BACKGROUND: Anal cancer screening may be considered in HIV-infected men who have sex with men because they are at increased risk. Cancer screening can provoke anxiety, which may lead to poorer screening compliance. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to measure the psychological consequences of anal cancer screening in HIV-infected men who have sex with men. DESIGN: This investigation is a prospective cohort study. SETTING: This study was conducted in primary and tertiary care HIV clinics in Toronto, Canada. PATIENTS: One hundred four HIV-infected men who have sex with men were studied. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: : Psychological impact was measured at 4 time points (before screening, after screening, after receiving results, and before follow-up) using the Impact of Events Scale, the Illness Intrusiveness Ratings Scale, and the Psychological Consequences Questionnaire. RESULTS: Median age was 44, 77% were receiving antiretroviral therapy, and 11% had high-grade anal dysplasia (anal intraepithelial neoplasia 2/3). Fifteen to 32% of the patients reported high levels of negative psychological consequences across the 4 time points; the highest levels occurred at time 2. Higher HIV symptom count and baseline level of negative impact were significantly associated with higher Impact of Events scores, whereas younger age and a higher baseline level of negative impact were significantly associated with higher scores with use of the Illness Intrusiveness Ratings Scale. CONCLUSIONS: Anal cancer screening is not associated with greater adverse psychological impact in most HIV-infected men who have sex with men. Younger patients, those with more HIV-related symptoms and greater baseline psychological distress, are at risk for increased psychological distress during screening.
BACKGROUND:Anal cancer screening may be considered in HIV-infectedmen who have sex with men because they are at increased risk. Cancer screening can provoke anxiety, which may lead to poorer screening compliance. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to measure the psychological consequences of anal cancer screening in HIV-infectedmen who have sex with men. DESIGN: This investigation is a prospective cohort study. SETTING: This study was conducted in primary and tertiary care HIV clinics in Toronto, Canada. PATIENTS: One hundred four HIV-infectedmen who have sex with men were studied. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: : Psychological impact was measured at 4 time points (before screening, after screening, after receiving results, and before follow-up) using the Impact of Events Scale, the Illness Intrusiveness Ratings Scale, and the Psychological Consequences Questionnaire. RESULTS: Median age was 44, 77% were receiving antiretroviral therapy, and 11% had high-grade anal dysplasia (anal intraepithelial neoplasia 2/3). Fifteen to 32% of the patients reported high levels of negative psychological consequences across the 4 time points; the highest levels occurred at time 2. Higher HIV symptom count and baseline level of negative impact were significantly associated with higher Impact of Events scores, whereas younger age and a higher baseline level of negative impact were significantly associated with higher scores with use of the Illness Intrusiveness Ratings Scale. CONCLUSIONS:Anal cancer screening is not associated with greater adverse psychological impact in most HIV-infectedmen who have sex with men. Younger patients, those with more HIV-related symptoms and greater baseline psychological distress, are at risk for increased psychological distress during screening.
Authors: L Cattelan; F M Ghazawi; M Le; E Savin; A Zubarev; F Lagacé; D Sasseville; K Waschke; I V Litvinov Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2020-06-01 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Jack E Burkhalter; Thomas M Atkinson; J Berry-Lawhorn; Stephen Goldstone; Mark H Einstein; Timothy J Wilkin; Jeannette Lee; David Cella; Joel M Palefsky Journal: Value Health Date: 2018-04-11 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Thomas M Atkinson; Joel Palefsky; Yuelin Li; Andrew Webb; J Michael Berry; Stephen Goldstone; Rebecca Levine; Timothy J Wilkin; Gary Bucher; David Cella; Jack E Burkhalter Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2019-01-07 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Jessica Wells; Lisa Flowers; C Christina Mehta; Rasheeta Chandler; Robert Knott; Marcia McDonnell Holstad; Deborah Watkins Bruner Journal: AIDS Patient Care STDS Date: 2022-06-21 Impact factor: 5.944
Authors: Rebecca G Nowak; Chinedu H Nnaji; Wuese Dauda; Andrew Mitchell; Oluwole Olaomi; Paul Jibrin; Trevor A Crowell; Stefan D Baral; Nicaise Ndembi; Manhattan E Charurat; Joel M Palefsky; Søren M Bentzen; Kevin J Cullen Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2020-02-05 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Jigisha Patel; Irving E Salit; Michael J Berry; Alexandra de Pokomandy; Mayura Nathan; Fred Fishman; Joel Palefsky; Jill Tinmouth Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2014-04-16 Impact factor: 4.452