III/IV) at diagnosis. For all except liver and ovary, stage was a strong predictor of survival; for example, three‐year observed survival was 90.9% and 44.8% (p‐value:.002) for early and advanced breast cancer, respectively. This study demonstrates that stage specific survival can be obtained from population based cancer registries in sub Saharan Africa, data that are invaluable for international benchmarking, and for local planning and evaluation of cancer control programs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Multicancer detection (MCD) tests use a single, easily obtainable biospecimen, such as blood, to screen for more than one cancer concurrently. MCD tests can potentially be used to improve early cancer detection, including cancers that currently lack effective screening methods. However, these tests have unknown and unquantified benefits and harms. MCD tests differ from conventional cancer screening tests in that the organ responsible for a positive test is unknown, and a broad diagnostic workup may be necessary to confirm the location and type of underlying cancer. Among two prospective studies involving greater than 16,000 individuals, MCD tests identified those who had some cancers without currently recommended screening tests, including pancreas, ovary, liver, uterus, small intestine, oropharyngeal, bone, thyroid, and hematologic malignancies, at early stages. Reported MCD test sensitivities range from 27% to 95% but differ by organ and are lower for early stage cancers, for which treatment toxicity would be lowest and the potential for cure might be highest. False reassurance from a negative MCD result may reduce screening adherence, risking a loss in proven public health benefits from standard‐of‐care screening. Prospective clinical trials are needed to address uncertainties about MCD accuracy to detect different cancers in asymptomatic individuals, whether these tests can detect cancer sufficiently early for effective treatment and mortality reduction, the degree to which these tests may contribute to cancer overdiagnosis and overtreatment, whether MCD tests work equally well across all populations, and the appropriate diagnostic evaluation and follow‐up for patients with a positive test. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Metformin is among the most widely used antidiabetics medications because of its minimal toxicity, favorable safety profile, availability, and low cost. In addition to its role in diabetes management, metformin may reduce cancer risk. Methods We conducted a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the association between metformin use and cancer risk, with evaluation by specific cancer type when possible. Applicable studies were identified in PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus from inception through March 7, 2023, with metformin use categorized as "ever" or "yes" and a cancer diagnosis as the outcome. Article quality was evaluated using National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute guidelines, and publication bias was evaluated using the Egger test, Begg test, and funnel plots. Pooled relative risk (RR) estimates were calculated using random-effects models, and sensitivity analysis was completed through leave-one-out cross-validation. Results We included 166 studies with cancer incidence information in the meta-analysis. Reduced risk for overall cancer was observed in case-control studies (RR = 0.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.30 to 0.80) and prospective cohort studies (RR = 0.65, 95% CI = 0.37 to 0.93). Metformin use was associated with reduced gastrointestinal (RR = 0.79, 95% CI = 0.73 to 0.85), urologic (RR = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.78 to 0.99), and hematologic (RR = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.75 to 0.99) cancer risk. Statistically significant publication bias was observed within the studies (Egger P  < .001). Conclusions Metformin may be associated with a decreased risk of many cancer types, but high heterogeneity and risk of publication bias limit confidence in these results. Additional studies in populations without diabetes are needed to better understand the utility of metformin in cancer prevention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ObjectiveVaginal cancer is an uncommon cancer of the lower genital tract, and standardized screening is not recommended. Risk factors for vaginal cancer include a history of other lower genital tract neoplasia or cancer, smoking, immunosuppression, and exposure to diethylstilbestrol in utero. Although cervical cancer screening after total hysterectomy for benign disease is not recommended, many women inappropriately undergo vaginal cytology and/or human papillomavirus (hrHPV) tests, and clinicians are faced with managing their abnormal results. Our objective is to review the literature on vaginal cytology and hrHPV testing and to develop guidance for the management of abnormal vaginal screening tests.MethodsAn electronic search of the PubMed database through 2015 was performed. Articles describing vaginal cytology or vaginal hrHPV testing were reviewed, and diagnostic accuracy of these tests when available was noted.ResultsThe available literature was too limited to develop evidence-based recommendations for managing abnormal vaginal cytology and hrHPV screening tests. However, the data did show that 1) the risk of vaginal cancer in women after hysterectomy is extremely low, justifying the recommendation against routine screening, and 2) in women for whom surveillance is recommended, e.g. women post-treatment for cervical precancer or cancer, hrHPV testing may be useful in identification of vaginal cancer precursors.ConclusionVaginal cancer is rare, and asymptomatic low-risk women should not be screened. An algorithm based on expert opinion is proposed for managing women with abnormal vaginal test results.

ObjectiveVaginal cancer is an uncommon cancer of the lower genital tract, and standardized screening is not recommended. Risk factors for vaginal cancer include a history of other lower genital tract neoplasia or cancer, smoking, immunosuppression, and exposure to diethylstilbestrol in utero. Although cervical cancer screening after total hysterectomy for benign disease is not recommended, many women inappropriately undergo vaginal cytology and/or human papillomavirus (HPV) tests, and clinicians are faced with managing their abnormal results. Our objectives were to review the literature on vaginal cytology and high-risk HPV (hrHPV) testing and to develop guidance for the management of abnormal vaginal screening tests.Materials and methodsAn electronic search of the PubMed database through 2015 was performed. Articles describing vaginal cytology or vaginal hrHPV testing were reviewed, and diagnostic accuracy of these tests when available was noted.ResultsThe available literature was too limited to develop evidence-based recommendations for managing abnormal vaginal cytology and hrHPV screening tests. However, the data did show that (1) the risk of vaginal cancer in women after hysterectomy is extremely low, justifying the recommendation against routine screening, and (2) in women for whom surveillance is recommended, e.g., women posttreatment for cervical precancer or cancer, hrHPV testing may be useful in identification of vaginal cancer precursors.ConclusionsVaginal cancer is rare, and asymptomatic low-risk women should not be screened. An algorithm based on expert opinion is proposed for managing women with abnormal vaginal test results.

BackgroundDetermining cervical precancer risk among human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected women who despite a normal Pap test are positive for oncogenic human papillomavirus (oncHPV) types is important for setting screening practices.MethodsA total of 2791 HIV-infected and 975 HIV-uninfected women in the Women's Interagency HIV Study were followed semiannually with Pap tests and colposcopy. Cumulative risks of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or greater (CIN-2+; threshold used for CIN treatment) and grade 3 or greater (CIN-3+; threshold to set screening practices) were measured in HIV-infected and HIV-uninfected women with normal Pap tests, stratified by baseline HPV results, and also in HIV-infected women with a low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL; benchmark indication for colposcopy).ResultsAt baseline, 1021 HIV-infected and 518 HIV-uninfected women had normal Pap tests, of whom 154 (15%) and 27 (5%), respectively, tested oncHPV positive. The 5-year CIN-2+ cumulative risk in the HIV-infected oncHPV-positive women was 22% (95% confidence interval [CI], 9%-34%), 12% (95% CI, 0%-22%), and 14% (95% CI, 2%-25%) among those with CD4 counts

Anal human papillomavirus (HPV) infections are common, and the incidence of anal cancer is high in HIV-infected men who have sex with men (MSM). To evaluate the performance of HPV assays in anal samples, we compared the cobas HPV test (cobas) to the Roche Linear Array HPV genotyping assay (LA) and cytology in HIV-infected MSM. Cytology and cobas and LA HPV testing were conducted for 342 subjects. We calculated agreement between the HPV assays and the clinical performance of HPV testing and HPV genotyping alone and in combination with anal cytology. We observed high agreement between cobas and LA, with cobas more likely than LA to show positive results for HPV16, HPV18, and other carcinogenic types. Specimens testing positive in cobas but not in LA were more likely to be positive for other markers of HPV-related disease compared to those testing negative in both assays, suggesting that at least some of these were true positives for HPV. cobas and LA showed high sensitivities but low specificities for the detection of anal intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2/3 (AIN2/3) in this population (100% sensitivity and 26% specificity for cobas versus 98.4% sensitivity and 28.9% specificity for LA). A combination of anal cytology and HPV genotyping provided the highest accuracy for detecting anal precancer. A higher HPV load was associated with a higher risk of AIN2/3 with HPV16 (P(trend) < 0.001), HPV18 (P(trend) = 0.07), and other carcinogenic types (P(trend) < 0.001). We demonstrate that cobas can be used for HPV detection in anal cytology specimens. Additional tests are necessary to identify men at the highest risk of anal cancer among those infected with high-risk HPV.