Objective: Anal cytologic testing is being increasingly used as a preventive screening test in high-risk populations. We document anal cytology results, correlating HIV test results, and histopathologic follow-up outcomes from a large integrated health system which recently implemented anal screening. Study Design: Anal Pap tests between May 2007 and August 2009 were studied and correlated with HIV test histories and follow-up histopathologic diagnoses. Results: 688 anal cytologic tests were identified with 7.4% reported as unsatisfactory; 72% of anal cytologic tests were abnormal; 91% of patients were HIV positive. The HIV-positive rate and likelihood of high viral load were both significantly greater among patients with abnormal anal cytology than among patients with negative anal cytology, but did not vary significantly among patients with different categories of abnormal anal cytology. For 459 patients with abnormal anal cytology, 198 had anal biopsies. For patients with abnormal anal cytology findings of ASC-US (atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance), LSIL (low-grade squamous intraepithelial neoplasia), ASC-H (atypical squamous cells, cannot exclude high-grade squamous lesion), and HSIL (high-grade squamous intraepithelial neoplasia), histopathologic intraepithelial neoplasia (AIN)2/3 or 2/3+ diagnoses were established in 46.5, 56.6, 65, and 80.8%, respectively. Conclusions: Patients with any level of abnormal anal cytology result are at significant risk of the presence of histopathologically verifiable high-grade anal intraepithelial lesions. More specific markers for identifying patients at highest risk of progression to invasive anal carcinoma are needed.

Keywords:
Anal cytology, Anal biopsy, Anal cancer screening, HIV
1.
Medical Advisory Secretariat: Anal Dysplasia Screening: Evidence-Based Analysis. Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series. Toronto, Ministry of Health and Long Term Care, 2007, vol 7, pp 1–43. www.health.gov.on.ca/english/providers/program/mas/tech/reviews/pdf/rev_ads_20070919.pdf (accessed June 14, 2011).
2.
Chaturvedi AK, Madeleine MM, Biggar RJ, Engels EA: Risk of human papillomavirus-associated cancers among persons with AIDS. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009;101:1120–1130.
3.
Park IU, Palefsky JM: Evaluation and management of anal intraepithelial neoplasia in HIV-negative and HIV-positive men who have sex with men. Curr Infect Dis Rep 2010;12:126–133.
4.
Hessol NA, Holly EA, Efird JT, et al: Anal intraepithelial neoplasia in a multisite study of HIV-infected and high-risk HIV-uninfected women. AIDS 2009;23:59–70.
5.
Piketty C, Darragh TM, Da Costa M, et al: High prevalence of anal human papillomavirus infection and anal cancer precursors among HIV-infected persons in the absence of anal intercourse. Ann Intern Med 2003;138:453–459.
6.
Goldie SJ, Kuntz KM, Weinstein MC, et al: The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of screening for anal squamous intraepithelial lesions in homosexual and bisexual HIV-positive men. JAMA 1999;281:1822–1829.
7.
Goldie SJ, Kuntz KM, Weinstein MC, et al: Cost-effectiveness of screening for anal squamous intraepithelial lesions and anal cancer in human immunodeficiency virus-negative homosexual and bisexual men. Am J Med 2000;108:634–641.
8.
Karnon J, Jones R, Czoski-Murray C, Smith KJ: Cost-utility analysis of screening high-risk groups for anal cancer. J Public Health (Oxf) 2008;30:293–304.
9.
Association of Reproductive Health Professionals: Managing HPV: A New Era in Patient Care. www.arhp.org/uploadDocs/hpvqrg.pdf (accessed June 14, 2011).
10.
Berry JM, Palefsky JM, Welton ML: Anal cancer and its precursors in HIV-positive patients: perspectives and management. Surg Oncol Clin N Am 2004;13:255–373.
11.
Bean SM, Chhieng DC: Anal-rectal cytology: a review. Diagn Cytopathol 2010;38:538–546.
12.
Darragh TM, Winkler B: The ABCs of anal-rectal cytology. CAP Today May 2004. www.cap.org.
13.
Hunter C, Duggan MA, Duan Q, Power P, Gregoire J, Nation J: Cytology and outcome of LSIL: cannot exclude HSIL compared to ASC-H. Cytopathology 2009;20:17–26.
14.
Difurio MJ, Mailhiot T, Sundborg MJ, Nauschuetz KK: Comparison of the clinical significance of the Papanicolaou test interpretations LSIL cannot rule out HSIL and ASC-H. Diagn Cytopathol 2010;38:313–317.
15.
Shidham VB, Kumar N, Narayan R, Brotzman GL: Should LSIL with ASC-H (LSIL-H) in cervical smears be an independent category? A study on SurePath™ specimens with review of literature. Cytojournal 2007;4:7.
16.
Darragh TM, Birdsong GG, Luff RD, Davey DD: Anal-rectal cytology; in Solomon D, Nayar R (eds): The Bethesda System for Reporting Cervical Cytology: Definitions, Criteria and Explanatory Notes, ed 2. New York, Springer 2004, pp 169–175.
17.
Panther LA, Wagner K, Proper J, et al: High resolution anoscopy findings for men who have sex with men: inaccuracy of anal cytology as a predictor of histologic highgrade anal intraepithelial neoplasia and the impact of HIV serostatus. Clin Infect Dis 2004;38:1490–1492.
18.
Arain S, Walts AE, Thomas P, Bose S: The anal Pap smear: cytomorphology of squamous intraepithelial lesions. Cytojournal 2005;2:4.
19.
Darragh TM, Winkler B: Anal cancer and cervical cancer screening: key differences. Cancer Cytopathol 2011;119:5–19.
20.
Darvishian F, Stier EA, Soslow RA, Lin O: Immunoreactivity of p16 in anal cytology specimens: histologic correlation. Cancer 2006;108:66–71.
21.
Tramujas da Costa E Silva I, Coelho Ribeiro M, Santos Gimenez F, Dutra Ferreira JR, Galvao RS, Vasco Hargreaves PE, Gonçalves Daumas Pinheiro Guimaraes A, de Lima Ferreira LC: Performance of p16INK4a immunocytochemistry as a marker of anal squamous intraepithelial lesions. Cancer Cytopathol 2011;119:167–176.
22.
Salit IE, Lytwyn A, Raboud J, Sano M, Chong S, Diong C, Chapman W, Mahony JB, Tinmouth J: The role of cytology (Pap tests) and human papillomavirus testing in anal cancer screening. AIDS 2010;24:1307–1313.
23.
Eversole GM, Moriarty AT, Schwartz MR, Clayton AC, Souers R, Fatheree LA, Chmara BA, Tench WD, Henry MR, Wilbur DC: Practices of participants in the College of American Pathologists interlaboratory comparison program in cervicovaginal cytology, 2006. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2010;134:331–335.
24.
Darragh TM, Jay N, Tupkelewicz BA, Hogeboom CJ, Holly EA, Palefsky JM: Comparison of conventional cytologic smears and ThinPrep preparations from the anal canal. Acta Cytol 1997;41:1167–1170.
25.
Palefsky JM, Holly EA, Ralston ML, et al: High incidence of anal high-grade squamous intra-epithelial lesions among HIV-positive and HIV-negative homosexual and bisexual men. AIDS 1998;12:495–503.
26.
Chin-Hong PV, Berry JM, Cheng SC, et al: Comparison of patient- and clinician-collected anal cytology samples to screen for human papillomavirus-associated anal intraepithelial neoplasia in men who have sex with men. Ann Intern Med 2008;149:300–306.
27.
Melbye M, Sprogel P: Aetiological parallel between anal cancer and cervical cancer. Lancet 1991;338:657–659.
28.
Kim JJ, Goldie SJ: Cost effectiveness analysis of including boys in a human papillomavirus vaccination programme in the United States. BMJ 2009;339:b3884.
29.
Hampl M, Sarajuuri H, Wentzensen N, et al: Effect of human papillomavirus vaccines on vulvar, vaginal, and anal intraepithelial lesions and vulvar cancer. Obstet Gynecol 2006;108:1361–1368.
30.
FDA Approval for a Recombinant Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Quadrivalent Vaccine. www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/druginfo/fda-recombinant-hpv-quadrivalent-vaccine (accessed 2011).
© 2012 S. Karger AG, Basel
2012
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.