Fuente: PRO: SHOULD WOMEN BE SCREENED FOR ANAL CANCER?
« Descargar documento (formato PDF) »
Graph
PREVALENCE OF THE MOST COMMON HPV TYPE (TYPE-SPECIFIC PREVALENCE ESTIMATES ARE RESTRICTED TO STUDIES THAT OBTAINED HPV DNA FROM BIOPSIES AND TYPED FOR AT LEAST HPV 16 AND HPV 18) IN BIOPSY SPECIMENS OF INVASIVE ANAL CANCER (N5 810), HSIL (N5 178), AND LSIL (LOW-GRADE SQUAMOUS INTRAEPITHELIAL LESIONS, LSIL ESTIMATES INCLUDE ONLY 2 BIOPSIED CASES FROM WOMEN.) (N 5 49)
Graph
Hoots BE et al, Int J Cancer 2009
Graph
Goodman MT et al, JID 2008
Relative risk (95% C.I.)
Graph
Patel et al, Ann Int Med 2008
SIGNIFICANT INCREASES INCLUDED
RISK OF SUBSEQUENT PRIMARY ANAL CANCERS AFTER PRIMARY CANCER OF THE CERVIX, VAGINA, AND VULVA
RISK OF CANCER OF THE ANUS OF WOMEN WITH A HISTORY OF GRADE 3 CIN COMPARED WITH THOSE WITHOUT SUCH HISTORY, STRATIFIED BY ATTAINED AGE
RISK OF CANCER OF THE ANUS OF WOMEN WITH A HISTORY OF GRADE 3 CIN COMPARED WITH THOSE WITHOUT SUCH HISTORY, STRATIFIED BY TIME SINCE FIRST DIAGNOSIS
*For reasons of model convergence, these estimates could not be estimated in the multivariate model and are therefore taken from the univariate model. Adjusted for attained age, calendar period, socioeconomic status, and parity. The number of person-years may not add up because of rounding. Reference category is no CIN 3 history. IRR= incident rate ratios
Edgren G et al, Lancet Onc 2007
Graph
Edgren G et al, Lancet Onc 2007
CI, confidence interval
*The expected cases were calculated from Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results 9, stratified by age, race and calendar-year group.
a The CI was calculated using the Vanderbroucks method.
b These data hidden as per our data-use agreement with the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results program.
Saleem AM et al, OB GYN 2011
CAN WE PICK UP PRECURSORS OF ANAL CANCER?
FOCAL HGAIN (?) IN TEEN STUDY PT
Image (cervix)
PREVALENCE OF AIN IN SPECIFIC POPULATIONS
Healthy women 4 – 6 % 1,2
CIN 3 7% 3
CIN + VIN / Vulvar Ca 21% 3
HIV 21 – 24% 2,5
Renal transplants 6% 4
1 Moscicki AB et al, Ca Epi Biomarker Prev 1999; 2 Moscicki AB et al, AIDS 2003; 3 Park et al, Gynecol Oncol 2009; 4 Patel et al, Br J Surg 2010; 5 Hessol NA et al, AIDS 2009
1 Moscicki AB et al, Ca Epi Biomarker Prev 1999; 2 Moscicki AB et al, AIDS 2003; 4 Conley et al, JID 2010; 5 Tandon et al, Am J Obstet Gyn 2010; 6 Hessol NA et al, AIDS 2009; 7 Patel et al, Br J Surg 2010; 8 Park et al, Gynecol Oncol 2009, 9 Durante et al, CEBP 2003; 10 Etienney I et al, Dis Colon Rectum 2008; 11 Jacyntho CM et al, Am J Obstet Gyn 2011
*Cost of screening strategy for 100 women during a 5-year cycle
** Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio determined by (total cost of screening strategy – total cost of no screening) / QALYs no screening
Lazenby GB et al, JLGTD 2012