Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41178171›Full record

ArticleHIV medicine2025

Quality improvement report: Investigating barriers in HIV testing oncology patients to optimize HIV testing practice.

Katharine E A Darling, José Damas, Ana Leni Frei, Stefano Frega, May-Lucie Meyer, Solange Peters, Matthias Cavassini, Tu Nguyen-Ngoc

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in HIV medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Katharine E A DarlingInfectious Diseases Service, Department of Medicine, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1449-3873
José DamasInfectious Diseases Service, Department of Medicine, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Ana Leni FreiInstitute of Tissue Medicine and Pathology, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Stefano FregaMedical Oncology 2, Veneto Institute of Oncology IOV-IRCCS, Padova, Italy.
May-Lucie MeyerMedical Oncology Service, Department of Oncology, Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Solange PetersMedical Oncology Service, Department of Oncology, Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Matthias CavassiniInfectious Diseases Service, Department of Medicine, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0933-7833
Tu Nguyen-NgocOncology Service, Morges Hospital, Morges, Switzerland.

Funding

Gilead SciencesRoche
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn 2010, we observed missed opportunities for earlier human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) diagnosis among people newly diagnosed with HIV attending our service. We reached out to clinical services with low HIV testing rates. LOCAL PROBLEM: In the oncology service, <5% of all patients seen were tested for HIV between 2010 and 2012. With the rationale of excluding HIV-related immunosuppression prior to prescribing immunosuppressive treatment, we aimed to identify barriers to HIV testing (Plan).

methodsIn 2013, we conducted the Investigating Barriers in HIV-Testing Oncology Patients (IBITOP I) study among people newly diagnosed with non-AIDS-defining cancers (non-ADCs) (Do). We observed that 18% of patients were offered HIV testing, 16% of physicians gave reasons for not offering testing and 91% of patients accepted testing offered (Study). The Swiss HIV testing recommendations were updated in November 2013, listing aggressive immunosuppressant treatment as a testing indication. In 2015, we organized interactive training sessions on HIV testing with oncology staff (Act) and conducted a follow-up study, IBITOP II, to examine residual barriers to testing. The primary endpoints of IBITOP II were (1) physician HIV testing offer rates, (2) physician reasons for not offering testing and (3) patient acceptance of testing offered.

interventionsTraining sessions were designed following engagement with senior oncology colleagues and covered the 2013 national testing recommendations, the rationale for excluding HIV prior to prescribing immunosuppressive treatment, the excellent prognosis of HIV on antiretroviral therapy and the practical aspects of offering HIV testing.

resultsOf 423 patients of unknown HIV status with newly diagnosed non-ADCs, 257 (60.8%) were offered HIV testing. The most frequent physician reasons for not offering testing were forgetting (19.9%), patients tested recently (19.3%) and lack of time (11.5%). Patient acceptance of testing offered was 83.2%. No HIV test was positive. Since the IBITOP II study, cancer treatment options have shifted from chemotherapy to targeted therapies or immunotherapies. Consequently, HIV is now included in baseline oncology workups, circumventing the testing barriers of forgetting and lack of time and increasing HIV testing rates to almost 100%.

conclusionHIV testing rates at our oncology service have improved following two IBITOP studies, updated national testing recommendations and the broader oncology workup required by new therapies. By including HIV testing in the baseline workup, residual barriers to HIV testing have been circumnavigated. Modelling improvement in testing practice has stemmed from engagement with oncology colleagues, despite the fact that HIV testing is mentioned in a minority of specialist oncology guidelines.

Indexed as

HIV InfectionsHIV TestingNeoplasmsQuality ImprovementAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient Acceptance of Health CareHIV‐associated malignanciesHIV testingHIV testing barriersquality improvement

Identifiers

PMID41178171
PMCPMC12666251

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.