4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Age-specific prevalence of anal human papillomavirus infection in HIV-Negative sexually active men who have sex with men: The EXPLORE study

期刊

JOURNAL OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 190, 期 12, 页码 2070-2076

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1086/425906

关键词

-

资金

  1. NCI NIH HHS [R01-CA/AI-88739, R01-CA54053] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NCRR NIH HHS [5-M01-RR-00079] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NIAID NIH HHS [U01-AI48016, N01-AI45200, U01-AI47995, N01-AI35176, U01-AI48040, 5-U01-AI46749, K23-AI054157-01] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. In the United States, anal cancer in men who have sex with men (MSM) is more common than cervical cancer in women. Human papillomavirus (HPV) is causally linked to the development of anal and cervical cancer. In women, cervical HPV infection peaks early and decreases after the age of 30. Little is known about the age-specific prevalence of anal HPV infection in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) - negative MSM. Methods. We studied the prevalence and determinants of anal HPV infection in 1218 HIV-negative MSM, 18 - 89 years old, who were recruited from 4 US cities. We assessed anal HPV infection status by polymerase chain reaction. Results. HPV DNA was found in the anal canal of 57% of study participants. The prevalence of anal HPV infection did not change with age or geographic location. Anal HPV infection was independently associated with receptive anal intercourse (odds ratio [OR], 2.0; P < .0001) during the preceding 6 months and with >5 sex partners during the preceding 6 months (OR, 1.5; P < .0001). Conclusions. Urban, HIV-negative MSM have a stable, high prevalence of anal HPV infection across all age groups. These results differ substantially from the epidemiologic profile of cervical HPV infection in women. This may reflect differences between these populations with respect to the number of new sex partners after the age of 30 and may explain the high incidence of anal cancer in MSM.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据