Table 2.
HGAIN detection yields of screening strategies compared to the complete and Pap alone strategies
| Anal cancer screening strategy (N = 212) | Positive screening test | HRA performed | Number of biopsies performed | HGAIN N (%) | Strategy vs complete strategy OR (95% CI) | Strategy vs Pap alone OR (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SA | 19 | 0 | 19 | 7 (3.3%) |
0.23 [0.08;0.57] p < 0.001 |
0.35 [0.12;0.89] p = 0.02 |
| HPV-16 genotyping | 40 | 39 | 26 | 14 (6.6%) |
0.48 [0.23;0.99] p < 0.05 |
0.72 [0.32;1.56] p = 0.47 |
| Pap | 62 | 59 | 40 | 19 (9.0%) |
0.67 [0.34;1.30] p = 0.27 |
Ref. |
| SA + HPV-16 genotyping | 53 | 33 | 40 | 19 (9.0%) |
0.67 [0.34;1.30] p = 0.28 |
1.00 [0.48;2.06] p = 1.00 |
| Pap + HPV-16 genotyping | 75 | 75 | 48 | 23 (10.9%) |
0.83 [0.44;1.57] p = 0.65 |
1.24 [0.62;2.48] p = 0.63 |
| SA + Pap | 70 | 51 | 52 | 24 (11.3%) |
0.87 [0.46;1.64] p = 0.77 |
1.30 [0.66; 2.59] p = 0.52 |
| SA + Pap + HPV-16 genotyping | 86 | 67 | 59 | 27 (12.7%) | Ref. |
1.48 [0.76;2.92] p = 0.27 |
CI confidence interval, OR odds ratio, SA standard anoscopy