ArticleBMC cancer2025
Current practices in HPV-related anogenital neoplasia care in Europe - a survey analysis.
Article in BMC cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHuman papillomavirus (HPV) is causally related to neoplasia in multiple anogenital zones including anal, vulval, vaginal, and cervical areas in women. Care for anogenital neoplasia involves multiple specialist fields. Women with a history of cervical neoplasia are at increased risk of multiple anogenital neoplasias and second cancers occur in the anogenital zones. Results of a survey on current management practices across Europe are presented.
methodsA questionnaire was developed by iterative process and circulated amongst specialists in all fields associated with anogenital neoplasia. Data was recorded and analysed using Microsoft Excel/Stata.
results316/430 (73.5%) respondents collaborated with colleagues to provide care, but only 27.0% were engaged in full multidisciplinary team meetings (MDT). Second cancers were observed both in the same anatomical zone (56.5%) as well as in different anatomical zones (45.3%) by the respondents. The survey identifies significant variability in clinician workload, experience and screening practices. Low utilisation of high-resolution anoscopy (HRA) by specialists (14.9%) indicate lack of standardisation of practices, though some (12.7%) expressed interest in training in HRA. 24.4% did not offer treatment for anogenital neoplasia, while those who treated utilised multiple modes of treatment.
conclusionsRecognition of multizonal anogenital neoplasia and the risk of second cancers, and new data on successful treatment of anal neoplasia have led to the assessment of expertise amongst Europe's specialists. Enhanced HRA training, improved guidelines and robust follow-up protocols are essential to optimising care. A concerted effort is needed to align professional development, workload standards and clinical practices across Europe.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.