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
© 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.