Concomitant Cervical and Anal Screening for Human Papilloma Virus (HPV): Worth the Effort or a Waste of Time?
Rattachement africain : ch. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
BACKGROUND: (ANGY) study. METHODS: This prospective, cross-sectional, single-center study recruited women for concomitant cervical and anal screening of HPV genotypes and cytology during a single appointment. All women with findings of either HPV or any type of dysplastic lesions on anal smears were offered follow-up in a specialized high-resolution anoscopy (HRA) outpatient clinic, representing the study cohort for this follow-up study. RESULTS: Overall, 275 patients (mean age 42 ± 12) were included. Among them, 102 (37%) had cervical high-risk (HR) HPV. In total, HPV was (incidentally) revealed in 91 patients (33%) on anal smears, while any degree of anal squamous intraepithelial lesion (SIL) was found in 30 patients (11%), 6 if which were high-grade SIL (H-SIL). Furthermore, 10 out of 19 biopsies were positive (3 H-SIL lesions). Only half (48/91, 53%) of the women agreed to undergo the recommended specialized follow-up evaluation. Of them, 18 (38%) were diagnosed with dysplastic lesions (9 low grade (L-SIL) and 9 H-SIL, respectively) on biopsies, while the remaining visits revealed no abnormalities. Multivariable analysis revealed cervical HR-HPV infection (OR 4, 95% CI 2.2-7.5) and anal intercourse (OR 3.1, 95% CI 1.7-5.9) as independent risk factors for anal HR-HPV infection. CONCLUSIONS: Close follow-up of these women is hence strongly recommended.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Concomitant Cervical and Anal Screening for Human Papilloma Virus (HPV): Worth the Effort or a Waste of Time?
- Date Crossref
- 19/10/2024
- Éditeur
- MDPI AG
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.