Feasibility of anorectal chlamydia testing in women: a cross-sectional survey among general practitioners.

BACKGROUND: Anorectal Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) may be clinically relevant for women in general practice. Although anorectal CT testing in this setting may prevent underdiagnosis and undertreatment, its feasibility is questioned as GPs currently rarely order anorectal CT tests, for yet unknown reasons. OBJECTIVE: To explore the feasibility of anorectal CT testing in women in general practice. METHODS: GPs across the Netherlands were invited directly (n = 1481) and by snowball sampling (n = 330) to join an online cross-sectional survey that asked about the acceptability of and barriers for (standard) anorectal testing in women during CT-related consultations. Data were analysed with univariable and multivariable logistic regression models. RESULTS: The questionnaire was opened by 514 respondents (28%, 514/1811) and 394 fully completed it. GPs' acceptability of anorectal testing by either self-sampling or provider-sampling was high (86%). Twenty-eight percent of GPs felt neutral, and 43% felt accepting towards standard anorectal testing. Nevertheless, 40% of GPs had never tested for anorectal CT in women, which was associated with a reported difficulty in asking about anal sex (odds ratio [OR]: 3.07, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.21-7.80), infrequency of anal sexual history taking (OR: 11.50, 95% CI: 6.39-20.72), low frequency of urogenital CT testing (OR 3.44, 95%-CI: 1.86-6.38) and with practicing in a non-urban area (OR: 2.27, 95% CI: 1.48-3.48). Acceptability of anorectal testing was not associated with the studied factors. CONCLUSION: This quantitative survey shows that anorectal CT testing is feasible based on its acceptability, but is likely hindered by a lower awareness of (anorectal) CT in GPs.

BACKGROUND: Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) is a sexually transmitted disease that occurs both vaginally and anorectally (anally) in women. Testing for anorectal CT may improve treatment outcomes, but GPs currently rarely order anorectal CT tests. It is therefore uncertain whether anorectal CT testing is feasible. OBJECTIVE: To find out whether anorectal CT testing in women by GPs is feasible. METHODS: We sent an online survey to GPs across the Netherlands and asked about (1) the acceptability of and (2) barriers for anorectal CT testing in women. RESULTS: GPs thought anorectal CT testing, either when the patient self-sampled or when the GP sampled, was acceptable (86%). Twenty-eight percent of GPs felt neutral, and 43% felt accepting towards standard anorectal testing. Nevertheless, 40% of GPs had never tested for anorectal CT in women. These GPs were more likely to find it difficult to ask women about anal sex, to do so less frequently, to less frequently offer CT tests all together and to work in a non-urban area. These factors imply a lower awareness of (anorectal) CT. CONCLUSION: This study shows that anorectal CT testing is feasible based on its acceptability, but is likely hindered by a lower awareness of (anorectal) CT.

Is IORT ready for roll-out?

Two large randomised controlled trials of intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) in breast-conserving surgery (TARGIT-A and ELIOT) have been published 14 years after their launch. Neither the TARGIT-A trial nor the ELIOT trial results have changed the current clinical practice for the use of IORT. The in-breast local recurrence rate (LRR) after IORT met the pre-specified non-inferiority margins in both trials and was 3.3% in TARGIT-A and 4.4% in the ELIOT trial. In both trials, the pre-specified estimates for local recurrence (LR) with external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) significantly overestimated actual LRR. In the TARGIT-A trial, LR with EBRT was estimated at the outset to be 6%, and in the ELIOT trial, it was estimated to be 3%. Surprisingly, LRR in the EBRT groups has been found to be significantly lower, 1.3% in the EBRT arm of the TARGIT-A and 0.4% in the EBRT arm of the ELIOT trial, respectively. Median follow-up was 2.4 years for the TARGIT-A trial and 5.8 years for the ELIOT trial. However, the initial cohort of patients in the TARGIT-A trial (reported in 2010) now have a median follow-up of 3.8 years and data on LR were available at 5 years follow-up on 35% of patients (18% who received IORT). Although further follow-up will increase confidence with the data, it will also further delay clinical implementation. By carefully weighing the risks and benefits of a single-fraction radiation treatment with patients, IORT should be offered within agreed and strict protocols. Patients deemed at low risk of LR or those deemed suitable for partial breast irradiation, according to the GEC-ESTRO and ASTRO recommendations, could be considered as candidates for IORT. These guidelines apply to all partial breast irradiation techniques, and more specific guidelines for IORT would assist clinicians.