OBJECTIVE: Random biopsy (RB) of normal appearing cervix during colposcopy increases high-grade dysplasia (HSIL) diagnosis but has not been studied in high-resolution anoscopy (HRA), that is, colposcopy transferred to the anal canal. We investigated the utility of RB during HRA. DESIGN: At HRA, the anal canal was divided into 4 quadrants. Areas suspicious for HSIL had standard biopsy (SB); random biopsies were taken from quadrants without apparent HSIL. Inclusion required ≥1 RB. Two providers performed all procedures (S.E.G., >10 years experience; M.M.G. 3 years experience). RESULTS: Overall, 391 participants enrolled (mean age, 44.7 years); most were male (87.2%), non-Hispanic (69.8%), white (62.7%), and HIV positive (72.9%). Of 1761 biopsies, 883 were RBs (mean, 2.26/participant). HSIL was identified in 252 lesions, and in 132 participants (33.8%). Thirty-two HSILs (12.7%) and 13 participants (9.8%) were diagnosed by RB. RB increased total HSILs identified per participant (mean, 0.65 vs. 0.56; P < 0.001) and participants with HSIL (P < 0.001). Histologically, HSIL diagnoses via SB were no more dysplastic than random biopsies (relative risk, 0.82; range, 0.37-1.8). In multivariable analysis, factors affecting adjusted relative risk (ARR) of HSIL with any biopsy were provider [S.E.G vs. M.M.G.; ARR, 5.9; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.3 to 25.8] and oncogenic human papillomaviral infection (ARR, 24.3; 95% CI, 2.8 to 213.3). Risk of HSIL on RB alone in multivariate analysis was associated with HSIL via SB (ARR, 3.4; 95% CI, 1.6 to 7.1 or ARR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.1 to 1.9 per standard HSIL). Provider, HIV status, detectable viral load, age, or prior screening for or treatment of HSIL did not affect the utility of RB. CONCLUSIONS: Addition of RB to HRA significantly increased both the number of HSILs and participants with HSIL identified.
OBJECTIVE: Random biopsy (RB) of normal appearing cervix during colposcopy increases high-grade dysplasia (HSIL) diagnosis but has not been studied in high-resolution anoscopy (HRA), that is, colposcopy transferred to the anal canal. We investigated the utility of RB during HRA. DESIGN: At HRA, the anal canal was divided into 4 quadrants. Areas suspicious for HSIL had standard biopsy (SB); random biopsies were taken from quadrants without apparent HSIL. Inclusion required ≥1 RB. Two providers performed all procedures (S.E.G., >10 years experience; M.M.G. 3 years experience). RESULTS: Overall, 391 participants enrolled (mean age, 44.7 years); most were male (87.2%), non-Hispanic (69.8%), white (62.7%), and HIV positive (72.9%). Of 1761 biopsies, 883 were RBs (mean, 2.26/participant). HSIL was identified in 252 lesions, and in 132 participants (33.8%). Thirty-two HSILs (12.7%) and 13 participants (9.8%) were diagnosed by RB. RB increased total HSILs identified per participant (mean, 0.65 vs. 0.56; P < 0.001) and participants with HSIL (P < 0.001). Histologically, HSIL diagnoses via SB were no more dysplastic than random biopsies (relative risk, 0.82; range, 0.37-1.8). In multivariable analysis, factors affecting adjusted relative risk (ARR) of HSIL with any biopsy were provider [S.E.G vs. M.M.G.; ARR, 5.9; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.3 to 25.8] and oncogenic humanpapillomaviral infection (ARR, 24.3; 95% CI, 2.8 to 213.3). Risk of HSIL on RB alone in multivariate analysis was associated with HSIL via SB (ARR, 3.4; 95% CI, 1.6 to 7.1 or ARR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.1 to 1.9 per standard HSIL). Provider, HIV status, detectable viral load, age, or prior screening for or treatment of HSIL did not affect the utility of RB. CONCLUSIONS: Addition of RB to HRA significantly increased both the number of HSILs and participants with HSIL identified.
Authors: Elizabeth A Stier; Shelly Y Lensing; Teresa M Darragh; Ashish A Deshmukh; Mark H Einstein; Joel M Palefsky; Naomi Jay; J Michael Berry-Lawhorn; Timothy Wilkin; Dorothy J Wiley; Luis F Barroso; Ross D Cranston; Rebecca Levine; Humberto M Guiot; Audrey L French; Deborah Citron; M Katayoon Rezaei; Stephen E Goldstone; Elizabeth Chiao Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2020-04-10 Impact factor: 9.079
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: Robert N Goldstone; Shirin R Hasan; Steven Drury; Teresa M Darragh; Annemieke van Zante; Stephen E Goldstone Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2016-10-21 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: Yuxin Liu; Morgan Blakely; Keith Sigel; Tin Htwe Thin; Pei Hui; Michael Donovan; Michael M Gaisa Journal: AIDS Date: 2018-10-23 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: B Moeckli; J Canner; A Najafian; S Carbunaru; N Cowell; C Atallah; E Paredes; A Chudnovets; S H Fang Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2021-02-10 Impact factor: 3.781