Screening for Anal Cancer in Women With a History of Vulvar High-Grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The primary obkective was to determine the prevalence of (a) a positive anal cancer screen and (b) histological anal high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL) in women undergoing surveillance for previously diagnosed and treated human papillomavirus (HPV)-associated vulvar HSIL. The secondary objective was to determine the patients' acceptability of the screen. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a single-institution, cross-sectional pilot study. Women, aged 30 to 80 years, with a history of biopsy-proven vulvar HSIL were invited to undergo screening for anal cancer. Positive screen characterized by abnormalities in any of the following: anal high-risk HPV (HR-HPV); anal cytology; and digital anorectal examination. All women with an abnormal screen were referred for high-resolution anoscopy. All women completed a postscreen questionnaire. RESULTS: Fifty-seven patients were recruited. The median (interquartile range) age was 61.5 (51.0-68.0) years. The prevalence of a positive screen was 56.1% (95% CI = 43.3%-68.2%). Of the 32 screen-positive patients, 12 had both abnormal cytology and HR-HPV, 3 had positive HR-HPV alone, and 17 had abnormal cytology alone. Of the 29 patients with a positive screen who went on to anoscopy, the prevalence of anal HSIL was 33.3% (95% CI = 19.2%-51.2%). The prevalence of anal HSIL among all of those who had screening (N = 57) was 18.2% (95% CI = 10.2%-30.3%). The examination was well tolerated with 100% of patients, indicating that they would have the screening again. CONCLUSIONS: Women with vulvar HSIL have an increased risk of developing anal HSIL. Larger studies are needed to define optimal screening protocols as well as algorithms for management in high-risk populations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".