Andreia Albuquerque1,2, Michael Sheaff3, Oliver Stirrup4, Carmelina Cappello1, Julie Bowring1, Tamzin Cuming1, Anke De Masi1, Adam N Rosenthal1,5, Mayura Nathan1. 1. Homerton Anal Neoplasia Service, Homerton University Hospital, London, United Kingdom. 2. Faculty of Medicine of the University of Porto, Portugal. 3. Cellular Pathology, Barts Health National Health Service Trust. 4. Centre for Clinical Research in Infection and Sexual Heath, Institute for Global Health University College London, London, United Kingdom. 5. University College Hospital National Health Service Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Abstract
Background: Information on the performance of anal cytology in women who are high risk for human papillomavirus-related lesions and the factors that might influence cytology are largely lacking. Methods: Retrospective study including all new referrals of women with a previous history of anogenital neoplasia from January 2012 to July 2017, with concomitant anal cytology and high-resolution anoscopy with or without biopsies. Results: Six hundred and thirty six anal cytology samples and 323 biopsies obtained from 278 women were included. Overall sensitivity and specificity of "any abnormality" on anal cytology to predict any abnormality in histology was 47% (95% confidence interval [CI], 41%-54%) and 84% (95% CI, 73%-91%), respectively. For detecting high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL)/cancer, sensitivity was 71% (95% CI, 61%-79%) and specificity was 73% (95% CI, 66%-79%). There was a poor concordance between cytological and histological grades (κ = 0.147). Cytology had a higher sensitivity to predict HSIL/cancer in immunosuppressed vs nonimmunosuppressed patients (92% vs 60%, P = .002). The sensitivity for HSIL detection was higher when 2 or more quadrants were affected compared with 1 (86% vs 57%, P = .006). A previous history of vulvar HSIL/cancer (odds ratio [OR], 1.71, 1.08-2.73; P = .023), immunosuppression (OR, 1.88, 1.17-3.03; P = .009), and concomitant genital HSIL/cancer (OR, 2.51, 1.47-4.29; P = .001) were risk factors for abnormal cytology. Conclusions: Women characteristics can influence the performance of anal cytology. The sensitivity for detecting anal HSIL/cancer was higher in those immunosuppressed and with more extensive disease.
Background: Information on the performance of anal cytology in women who are high risk for human papillomavirus-related lesions and the factors that might influence cytology are largely lacking. Methods: Retrospective study including all new referrals of women with a previous history of anogenital neoplasia from January 2012 to July 2017, with concomitant anal cytology and high-resolution anoscopy with or without biopsies. Results: Six hundred and thirty six anal cytology samples and 323 biopsies obtained from 278 women were included. Overall sensitivity and specificity of "any abnormality" on anal cytology to predict any abnormality in histology was 47% (95% confidence interval [CI], 41%-54%) and 84% (95% CI, 73%-91%), respectively. For detecting high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL)/cancer, sensitivity was 71% (95% CI, 61%-79%) and specificity was 73% (95% CI, 66%-79%). There was a poor concordance between cytological and histological grades (κ = 0.147). Cytology had a higher sensitivity to predict HSIL/cancer in immunosuppressed vs nonimmunosuppressed patients (92% vs 60%, P = .002). The sensitivity for HSIL detection was higher when 2 or more quadrants were affected compared with 1 (86% vs 57%, P = .006). A previous history of vulvar HSIL/cancer (odds ratio [OR], 1.71, 1.08-2.73; P = .023), immunosuppression (OR, 1.88, 1.17-3.03; P = .009), and concomitant genital HSIL/cancer (OR, 2.51, 1.47-4.29; P = .001) were risk factors for abnormal cytology. Conclusions: Women characteristics can influence the performance of anal cytology. The sensitivity for detecting anal HSIL/cancer was higher in those immunosuppressed and with more extensive disease.
Authors: M M Saraiva; L Spindler; N Fathallah; H Beaussier; C Mamma; M Quesnée; T Ribeiro; J Afonso; M Carvalho; R Moura; P Andrade; H Cardoso; J Adam; J Ferreira; G Macedo; V de Parades Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2022-08-20 Impact factor: 3.699
Authors: Admire Chikandiwa; Pedro T Pisa; Catherine Tamalet; Etienne E Muller; Pamela Michelow; Matthew F Chersich; Philippe Mayaud; Sinead Delany-Moretlwe Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-12-05 Impact factor: 3.240
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