Denial of Risk Behavior Does Not Exclude Asymptomatic Anorectal Sexually Transmitted Infection in HIV-Infected Men

BACKGROUND: The Centers for Disease Control recommend screening for asymptomatic sexually transmitted infection (STI) among HIV-infected men when there is self-report of unprotected anal-receptive exposure. The study goals were: (1) to estimate the validity and usefulness for screening policies of self-reported unprotected anal-receptive exposure as a risk indicator for asymptomatic anorectal infection with Neisseria gonorrhoeae (GC) and/or Chlamydia trachomatis (CT). (2) to estimate the number of infections that would be missed if anal diagnostic assays were not performed among patients who denied unprotected anorectal exposure in the preceding month. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Retrospective analysis in HIV primary care and high resolution anoscopy (HRA) clinics. HIV-infected adult men were screened for self-reported exposure during the previous month at all primary care and HRA appointments. Four sub-cohorts were defined based on microbiology methodology (GC culture and CT direct fluorescent antibody vs. GC/CT nucleic acid amplification test) and clinical setting (primary care vs. HRA). Screening question operating characteristics were estimated using contingency table methods and then pooled across subcohorts. Among 803 patients, the prevalence of anorectal GC/CT varied from 3.5-20.1% in the 4 sub-cohorts. The sensitivity of the screening question for self-reported exposure to predict anorectal STI was higher in the primary care than in the HRA clinic, 86-100% vs. 12-35%, respectively. The negative predictive value of the screening question to predict asymptomatic anorectal STI was > or = 90% in all sub-cohorts. In sensitivity analyses, the probability of being an unidentified case among those denying exposure increased from 0.4-8.1% in the primary care setting, and from 0.9-18.8% in the HRA setting as the prevalence varied from 1-20%. CONCLUSION: As STI prevalence increases, denial of unprotected anal-receptive exposure leads to an increasingly unacceptable proportion of unidentified asymptomatic anorectal STI if used as a criterion not to obtain microbiologic assays

The impact of surgical delay on resectability of colorectal cancer: An international prospective cohort study

AIM: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to explore the impact of surgical delays on cancer resectability. This study aimed to compare resectability for colorectal cancer patients undergoing delayed versus non-delayed surgery. METHODS: This was an international prospective cohort study of consecutive colorectal cancer patients with a decision for curative surgery (January-April 2020). Surgical delay was defined as an operation taking place more than 4 weeks after treatment decision, in a patient who did not receive neoadjuvant therapy. A subgroup analysis explored the effects of delay in elective patients only. The impact of longer delays was explored in a sensitivity analysis. The primary outcome was complete resection, defined as curative resection with an R0 margin. RESULTS: Overall, 5453 patients from 304 hospitals in 47 countries were included, of whom 6.6% (358/5453) did not receive their planned operation. Of the 4304 operated patients without neoadjuvant therapy, 40.5% (1744/4304) were delayed beyond 4 weeks. Delayed patients were more likely to be older, men, more comorbid, have higher body mass index and have rectal cancer and early stage disease. Delayed patients had higher unadjusted rates of complete resection (93.7% vs. 91.9%, P = 0.032) and lower rates of emergency surgery (4.5% vs. 22.5%, P < 0.001). After adjustment, delay was not associated with a lower rate of complete resection (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.90-1.55, P = 0.224), which was consistent in elective patients only (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.69-1.27, P = 0.672). Longer delays were not associated with poorer outcomes. CONCLUSION: One in 15 colorectal cancer patients did not receive their planned operation during the first wave of COVID-19. Surgical delay did not appear to compromise resectability, raising the hypothesis that any reduction in long-term survival attributable to delays is likely to be due to micro-metastatic disease

Sub-cohorts for screening of asymptomatic anorectal STI according to clinical setting and microbiology assay methodologies.

<p>STI = Sexually transmitted infection. HRA = High Resolution Anoscopy. GC = Neisseria gonorrhoeae. CT = Chlamydia trachomatis. DFA = Direct fluorescent antibody assay.</p><p>NAAT = Nucleic acid amplification test.</p

Model to estimate the number of unidentified cases based on a hypothetical cohort of 1000 patients, stratified by prevalence of asymptomatic STI (0.01, 0.05, 0.10, 0.20).

<p>Model assumes that those disclosing unprotected anal receptive exposure would all be screened with a NAAT assay having 100% sensitivity and specificity.</p

Prevalence of asymptomatic anorectal STI and operating characteristics of screening questions to predict asymptomatic anorectal STI by sub-cohort.

<p>Results expressed in percentage with parenthesis denoting 95 percentage confidence interval for each value.</p><p>Note: PPV = Positive predictive value. NPV = Negative predictive value. STI = sexually transmitted infection. HRA = High resolution anoscopy. GC = Neisseria gonorrhoeae. CT = Chlamydia trachomatis. DFA = Direct fluorescent antibody assay.</p><p>NAAT = Nucleic acid amplification test.</p><p>TP = true positive. FN = false negative. FP = false positive. TN = true negative. n = number.</p

The impact of surgical delay on resectability of colorectal cancer: An international prospective cohort study

AimThe SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to explore the impact of surgical delays on cancer resectability. This study aimed to compare resectability for colorectal cancer patients undergoing delayed versus non-delayed surgery.MethodsThis was an international prospective cohort study of consecutive colorectal cancer patients with a decision for curative surgery (January-April 2020). Surgical delay was defined as an operation taking place more than 4 weeks after treatment decision, in a patient who did not receive neoadjuvant therapy. A subgroup analysis explored the effects of delay in elective patients only. The impact of longer delays was explored in a sensitivity analysis. The primary outcome was complete resection, defined as curative resection with an R0 margin.ResultsOverall, 5453 patients from 304 hospitals in 47 countries were included, of whom 6.6% (358/5453) did not receive their planned operation. Of the 4304 operated patients without neoadjuvant therapy, 40.5% (1744/4304) were delayed beyond 4 weeks. Delayed patients were more likely to be older, men, more comorbid, have higher body mass index and have rectal cancer and early stage disease. Delayed patients had higher unadjusted rates of complete resection (93.7% vs. 91.9%, P = 0.032) and lower rates of emergency surgery (4.5% vs. 22.5%, P ConclusionOne in 15 colorectal cancer patients did not receive their planned operation during the first wave of COVID-19. Surgical delay did not appear to compromise resectability, raising the hypothesis that any reduction in long-term survival attributable to delays is likely to be due to micro-metastatic disease