OBJECTIVE: To estimate the prevalence of anal intraepithelial neoplasia in heterosexual women with genital intraepithelial neoplasia, and to compare anal cytology with colposcopy for their effectiveness in anal intraepithelial neoplasia screening. METHODS: Women with confirmed intraepithelial neoplasia on the cervix, vagina, or vulva were referred for gynecologic oncology care. All patients underwent anal cytology and high-resolution anoscopy. Any lesion detected on anoscopy was biopsied. Wilson score method was used to estimate 95% confidence interval for prevalence. McNemar's test compared the two screening methods. RESULTS: Women with average age of 39.6 years (range 14 to 83 years) underwent anal cytology and anoscopy (N=205). Of the 205 patients with genital intraepithelial neoplasia, 25 patients (12.2%) had biopsy-proven anal intraepithelial neoplasia. Twelve patients (5.9%) had abnormal anal cytology (nine with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance [ASC-US], three with low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions [LSIL]). None of the nine patients with anal ASC-US had biopsy-proven anal intraepithelial neoplasia. Of the three patients with anal LSIL, two had anal intraepithelial neoplasia II and one had condyloma on biopsy. However, 78 patients (38%) had abnormal anoscopy findings that resulted in 25 biopsy-proven anal intraepithelial neoplasias (8 anal intraepithelial neoplasia I, 5 anal intraepithelial neoplasia II, 12 anal intraepithelial neoplasia III)), condylomas (n=11), and hyperkeratosis (n=8). Anoscopy identified 32% (25 patients) with anal intraepithelial neoplasia out of 78 abnormal anoscopic examinations. In diagnosing anal intraepithelial neoplasia, anoscopy has 100% sensitivity and 71% specificity; anal cytology has 8% sensitivity and 94% specificity. CONCLUSION: Patients with cervical, vulvar, and vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia have 12.2% prevalence of anal intraepithelial neoplasia and should be screened with high-resolution anoscopy. In anal intraepithelial neoplasia screening, anoscopy is more sensitive but less specific than anal cytology.
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the prevalence of anal intraepithelial neoplasia in heterosexual women with genital intraepithelial neoplasia, and to compare anal cytology with colposcopy for their effectiveness in anal intraepithelial neoplasia screening. METHODS:Women with confirmed intraepithelial neoplasia on the cervix, vagina, or vulva were referred for gynecologic oncology care. All patients underwent anal cytology and high-resolution anoscopy. Any lesion detected on anoscopy was biopsied. Wilson score method was used to estimate 95% confidence interval for prevalence. McNemar's test compared the two screening methods. RESULTS:Women with average age of 39.6 years (range 14 to 83 years) underwent anal cytology and anoscopy (N=205). Of the 205 patients with genital intraepithelial neoplasia, 25 patients (12.2%) had biopsy-proven anal intraepithelial neoplasia. Twelve patients (5.9%) had abnormal anal cytology (nine with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance [ASC-US], three with low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions [LSIL]). None of the nine patients with anal ASC-US had biopsy-proven anal intraepithelial neoplasia. Of the three patients with anal LSIL, two had anal intraepithelial neoplasia II and one had condyloma on biopsy. However, 78 patients (38%) had abnormal anoscopy findings that resulted in 25 biopsy-proven anal intraepithelial neoplasias (8 anal intraepithelial neoplasia I, 5 anal intraepithelial neoplasia II, 12 anal intraepithelial neoplasia III)), condylomas (n=11), and hyperkeratosis (n=8). Anoscopy identified 32% (25 patients) with anal intraepithelial neoplasia out of 78 abnormal anoscopic examinations. In diagnosing anal intraepithelial neoplasia, anoscopy has 100% sensitivity and 71% specificity; anal cytology has 8% sensitivity and 94% specificity. CONCLUSION:Patients with cervical, vulvar, and vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia have 12.2% prevalence of anal intraepithelial neoplasia and should be screened with high-resolution anoscopy. In anal intraepithelial neoplasia screening, anoscopy is more sensitive but less specific than anal cytology.
Authors: Anna-Barbara Moscicki; Teresa M Darragh; J Michael Berry-Lawhorn; Jennifer M Roberts; Michelle J Khan; Lori A Boardman; Elizabeth Chiao; Mark H Einstein; Stephen E Goldstone; Naomi Jay; Wendy M Likes; Elizabeth A Stier; Mark L Welton; Dorothy J Wiley; Joel M Palefsky Journal: J Low Genit Tract Dis Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 1.925
Authors: Joël Fokom Domgue; Craig Messick; Andrea Milbourne; Ming Guo; Mila P Salcedo; Kristina R Dahlstrom; Elizabeth Y Chiao; Ashish A Deshmukh; Erich M Sturgis; Kathleen M Schmeler Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2019-03-01 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Elizabeth A Stier; Meagan C Sebring; Audrey E Mendez; Fatimata S Ba; Debra D Trimble; Elizabeth Y Chiao Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2015-03-19 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Anna-Barbara Moscicki; Mark Schiffman; Ann Burchell; Ginesa Albero; Anna R Giuliano; Marc T Goodman; Susanne K Kjaer; Joel Palefsky Journal: Vaccine Date: 2012-11-20 Impact factor: 3.641
Authors: Robin T Higashi; Serena A Rodriguez; Andrea C Betts; Jasmin A Tiro; Amneris E Luque; Rachel Rivera; Arti Barnes Journal: AIDS Care Date: 2021-02-17
Authors: Robin Crawford; Anne-Laure Grignon; Sarah Kitson; David M Winder; Siolian L R Ball; Katie Vaughan; Margaret A Stanley; Jane C Sterling; Peter K C Goon Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2011-11-02 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Jeslie M Ramos-Cartagena; Cynthia M Pérez; Humberto M Guiot; Claudia P Amaya-Ardilla; Maribel Tirado-Gómez; Ana P Ortiz Journal: J Low Genit Tract Dis Date: 2020-01 Impact factor: 3.842
Authors: Serena A Rodriguez; Robin T Higashi; Andrea C Betts; Cynthia Ortiz; Jasmin A Tiro; Amneris E Luque; Arti Barnes Journal: J Low Genit Tract Dis Date: 2021-01-01 Impact factor: 3.842