ArticleInternational journal of cancer2025
Swab-based anal cancer screening in men living with HIV: Projected outcomes for different screening algorithms.
Article in International journal of cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Swab-based anal cancer screening in men living with HIV: Projected outcomes for different screening algorithms.International journal of cancer · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Screening for and treatment of anal cancer precursor lesions, high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions (HSIL), can prevent anal cancer. Recent guidelines set by the International Anal Neoplasia Society recommend digital anal rectal examination (DARE) and anal swab-based screening of high-risk individuals by means of high-risk (hr)HPV testing or cytology. We used our biobank containing data of more than 600 high-resolution anoscopy (HRA) screened participants (94% men with HIV) to compare the possible screening algorithms. We selected the 298 screening participants in whom anal swabs were successfully tested for hrHPV and cytology, parallel to HRA screening (DARE followed by complete visual inspection by HRA). We compared outcomes of several strategies (single-test, co-testing, two-step testing) with one or two positive tests required for HRA referral, resulting in 20 possible screening algorithms. We also assessed the sensitivity of DARE to detect anal cancer. We found that the percentage of missed HSIL was lowest with hrHPV testing, either alone (14.2%) or combined with cytology (≥ASCUS threshold: 4.4%; HSIL threshold: 8.8%) (co-testing or two-step testing, with ≥1 positive test required for HRA referral). Using these screening algorithms, 61.0 %, 79.0 %, and 63.7% of the participants were referred for HRA. While in some scenarios a small percentage of cancers was missed, all were detected by DARE. Whatever strategy is chosen, screening outcomes will have to be monitored closely to evaluate the program and make adaptations when necessary.
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.