Progression From Perianal High-Grade Anal Intraepithelial Neoplasia to Anal Cancer in HIV-Positive Men Who Have Sex With Men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: High-grade intraepithelial neoplasia is known to progress to invasive squamous-cell carcinoma of the anus. There are limited reports on the rate of progression from high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia to anal cancer in HIV-positive men who have sex with men. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to describe in HIV-positive men who have sex with men with perianal high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia the rate of progression to anal cancer and the factors associated with that progression. DESIGN: This was a prospective cohort study. SETTINGS: The study was conducted at an outpatient clinic at a tertiary care center in Toronto. PATIENTS: Thirty-eight patients with perianal high-grade anal intraepithelial neoplasia were identified among 550 HIV-positive men who have sex with men. INTERVENTION: All of the patients had high-resolution anoscopy for symptoms, screening, or surveillance with follow-up monitoring/treatment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We measured the incidence of anal cancer per 100 person-years of follow-up. RESULTS: Seven (of 38) patients (18.4%) with perianal high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia developed anal cancer. The rate of progression was 6.9 (95% CI, 2.8-14.2) cases of anal cancer per 100 person-years of follow-up. A diagnosis of AIDS, previously treated anal cancer, and loss of integrity of the lesion were associated with progression. Anal bleeding was more than twice as common in patients who progressed to anal cancer. LIMITATIONS: There was the potential for selection bias and patients were offered treatment, which may have affected incidence estimates. CONCLUSIONS: HIV-positive men who have sex with men should be monitored for perianal high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia. Those with high-risk features for the development of anal cancer may need more aggressive therapy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".