Search

Objectives: Annual screening with a provider has been recommended for groups at highest risk for anal cancer. Anal self-sampling could help address screening barriers, yet no studies have examined annual engagement with this method., Methods: The Prevent Anal Cancer Self-Swab Study recruited sexual and gender minority individuals 25 years and over who have sex with men in Milwaukee, Wisconsin to participate in an anal cancer screening study. Participants were randomized to a home or clinic arm. Home-based participants were mailed an anal human papillomavirus self-sampling kit at baseline and 12 months, while clinic-based participants were asked to schedule and attend one of five participating clinics at baseline and 12 months. Using Poisson regression, we conducted an intention-to-treat analysis of 240 randomized participants who were invited to screen at both timepoints., Results: 58.8% of participants completed annual (median=370 days) anal screening. When stratified by HIV status, persons living with HIV had a higher proportion of home (71.1%) versus clinic (22.2%) annual screening ( p <0.001). Non-Hispanic Black participants had a higher proportion of home-based annual anal screening engagement (73.1%) compared to annual clinic screening engagement (31.6%) ( p =0.01). Overall, annual screening engagement was significantly higher among participants who had heard of anal cancer from an LGBTQ organization, reported "some" prior anal cancer knowledge, preferred an insertive anal sex position, and reported a prior cancer diagnosis. Annual screening engagement was significantly lower for participants reporting a medical condition., Conclusions: Annual screening engagement among those at disproportionate anal cancer risk was higher in the home arm.

Objective and Design: Forced anal examinations are used to prosecute sexual and gender minorities (SGM) in at least seven countries under the presumption that decreased sphincter tone, estimated by a finger inserted into the anal canal, can detect persons practicing receptive anal intercourse. In a cross-sectional analysis of the baseline data from a longitudinal study, we aimed to determine factors associated with sphincter tone and the accuracy of sphincter tonality to detect persons engaging in receptive anal intercourse., Setting: Clinicians in Chicago, Houston, and Milwaukee, USA conducted digital anal rectal examinations (DARE) on 838 participants, 94.0% of whom were cisgendered males. Clinicians used the Digital Rectal Examination Scoring System to score sphincter resting tone (RT) and squeeze tone (ST). On a separate survey, individuals reported their preferred position for anal intercourse: i.e., either always/mostly insertive anal intercourse, always/mostly receptive anal intercourse, or both receptive and insertive anal intercourse. Multivariable regression assessed factors associated with decreased sphincter tone while area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curves (AUC) estimated the accuracy of sphincter tonality to detect receptive anal intercourse., Results: 11.3% had decreased RT (95/838) and 6.3% had decreased ST (53/838). The accuracy of DARE to detect any receptive anal intercourse was little better than random guessing (AUC 0.53, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.55, and AUC 0.51, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.53, respectively. RT and ST decreased with age regardless of sexual behavior (p trend <0.01 for both). Compared to individuals having always/mostly insertive anal intercourse, individuals having always/mostly receptive anal intercourse was associated with decreased RT, but not ST, while those equally preferring both insertive and receptive anal intercourse were not associated with decreased RT or ST., Conclusions: Decreased sphincter tone is uncommon among SGM who prefer receptive anal intercourse. Given virtually no accuracy, a finger inserted into the anus has no utility to detect individuals practicing receptive anal intercourse and thus should not be used as such., Trial Registration: NCT04090060., Summary Box: What is already known on this topic: To gather evidence for prosecution of sexual and gender minorities, forced anal exams are used in multiple countries. The examination includes inserting the index finger into the anal canal to detect decreased sphincter tone which is considered evidence of receptive anal intercourse. We found only two small studies (n= 58 and n=24) assessing factors associated with decreased sphincter tone and none assessing the accuracy of sphincter tone to detect sexual and gender minorities having receptive anal intercourse. What this study adds: Our study suggests that a finger inserted into the anal canal is not useful to detect a history of receptive anal intercourse. As such, the sexual practices of individuals cannot be known using a forced anal examination.

Background: Anal cancer disproportionately affects men who have sex with men (MSM) living with HIV. High-resolution anoscopy (HRA) is an in-clinic procedure to detect precancerous anal lesions and cancer, yet prospective data on factors associated with HRA attendance are lacking. We examined whether anal HPV sampling at home versus in a clinic impacts HRA uptake and assessed HRA acceptability., Method: MSM and trans persons 25 years and older were randomized to home-based self-sampling or clinical sampling. All were asked to attend in-clinic HRA one year later. We regressed HRA attendance on study arm using multivariable Poisson regression and assessed HRA acceptability using χ 2 tests., Results: 62.8% of 196 participants who engaged in screening attended HRA. Although not significant ( p =0.13), a higher proportion of participants who engaged in clinic-based screening attended HRA (68.5%) compared to home-based participants (57.9%). Overall, HRA uptake was higher among participants with anal cytology history (aRR 1.44, 95% CI 1.11 - 1.87) and lower among participants preferring versatile anal sex position versus insertive (aRR 0.70, 95% CI 0.53 - 0.91), but did not differ by race or HIV serostatus. In the clinic arm, persons living with HIV had lower HRA attendance (42.9%) versus HIV-negative participants (73.3%) ( p =0.02) and Black non-Hispanic participants had lower HRA attendance (41.7%) than White non-Hispanic participants (73.1%), ( p =0.04); however, no differences in attendance by race or HIV status were observed in the home arm., Conclusions: HRA uptake differed significantly by race and HIV status in the clinic arm but not the home arm.