Male Genital Examinations: Special Considerations and Pearls for Dermatologists

Article Type
Changed
Wed, 01/27/2021 - 14:07

Men have unique dermatologic needs yet are significantly less likely than women to visit a dermatologist’s office.1 Male patients might have preconceived notions about the nature of dermatology visits and necessary areas of the body to be examined: For example, male patients might associate the genital examination with a urologist and not expect a dermatologist to complete such a seemingly private examination.2

Genital examinations are currently underperformed: Only one-quarter of dermatologists report examining a male patient’s genitals at most or all visits.3 In this commentary, we discuss the importance of genital examinations in men’s dermatology, specific issues that can arise, and strategies to enhance the quality and frequency of genital examinations in male patients.

Invaluable Aspect of Care

Thorough inspection of a male patient’s genital region is an important part of conducting a total-body skin examination (TBSE) for routine surveillance and evaluation of genital dermatoses. Sexually transmitted infections, warts, and other common lesions can be missed in diagnosis without careful inspection of the genital region. Additionally, scrotal malignancies, such as primary and metastatic melanoma and basal cell carcinoma, though rare, might be overlooked until symptoms become severe.4,5

There is no substitute for a physical examination but, in certain circumstances, it might be appropriate for a dermatologist to ask a patient if he has concerning lesions on his genitals. However, patients often are unsure of worrisome signs, and areas of the perineum might not be easily visible to a patient. Genital inspection during the physical examination allows for a teachable moment, during which the dermatologist can educate the patient about benign lesions and variants, such as pearly penile papules, seborrheic keratoses, and sebaceous cysts.6 These lesions might not require intervention but should be monitored for atypical features or infection.6

Also, the dermatologist might incidentally discover transmissible lesions, such as condylomata caused by human papillomavirus, which has been shown to be present in approximately 50% of men in the United States7—many of whom are unaware. Inflammatory dermatoses, such as psoriasis, often affect the genitals and go unnoticed; prompt intervention can decrease the likelihood of complications.6

Protocol for Genital Examinations

To examine the genitals, all surfaces of the penis, scrotum, and perineum should be evaluated, with anatomic and pathologic variants noted. The patient or physician should stretch the penis, maneuvering it in multiple directions so that all aspects can be examined. In uncircumcised men, the foreskin should be retracted so that the head of the penis can be examined, followed by replacement of the foreskin by the patient.8 The scrotum also should be examined and lifted to fully view the perineum.

Providers should not grasp the penis with the whole hand but use the thumb and first finger to hold the head of the penis to maneuver it.8 Similarly, using the back of the hand and fingers to manipulate the genitals establishes boundaries and sets a clinical tone for the examination.

 

 



Unintentional Erection
Unique to the male dermatologic examination is the unintentional patient erection; a physician might be unsure of how to approach such a potentially awkward situation. An erection is not always an indication of sexual arousal; rather, it can reflect an autonomic reflex in response to physical stimulation. Erections occur commonly in health care settings, especially if the genitals are being manipulated.9

Generally, the course of action here depends on the patient’s response.10 For patients who appear unbothered, it might be appropriate to ignore the erection and proceed with the examination, especially if the physician is not actively examining the genital region. If the patient appears embarrassed, the physician can say “This is completely normal” or “Random erections are common” to normalize the situation. Joking or laughing should be avoided. For a patient who appears upset, the physician can step outside the room for a brief period to give the patient privacy, then re-enter and ask him if he is comfortable continuing with the examination.

When a patient develops an erection, the physician might become uncomfortable and, consciously or subconsciously, increase the pace of the examination, which is a natural tendency, but expediency at the expense of comprehensive care is inappropriate.

Examiner’s Body Language and Tone
Throughout the genital examination, the physician should be mindful of their comments and body language to avoid exacerbating patient vulnerability. Using anatomic terms, rather than colloquial ones, to describe the genitalia is advised to prevent misunderstanding and maintain a professional clinical environment. Providers should be prepared to explain anatomic terms because some patients are not familiar with medical terminology.

Presence of a Chaperone
Involving a chaperone, as recommended by the American Medical Association, might make a patient more comfortable and alleviate potential misunderstanding. Still, physicians should be aware that some patients might feel uncomfortable with a chaperone, interpreting their presence as an expectation of impropriety.11 Universal offering of a chaperone to all patients, regardless of the gender of the physician, as well as appropriate signage in the clinical environment, normalizes chaperone invitation and use.



Other Helpful Considerations
Various strategies in the male genital examination can increase patient and physician comfort and improve care:

  • The patient should be offered a gown before a TBSE or any skin examination during which the genitals will be examined.
  • The patient should be allowed to keep his shorts or underwear on to avoid the feeling of being naked, which can provoke anxiety. Prior to beginning the examination, disclose that it will include “under the covered areas.”
  • Ask the patient for permission to conduct the examination, enumerate the steps, and provide a rationale for a genital examination. These steps help gain cooperation, alleviate anticipation, and prevent surprise.
  • To increase the patient’s comfort level, he can be asked whether he prefers to be examined supine or standing.
  • Consider allowing the patient, himself, to expose and manipulate his genitals during the examination to increase his involvement and sense of autonomy.
  • For genital examinations, patients often prefer that the examiner be a physician of the same gender. Accommodating a patient’s request regarding the examiner’s gender might not always be possible, but the medical practice should make an honest attempt to oblige.

Lastly, providers should be cognizant of the needs of male sexual and gender minority populations (ie, gay, bisexual, transgender/gender diverse, queer or questioning, intersex, and asexual persons). For example, transgender women might retain male anatomy or have surgical alteration of the genital region that also requires evaluation. In such patient populations, the genital examination is equally important to evaluate for dermatologic conditions that require treatment.

Final Thoughts

The male genital examination is an important component of the TBSE, as dermatologists can recognize lesions before symptoms present. Robust educational methods for trainees and practitioners in dermatology are lacking, and development of curricula might be beneficial to increase comfort in performing the genital examination. Still, use of the procedures described in this commentary can normalize the men’s genital examination, optimize the physical examination, and improve men’s overall dermatologic health.

References
  1. Tripathi R, Knusel KD, Ezaldein HH, et al. Association of demographic and socioeconomic characteristics with differences in use of outpatient dermatology services in the United States. JAMA Dermatol. 2018;154:1286-1291.
  2. Brezinski EA, Harskamp CT, Ledo L, et al. Public perception of dermatologists and comparison with other medical specialties: results from a national survey. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2014;71:875-881.
  3. Rieder EA, Mu EW, Wang J, et al. Dermatologist practices during total body skin examinations: a survey study. J Drugs Dermatol. 2018;17:516-520.
  4. Gonzalez CD, Hawkes JE, Bowles TL. Malignant melanoma scrotal metastasis: the importance of the genital examination. JAAD Case Rep. 2017;3:10-12.
  5. Solimani F, Juratli H, Hoch M, et al. Basal cell carcinoma of the scrotum: an important but easily overlooked entity. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2018;32:E254-E255.
  6. Gabrielson AT, Le TV, Fontenot C, et al. Male genital dermatology: a primer for the sexual medicine physician. Sex Med Rev. 2019;7:71-83.
  7. Han JJ, Beltran TH, Song JW, et al. Prevalence of genital human papillomavirus infection and human papillomavirus vaccination rates among US adult men: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2013-2014. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3:810-816.
  8. Albaugh JA, Kellogg-Spadt S. Genital and dermatologic examination. part II: the male patient. Urol Nurs. 2003;23:366-367.
  9. Dean RC, Lue TF. Physiology of penile erection and pathophysiology of erectile dysfunction. Urol Clin North Am. 2005;32:379-395.
  10. Norwick P, Weston GK, Grant-Kels JM. Erection ethics. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019;81:1225.
  11. Vogel L. Chaperones: friend or foe, and to whom? CMAJ. 2012;184:642-643.
Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Mr. Cartron is from the Department of Dermatology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore. Dr. Zampella is from the Ronald O. Perelman Department of Dermatology, New York University School of Medicine, New York.

The authors report no conflict of interest.

Correspondence: Alexander M. Cartron, BS, Department of Dermatology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, 419 W Redwood St, Ste 235, Baltimore, MD 21201 ([email protected]).

Issue
Cutis - 107(1)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
E12-E14
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Mr. Cartron is from the Department of Dermatology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore. Dr. Zampella is from the Ronald O. Perelman Department of Dermatology, New York University School of Medicine, New York.

The authors report no conflict of interest.

Correspondence: Alexander M. Cartron, BS, Department of Dermatology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, 419 W Redwood St, Ste 235, Baltimore, MD 21201 ([email protected]).

Author and Disclosure Information

Mr. Cartron is from the Department of Dermatology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore. Dr. Zampella is from the Ronald O. Perelman Department of Dermatology, New York University School of Medicine, New York.

The authors report no conflict of interest.

Correspondence: Alexander M. Cartron, BS, Department of Dermatology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, 419 W Redwood St, Ste 235, Baltimore, MD 21201 ([email protected]).

Article PDF
Article PDF

Men have unique dermatologic needs yet are significantly less likely than women to visit a dermatologist’s office.1 Male patients might have preconceived notions about the nature of dermatology visits and necessary areas of the body to be examined: For example, male patients might associate the genital examination with a urologist and not expect a dermatologist to complete such a seemingly private examination.2

Genital examinations are currently underperformed: Only one-quarter of dermatologists report examining a male patient’s genitals at most or all visits.3 In this commentary, we discuss the importance of genital examinations in men’s dermatology, specific issues that can arise, and strategies to enhance the quality and frequency of genital examinations in male patients.

Invaluable Aspect of Care

Thorough inspection of a male patient’s genital region is an important part of conducting a total-body skin examination (TBSE) for routine surveillance and evaluation of genital dermatoses. Sexually transmitted infections, warts, and other common lesions can be missed in diagnosis without careful inspection of the genital region. Additionally, scrotal malignancies, such as primary and metastatic melanoma and basal cell carcinoma, though rare, might be overlooked until symptoms become severe.4,5

There is no substitute for a physical examination but, in certain circumstances, it might be appropriate for a dermatologist to ask a patient if he has concerning lesions on his genitals. However, patients often are unsure of worrisome signs, and areas of the perineum might not be easily visible to a patient. Genital inspection during the physical examination allows for a teachable moment, during which the dermatologist can educate the patient about benign lesions and variants, such as pearly penile papules, seborrheic keratoses, and sebaceous cysts.6 These lesions might not require intervention but should be monitored for atypical features or infection.6

Also, the dermatologist might incidentally discover transmissible lesions, such as condylomata caused by human papillomavirus, which has been shown to be present in approximately 50% of men in the United States7—many of whom are unaware. Inflammatory dermatoses, such as psoriasis, often affect the genitals and go unnoticed; prompt intervention can decrease the likelihood of complications.6

Protocol for Genital Examinations

To examine the genitals, all surfaces of the penis, scrotum, and perineum should be evaluated, with anatomic and pathologic variants noted. The patient or physician should stretch the penis, maneuvering it in multiple directions so that all aspects can be examined. In uncircumcised men, the foreskin should be retracted so that the head of the penis can be examined, followed by replacement of the foreskin by the patient.8 The scrotum also should be examined and lifted to fully view the perineum.

Providers should not grasp the penis with the whole hand but use the thumb and first finger to hold the head of the penis to maneuver it.8 Similarly, using the back of the hand and fingers to manipulate the genitals establishes boundaries and sets a clinical tone for the examination.

 

 



Unintentional Erection
Unique to the male dermatologic examination is the unintentional patient erection; a physician might be unsure of how to approach such a potentially awkward situation. An erection is not always an indication of sexual arousal; rather, it can reflect an autonomic reflex in response to physical stimulation. Erections occur commonly in health care settings, especially if the genitals are being manipulated.9

Generally, the course of action here depends on the patient’s response.10 For patients who appear unbothered, it might be appropriate to ignore the erection and proceed with the examination, especially if the physician is not actively examining the genital region. If the patient appears embarrassed, the physician can say “This is completely normal” or “Random erections are common” to normalize the situation. Joking or laughing should be avoided. For a patient who appears upset, the physician can step outside the room for a brief period to give the patient privacy, then re-enter and ask him if he is comfortable continuing with the examination.

When a patient develops an erection, the physician might become uncomfortable and, consciously or subconsciously, increase the pace of the examination, which is a natural tendency, but expediency at the expense of comprehensive care is inappropriate.

Examiner’s Body Language and Tone
Throughout the genital examination, the physician should be mindful of their comments and body language to avoid exacerbating patient vulnerability. Using anatomic terms, rather than colloquial ones, to describe the genitalia is advised to prevent misunderstanding and maintain a professional clinical environment. Providers should be prepared to explain anatomic terms because some patients are not familiar with medical terminology.

Presence of a Chaperone
Involving a chaperone, as recommended by the American Medical Association, might make a patient more comfortable and alleviate potential misunderstanding. Still, physicians should be aware that some patients might feel uncomfortable with a chaperone, interpreting their presence as an expectation of impropriety.11 Universal offering of a chaperone to all patients, regardless of the gender of the physician, as well as appropriate signage in the clinical environment, normalizes chaperone invitation and use.



Other Helpful Considerations
Various strategies in the male genital examination can increase patient and physician comfort and improve care:

  • The patient should be offered a gown before a TBSE or any skin examination during which the genitals will be examined.
  • The patient should be allowed to keep his shorts or underwear on to avoid the feeling of being naked, which can provoke anxiety. Prior to beginning the examination, disclose that it will include “under the covered areas.”
  • Ask the patient for permission to conduct the examination, enumerate the steps, and provide a rationale for a genital examination. These steps help gain cooperation, alleviate anticipation, and prevent surprise.
  • To increase the patient’s comfort level, he can be asked whether he prefers to be examined supine or standing.
  • Consider allowing the patient, himself, to expose and manipulate his genitals during the examination to increase his involvement and sense of autonomy.
  • For genital examinations, patients often prefer that the examiner be a physician of the same gender. Accommodating a patient’s request regarding the examiner’s gender might not always be possible, but the medical practice should make an honest attempt to oblige.

Lastly, providers should be cognizant of the needs of male sexual and gender minority populations (ie, gay, bisexual, transgender/gender diverse, queer or questioning, intersex, and asexual persons). For example, transgender women might retain male anatomy or have surgical alteration of the genital region that also requires evaluation. In such patient populations, the genital examination is equally important to evaluate for dermatologic conditions that require treatment.

Final Thoughts

The male genital examination is an important component of the TBSE, as dermatologists can recognize lesions before symptoms present. Robust educational methods for trainees and practitioners in dermatology are lacking, and development of curricula might be beneficial to increase comfort in performing the genital examination. Still, use of the procedures described in this commentary can normalize the men’s genital examination, optimize the physical examination, and improve men’s overall dermatologic health.

Men have unique dermatologic needs yet are significantly less likely than women to visit a dermatologist’s office.1 Male patients might have preconceived notions about the nature of dermatology visits and necessary areas of the body to be examined: For example, male patients might associate the genital examination with a urologist and not expect a dermatologist to complete such a seemingly private examination.2

Genital examinations are currently underperformed: Only one-quarter of dermatologists report examining a male patient’s genitals at most or all visits.3 In this commentary, we discuss the importance of genital examinations in men’s dermatology, specific issues that can arise, and strategies to enhance the quality and frequency of genital examinations in male patients.

Invaluable Aspect of Care

Thorough inspection of a male patient’s genital region is an important part of conducting a total-body skin examination (TBSE) for routine surveillance and evaluation of genital dermatoses. Sexually transmitted infections, warts, and other common lesions can be missed in diagnosis without careful inspection of the genital region. Additionally, scrotal malignancies, such as primary and metastatic melanoma and basal cell carcinoma, though rare, might be overlooked until symptoms become severe.4,5

There is no substitute for a physical examination but, in certain circumstances, it might be appropriate for a dermatologist to ask a patient if he has concerning lesions on his genitals. However, patients often are unsure of worrisome signs, and areas of the perineum might not be easily visible to a patient. Genital inspection during the physical examination allows for a teachable moment, during which the dermatologist can educate the patient about benign lesions and variants, such as pearly penile papules, seborrheic keratoses, and sebaceous cysts.6 These lesions might not require intervention but should be monitored for atypical features or infection.6

Also, the dermatologist might incidentally discover transmissible lesions, such as condylomata caused by human papillomavirus, which has been shown to be present in approximately 50% of men in the United States7—many of whom are unaware. Inflammatory dermatoses, such as psoriasis, often affect the genitals and go unnoticed; prompt intervention can decrease the likelihood of complications.6

Protocol for Genital Examinations

To examine the genitals, all surfaces of the penis, scrotum, and perineum should be evaluated, with anatomic and pathologic variants noted. The patient or physician should stretch the penis, maneuvering it in multiple directions so that all aspects can be examined. In uncircumcised men, the foreskin should be retracted so that the head of the penis can be examined, followed by replacement of the foreskin by the patient.8 The scrotum also should be examined and lifted to fully view the perineum.

Providers should not grasp the penis with the whole hand but use the thumb and first finger to hold the head of the penis to maneuver it.8 Similarly, using the back of the hand and fingers to manipulate the genitals establishes boundaries and sets a clinical tone for the examination.

 

 



Unintentional Erection
Unique to the male dermatologic examination is the unintentional patient erection; a physician might be unsure of how to approach such a potentially awkward situation. An erection is not always an indication of sexual arousal; rather, it can reflect an autonomic reflex in response to physical stimulation. Erections occur commonly in health care settings, especially if the genitals are being manipulated.9

Generally, the course of action here depends on the patient’s response.10 For patients who appear unbothered, it might be appropriate to ignore the erection and proceed with the examination, especially if the physician is not actively examining the genital region. If the patient appears embarrassed, the physician can say “This is completely normal” or “Random erections are common” to normalize the situation. Joking or laughing should be avoided. For a patient who appears upset, the physician can step outside the room for a brief period to give the patient privacy, then re-enter and ask him if he is comfortable continuing with the examination.

When a patient develops an erection, the physician might become uncomfortable and, consciously or subconsciously, increase the pace of the examination, which is a natural tendency, but expediency at the expense of comprehensive care is inappropriate.

Examiner’s Body Language and Tone
Throughout the genital examination, the physician should be mindful of their comments and body language to avoid exacerbating patient vulnerability. Using anatomic terms, rather than colloquial ones, to describe the genitalia is advised to prevent misunderstanding and maintain a professional clinical environment. Providers should be prepared to explain anatomic terms because some patients are not familiar with medical terminology.

Presence of a Chaperone
Involving a chaperone, as recommended by the American Medical Association, might make a patient more comfortable and alleviate potential misunderstanding. Still, physicians should be aware that some patients might feel uncomfortable with a chaperone, interpreting their presence as an expectation of impropriety.11 Universal offering of a chaperone to all patients, regardless of the gender of the physician, as well as appropriate signage in the clinical environment, normalizes chaperone invitation and use.



Other Helpful Considerations
Various strategies in the male genital examination can increase patient and physician comfort and improve care:

  • The patient should be offered a gown before a TBSE or any skin examination during which the genitals will be examined.
  • The patient should be allowed to keep his shorts or underwear on to avoid the feeling of being naked, which can provoke anxiety. Prior to beginning the examination, disclose that it will include “under the covered areas.”
  • Ask the patient for permission to conduct the examination, enumerate the steps, and provide a rationale for a genital examination. These steps help gain cooperation, alleviate anticipation, and prevent surprise.
  • To increase the patient’s comfort level, he can be asked whether he prefers to be examined supine or standing.
  • Consider allowing the patient, himself, to expose and manipulate his genitals during the examination to increase his involvement and sense of autonomy.
  • For genital examinations, patients often prefer that the examiner be a physician of the same gender. Accommodating a patient’s request regarding the examiner’s gender might not always be possible, but the medical practice should make an honest attempt to oblige.

Lastly, providers should be cognizant of the needs of male sexual and gender minority populations (ie, gay, bisexual, transgender/gender diverse, queer or questioning, intersex, and asexual persons). For example, transgender women might retain male anatomy or have surgical alteration of the genital region that also requires evaluation. In such patient populations, the genital examination is equally important to evaluate for dermatologic conditions that require treatment.

Final Thoughts

The male genital examination is an important component of the TBSE, as dermatologists can recognize lesions before symptoms present. Robust educational methods for trainees and practitioners in dermatology are lacking, and development of curricula might be beneficial to increase comfort in performing the genital examination. Still, use of the procedures described in this commentary can normalize the men’s genital examination, optimize the physical examination, and improve men’s overall dermatologic health.

References
  1. Tripathi R, Knusel KD, Ezaldein HH, et al. Association of demographic and socioeconomic characteristics with differences in use of outpatient dermatology services in the United States. JAMA Dermatol. 2018;154:1286-1291.
  2. Brezinski EA, Harskamp CT, Ledo L, et al. Public perception of dermatologists and comparison with other medical specialties: results from a national survey. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2014;71:875-881.
  3. Rieder EA, Mu EW, Wang J, et al. Dermatologist practices during total body skin examinations: a survey study. J Drugs Dermatol. 2018;17:516-520.
  4. Gonzalez CD, Hawkes JE, Bowles TL. Malignant melanoma scrotal metastasis: the importance of the genital examination. JAAD Case Rep. 2017;3:10-12.
  5. Solimani F, Juratli H, Hoch M, et al. Basal cell carcinoma of the scrotum: an important but easily overlooked entity. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2018;32:E254-E255.
  6. Gabrielson AT, Le TV, Fontenot C, et al. Male genital dermatology: a primer for the sexual medicine physician. Sex Med Rev. 2019;7:71-83.
  7. Han JJ, Beltran TH, Song JW, et al. Prevalence of genital human papillomavirus infection and human papillomavirus vaccination rates among US adult men: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2013-2014. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3:810-816.
  8. Albaugh JA, Kellogg-Spadt S. Genital and dermatologic examination. part II: the male patient. Urol Nurs. 2003;23:366-367.
  9. Dean RC, Lue TF. Physiology of penile erection and pathophysiology of erectile dysfunction. Urol Clin North Am. 2005;32:379-395.
  10. Norwick P, Weston GK, Grant-Kels JM. Erection ethics. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019;81:1225.
  11. Vogel L. Chaperones: friend or foe, and to whom? CMAJ. 2012;184:642-643.
References
  1. Tripathi R, Knusel KD, Ezaldein HH, et al. Association of demographic and socioeconomic characteristics with differences in use of outpatient dermatology services in the United States. JAMA Dermatol. 2018;154:1286-1291.
  2. Brezinski EA, Harskamp CT, Ledo L, et al. Public perception of dermatologists and comparison with other medical specialties: results from a national survey. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2014;71:875-881.
  3. Rieder EA, Mu EW, Wang J, et al. Dermatologist practices during total body skin examinations: a survey study. J Drugs Dermatol. 2018;17:516-520.
  4. Gonzalez CD, Hawkes JE, Bowles TL. Malignant melanoma scrotal metastasis: the importance of the genital examination. JAAD Case Rep. 2017;3:10-12.
  5. Solimani F, Juratli H, Hoch M, et al. Basal cell carcinoma of the scrotum: an important but easily overlooked entity. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2018;32:E254-E255.
  6. Gabrielson AT, Le TV, Fontenot C, et al. Male genital dermatology: a primer for the sexual medicine physician. Sex Med Rev. 2019;7:71-83.
  7. Han JJ, Beltran TH, Song JW, et al. Prevalence of genital human papillomavirus infection and human papillomavirus vaccination rates among US adult men: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2013-2014. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3:810-816.
  8. Albaugh JA, Kellogg-Spadt S. Genital and dermatologic examination. part II: the male patient. Urol Nurs. 2003;23:366-367.
  9. Dean RC, Lue TF. Physiology of penile erection and pathophysiology of erectile dysfunction. Urol Clin North Am. 2005;32:379-395.
  10. Norwick P, Weston GK, Grant-Kels JM. Erection ethics. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019;81:1225.
  11. Vogel L. Chaperones: friend or foe, and to whom? CMAJ. 2012;184:642-643.
Issue
Cutis - 107(1)
Issue
Cutis - 107(1)
Page Number
E12-E14
Page Number
E12-E14
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Inside the Article

Practice Points

  • Genital examinations are an important aspect of comprehensive dermatologic care for male patients.
  • Unintentional patient erections are unique to male patients and should be addressed professionally, depending on the patient’s reaction.
  • In addition to being mindful of body language and tone, dermatologists may consider involving a chaperone when performing genital examinations to optimize patient experience.
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Article PDF Media

Human Papillomavirus Vaccination in LGBTQ Patients: The Need for Dermatologists on the Front Lines

Article Type
Changed
Thu, 10/29/2020 - 15:11

 

Human papillomavirus (HPV) is one of the most common sexually transmitted infections in the United States. It is the causative agent of genital warts, as well as cervical, anal, penile, vulvar, vaginal, and some head and neck cancers.1 Development of the HPV vaccine and its introduction into the scheduled vaccine series recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) represented a major public health milestone. The CDC recommends the HPV vaccine for all children beginning at 11 or 12 years of age, even as early as 9 years, regardless of gender identity or sexuality. As of late 2016, the 9-valent formulation (Gardasil 9 [Merck]) is the only HPV vaccine distributed in the United States, and the vaccination schedule depends specifically on age. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the CDC revised its recommendations in 2019 to include “shared clinical decision-making regarding HPV vaccination . . . for some adults aged 27 through 45 years.”2 This change in policy has notable implications for sexual and gender minority populations, such as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer or questioning (LGBTQ) patients, especially in the context of dermatologic care. Herein, we discuss HPV-related conditions for LGBTQ patients, barriers to vaccine administration, and the role of dermatologists in promoting an increased vaccination rate in the LGBTQ community.

HPV-Related Conditions

A 2019 review of dermatologic care for LGBTQ patients identified many specific health disparities of HPV.3 Specifically, men who have sex with men (MSM) are more likely than heterosexual men to have oral, anal, and penile HPV infections, including high-risk HPV types.3 From 2011 to 2014, 18% and 13% of MSM had oral HPV infection and high-risk oral HPV infection, respectively, compared to only 11% and 7%, respectively, of men who reported never having had a same-sex sexual partner.4

Similarly, despite the CDC’s position that patients with perianal warts might benefit from digital anal examination or referral for standard or high-resolution anoscopy to detect intra-anal warts, improvements in morbidity have not yet been realized. In 2017, anal cancer incidence was 45.9 cases for every 100,000 person-years among human immunodeficiency (HIV)–positive MSM and 5.1 cases for every 100,000 person-years among HIV-negative MSM vs only 1.5 cases for every 100,000 person-years among men in the United States overall.3 Yet the CDC states that there is insufficient evidence to recommend routine anal cancer screening among MSM, even when a patient is HIV positive. Therefore, current screening practices and treatments are insufficient as MSM continue to have a disproportionately higher rate of HPV-associated disease compared to other populations.

Barriers to HPV Vaccine Administration

The HPV vaccination rate among MSM in adolescent populations varies across reports.5-7 Interestingly, a 2016 survey study found that MSM had approximately 2-times greater odds of initiating the HPV vaccine than heterosexual men.8 However, a study specifically sampling young gay and bisexual men (N=428) found that only 13% had received any doses of the HPV vaccine.6

Regardless, HPV vaccination is much less common among all males than it is among all females, and the low rate of vaccination among sexual minority men has a disproportionate impact, given their higher risk for HPV infection.4 Although the HPV vaccination rate increased from 2014 to 2017, the HPV vaccination rate in MSM overall is less than half of the Healthy People 2020 goal of 80%.9 A 2018 review determined that HPV vaccination is a cost-effective strategy for preventing anal cancer in MSM10; yet male patients might still view the HPV vaccine as a “women’s issue” and are less likely to be vaccinated if they are not prompted by health care providers. Additionally, HPV vaccination is remarkably less likely in MSM when patients are older, uninsured, of lower socioeconomic status, or have not disclosed their sexual identity to their health care provider.9 Dermatologists should be mindful of these barriers to promote HPV vaccination in MSM before, or soon after, sexual debut.



Other members of the LGBTQ community, such as women who have sex with women, face notable HPV-related health disparities and would benefit from increased vaccination efforts by dermatologists. Adolescent and young adult women who have sex with women are less likely than heterosexual adolescent and young adult women to receive routine Papanicolaou tests and initiate HPV vaccination, despite having a higher number of lifetime sexual partners and a higher risk for HPV exposure.11 A 2015 survey study (N=3253) found that after adjusting for covariates, only 8.5% of lesbians and 33.2% of bisexual women and girls who had heard of the HPV vaccine had initiated vaccination compared to 28.4% of their heterosexual counterparts.11 The HPV vaccine is an effective public health tool for the prevention of cervical cancer in these populations. A study of women aged 15 to 19 years in the HPV vaccination era (2007-2014) found significant (P<.05) observed population-level decreases in cervical intraepithelial neoplasia incidence across all grades.12

Transgender women also face a high rate of HPV infection, HIV infection, and other structural and financial disparities, such as low insurance coverage, that can limit their access to vaccination. Transgender men have a higher rate of HPV infection than cisgender men, and those with female internal reproductive organs are less likely to receive routine Papanicolaou tests. A 2018 survey study found that approximately one-third of transgender men and women reported initiating the HPV vaccination series,13 but further investigation is required to make balanced comparisons to cisgender patients.

The Role of the Dermatologist

Collectively, these disparities emphasize the need for increased involvement by dermatologists in HPV vaccination efforts for all LGBTQ patients. Adult patients may have concerns about ties of the HPV vaccine to drug manufacturers and the general safety of vaccination. For pediatric patients, parents/guardians also may be concerned about an assumed but not evidence-based increase in sexual promiscuity following HPV vaccination.14 These topics can be challenging to discuss, but dermatologists have the duty to be proactive and initiate conversation about HPV vaccination, as opposed to waiting for patients to express interest. Dermatologists should stress the safety of the vaccine as well as its potential to protect against multiple, even life-threatening diseases. Providers also can explain that the ACIP recommends catch-up vaccination for all individuals through 26 years of age, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.

With the ACIP having recently expanded the appropriate age range for HPV vaccination, we encourage dermatologists to engage in education and shared decision-making to ensure that adult patients with specific risk factors receive the HPV vaccine. Because the expanded ACIP recommendations are aimed at vaccination before HPV exposure, vaccination might not be appropriate for all LGBTQ patients. However, eliciting a sexual history with routine patient intake forms or during the clinical encounter ensures equal access to the HPV vaccine.

Greater awareness of HPV-related disparities and barriers to vaccination in LGBTQ populations has the potential to notably decrease HPV-associated mortality and morbidity. Increased involvement by dermatologists contributes to the efforts of other specialties in universal HPV vaccination, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity—ideally in younger age groups, such that patients receive the vaccine prior to coitarche.



There are many ways that dermatologists can advocate for HPV vaccination. Those in a multispecialty or academic practice can readily refer patients to an associated internist, primary care physician, or vaccination clinic in the same building or institution. Dermatologists in private practice might be able to administer the HPV vaccine themselves or can advocate for patients to receive the vaccine at a local facility of the Department of Health or at a nonprofit organization, such as a Planned Parenthood center. Although pediatricians and family physicians remain front-line providers of these services, dermatologists represent an additional member of a patient’s care team, capable of advocating for this important intervention.

References
  1. Brianti P, De Flammineis E, Mercuri SR. Review of HPV-related diseases and cancers. New Microbiol. 2017;40:80-85.
  2. Meites E, Szilagyi PG, Chesson HW, et al. Human papillomavirus vaccination for adults: updated recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019;68:698-702.
  3. Yeung H, Luk KM, Chen SC, et al. Dermatologic care for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender persons: epidemiology, screening, and disease prevention. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019;80:591-602.
  4. Sonawane K, Suk R, Chiao EY, et al. Oral human papillomavirus infection: differences in prevalence between sexes and concordance with genital human papillomavirus infection, NHANES 2011 to 2014. Ann Intern Med. 2017;167:714-724.
  5. Kosche C, Mansh M, Luskus M, et al. Dermatologic care of sexual and gender minority/LGBTQIA youth, part 2: recognition and management of the unique dermatologic needs of SGM adolescents. Pediatr Dermatol. 2019;35:587-593.
  6. Reiter PL, McRee A-L, Katz ML, et al. Human papillomavirus vaccination among young adult gay and bisexual men in the United States. Am J Public Health. 2015;105:96-102.
  7. Charlton BM, Reisner SL, Agénor M, et al. Sexual orientation disparities in human papillomavirus vaccination in a longitudinal cohort of U.S. males and females. LGBT Health. 2017;4:202-209.
  8. Agénor M, Peitzmeier SM, Gordon AR, et al. Sexual orientation identity disparities in human papillomavirus vaccination initiation and completion among young adult US women and men. Cancer Causes Control. 2016;27:1187-1196.
  9. Loretan C, Chamberlain AT, Sanchez T, et al. Trends and characteristics associated with human papillomavirus vaccination uptake among men who have sex with men in the United States, 2014-2017. Sex Transm Dis. 2019;46:465-473.
  10. Setiawan D, Wondimu A, Ong K, et al. Cost effectiveness of human papillomavirus vaccination for men who have sex with men; reviewing the available evidence. Pharmacoeconomics. 2018;36:929-939.
  11. Agénor M, Peitzmeier S, Gordon AR, et al. Sexual orientation identity disparities in awareness and initiation of the human papillomavirus vaccine among U.S. women and girls: a national survey. Ann Intern Med. 2015;163:99-106.
  12. Benard VB, Castle PE, Jenison SA, et al. Population-based incidence rates of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in the human papillomavirus vaccine era. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3:833-837.
  13. McRee A-L, Gower AL, Reiter PL. Preventive healthcare services use among transgender young adults. Int J Transgend. 2018;19:417-423.
  14. Trinidad J. Policy focus: promoting human papilloma virus vaccine to prevent genital warts and cancer. Boston, MA: The Fenway Institute; 2012. https://fenwayhealth.org/documents/the-fenway-institute/policy-briefs/PolicyFocus_HPV_v4_10.09.12.pdf. Accessed September 15, 2020.
Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

Mr. Cartron is from the Department of Dermatology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore. Dr. Trinidad is from the Division of Dermatology, Department of Internal Medicine, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus.

The authors report no conflict of interest.

Correspondence: Alexander M. Cartron, BS, Department of Dermatology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, 419 W Redwood St, Ste 235, Baltimore, MD 21201 ([email protected]).

Issue
Cutis - 106(4)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
159-161
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

Mr. Cartron is from the Department of Dermatology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore. Dr. Trinidad is from the Division of Dermatology, Department of Internal Medicine, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus.

The authors report no conflict of interest.

Correspondence: Alexander M. Cartron, BS, Department of Dermatology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, 419 W Redwood St, Ste 235, Baltimore, MD 21201 ([email protected]).

Author and Disclosure Information

Mr. Cartron is from the Department of Dermatology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore. Dr. Trinidad is from the Division of Dermatology, Department of Internal Medicine, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus.

The authors report no conflict of interest.

Correspondence: Alexander M. Cartron, BS, Department of Dermatology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, 419 W Redwood St, Ste 235, Baltimore, MD 21201 ([email protected]).

Article PDF
Article PDF

 

Human papillomavirus (HPV) is one of the most common sexually transmitted infections in the United States. It is the causative agent of genital warts, as well as cervical, anal, penile, vulvar, vaginal, and some head and neck cancers.1 Development of the HPV vaccine and its introduction into the scheduled vaccine series recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) represented a major public health milestone. The CDC recommends the HPV vaccine for all children beginning at 11 or 12 years of age, even as early as 9 years, regardless of gender identity or sexuality. As of late 2016, the 9-valent formulation (Gardasil 9 [Merck]) is the only HPV vaccine distributed in the United States, and the vaccination schedule depends specifically on age. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the CDC revised its recommendations in 2019 to include “shared clinical decision-making regarding HPV vaccination . . . for some adults aged 27 through 45 years.”2 This change in policy has notable implications for sexual and gender minority populations, such as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer or questioning (LGBTQ) patients, especially in the context of dermatologic care. Herein, we discuss HPV-related conditions for LGBTQ patients, barriers to vaccine administration, and the role of dermatologists in promoting an increased vaccination rate in the LGBTQ community.

HPV-Related Conditions

A 2019 review of dermatologic care for LGBTQ patients identified many specific health disparities of HPV.3 Specifically, men who have sex with men (MSM) are more likely than heterosexual men to have oral, anal, and penile HPV infections, including high-risk HPV types.3 From 2011 to 2014, 18% and 13% of MSM had oral HPV infection and high-risk oral HPV infection, respectively, compared to only 11% and 7%, respectively, of men who reported never having had a same-sex sexual partner.4

Similarly, despite the CDC’s position that patients with perianal warts might benefit from digital anal examination or referral for standard or high-resolution anoscopy to detect intra-anal warts, improvements in morbidity have not yet been realized. In 2017, anal cancer incidence was 45.9 cases for every 100,000 person-years among human immunodeficiency (HIV)–positive MSM and 5.1 cases for every 100,000 person-years among HIV-negative MSM vs only 1.5 cases for every 100,000 person-years among men in the United States overall.3 Yet the CDC states that there is insufficient evidence to recommend routine anal cancer screening among MSM, even when a patient is HIV positive. Therefore, current screening practices and treatments are insufficient as MSM continue to have a disproportionately higher rate of HPV-associated disease compared to other populations.

Barriers to HPV Vaccine Administration

The HPV vaccination rate among MSM in adolescent populations varies across reports.5-7 Interestingly, a 2016 survey study found that MSM had approximately 2-times greater odds of initiating the HPV vaccine than heterosexual men.8 However, a study specifically sampling young gay and bisexual men (N=428) found that only 13% had received any doses of the HPV vaccine.6

Regardless, HPV vaccination is much less common among all males than it is among all females, and the low rate of vaccination among sexual minority men has a disproportionate impact, given their higher risk for HPV infection.4 Although the HPV vaccination rate increased from 2014 to 2017, the HPV vaccination rate in MSM overall is less than half of the Healthy People 2020 goal of 80%.9 A 2018 review determined that HPV vaccination is a cost-effective strategy for preventing anal cancer in MSM10; yet male patients might still view the HPV vaccine as a “women’s issue” and are less likely to be vaccinated if they are not prompted by health care providers. Additionally, HPV vaccination is remarkably less likely in MSM when patients are older, uninsured, of lower socioeconomic status, or have not disclosed their sexual identity to their health care provider.9 Dermatologists should be mindful of these barriers to promote HPV vaccination in MSM before, or soon after, sexual debut.



Other members of the LGBTQ community, such as women who have sex with women, face notable HPV-related health disparities and would benefit from increased vaccination efforts by dermatologists. Adolescent and young adult women who have sex with women are less likely than heterosexual adolescent and young adult women to receive routine Papanicolaou tests and initiate HPV vaccination, despite having a higher number of lifetime sexual partners and a higher risk for HPV exposure.11 A 2015 survey study (N=3253) found that after adjusting for covariates, only 8.5% of lesbians and 33.2% of bisexual women and girls who had heard of the HPV vaccine had initiated vaccination compared to 28.4% of their heterosexual counterparts.11 The HPV vaccine is an effective public health tool for the prevention of cervical cancer in these populations. A study of women aged 15 to 19 years in the HPV vaccination era (2007-2014) found significant (P<.05) observed population-level decreases in cervical intraepithelial neoplasia incidence across all grades.12

Transgender women also face a high rate of HPV infection, HIV infection, and other structural and financial disparities, such as low insurance coverage, that can limit their access to vaccination. Transgender men have a higher rate of HPV infection than cisgender men, and those with female internal reproductive organs are less likely to receive routine Papanicolaou tests. A 2018 survey study found that approximately one-third of transgender men and women reported initiating the HPV vaccination series,13 but further investigation is required to make balanced comparisons to cisgender patients.

The Role of the Dermatologist

Collectively, these disparities emphasize the need for increased involvement by dermatologists in HPV vaccination efforts for all LGBTQ patients. Adult patients may have concerns about ties of the HPV vaccine to drug manufacturers and the general safety of vaccination. For pediatric patients, parents/guardians also may be concerned about an assumed but not evidence-based increase in sexual promiscuity following HPV vaccination.14 These topics can be challenging to discuss, but dermatologists have the duty to be proactive and initiate conversation about HPV vaccination, as opposed to waiting for patients to express interest. Dermatologists should stress the safety of the vaccine as well as its potential to protect against multiple, even life-threatening diseases. Providers also can explain that the ACIP recommends catch-up vaccination for all individuals through 26 years of age, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.

With the ACIP having recently expanded the appropriate age range for HPV vaccination, we encourage dermatologists to engage in education and shared decision-making to ensure that adult patients with specific risk factors receive the HPV vaccine. Because the expanded ACIP recommendations are aimed at vaccination before HPV exposure, vaccination might not be appropriate for all LGBTQ patients. However, eliciting a sexual history with routine patient intake forms or during the clinical encounter ensures equal access to the HPV vaccine.

Greater awareness of HPV-related disparities and barriers to vaccination in LGBTQ populations has the potential to notably decrease HPV-associated mortality and morbidity. Increased involvement by dermatologists contributes to the efforts of other specialties in universal HPV vaccination, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity—ideally in younger age groups, such that patients receive the vaccine prior to coitarche.



There are many ways that dermatologists can advocate for HPV vaccination. Those in a multispecialty or academic practice can readily refer patients to an associated internist, primary care physician, or vaccination clinic in the same building or institution. Dermatologists in private practice might be able to administer the HPV vaccine themselves or can advocate for patients to receive the vaccine at a local facility of the Department of Health or at a nonprofit organization, such as a Planned Parenthood center. Although pediatricians and family physicians remain front-line providers of these services, dermatologists represent an additional member of a patient’s care team, capable of advocating for this important intervention.

 

Human papillomavirus (HPV) is one of the most common sexually transmitted infections in the United States. It is the causative agent of genital warts, as well as cervical, anal, penile, vulvar, vaginal, and some head and neck cancers.1 Development of the HPV vaccine and its introduction into the scheduled vaccine series recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) represented a major public health milestone. The CDC recommends the HPV vaccine for all children beginning at 11 or 12 years of age, even as early as 9 years, regardless of gender identity or sexuality. As of late 2016, the 9-valent formulation (Gardasil 9 [Merck]) is the only HPV vaccine distributed in the United States, and the vaccination schedule depends specifically on age. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the CDC revised its recommendations in 2019 to include “shared clinical decision-making regarding HPV vaccination . . . for some adults aged 27 through 45 years.”2 This change in policy has notable implications for sexual and gender minority populations, such as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer or questioning (LGBTQ) patients, especially in the context of dermatologic care. Herein, we discuss HPV-related conditions for LGBTQ patients, barriers to vaccine administration, and the role of dermatologists in promoting an increased vaccination rate in the LGBTQ community.

HPV-Related Conditions

A 2019 review of dermatologic care for LGBTQ patients identified many specific health disparities of HPV.3 Specifically, men who have sex with men (MSM) are more likely than heterosexual men to have oral, anal, and penile HPV infections, including high-risk HPV types.3 From 2011 to 2014, 18% and 13% of MSM had oral HPV infection and high-risk oral HPV infection, respectively, compared to only 11% and 7%, respectively, of men who reported never having had a same-sex sexual partner.4

Similarly, despite the CDC’s position that patients with perianal warts might benefit from digital anal examination or referral for standard or high-resolution anoscopy to detect intra-anal warts, improvements in morbidity have not yet been realized. In 2017, anal cancer incidence was 45.9 cases for every 100,000 person-years among human immunodeficiency (HIV)–positive MSM and 5.1 cases for every 100,000 person-years among HIV-negative MSM vs only 1.5 cases for every 100,000 person-years among men in the United States overall.3 Yet the CDC states that there is insufficient evidence to recommend routine anal cancer screening among MSM, even when a patient is HIV positive. Therefore, current screening practices and treatments are insufficient as MSM continue to have a disproportionately higher rate of HPV-associated disease compared to other populations.

Barriers to HPV Vaccine Administration

The HPV vaccination rate among MSM in adolescent populations varies across reports.5-7 Interestingly, a 2016 survey study found that MSM had approximately 2-times greater odds of initiating the HPV vaccine than heterosexual men.8 However, a study specifically sampling young gay and bisexual men (N=428) found that only 13% had received any doses of the HPV vaccine.6

Regardless, HPV vaccination is much less common among all males than it is among all females, and the low rate of vaccination among sexual minority men has a disproportionate impact, given their higher risk for HPV infection.4 Although the HPV vaccination rate increased from 2014 to 2017, the HPV vaccination rate in MSM overall is less than half of the Healthy People 2020 goal of 80%.9 A 2018 review determined that HPV vaccination is a cost-effective strategy for preventing anal cancer in MSM10; yet male patients might still view the HPV vaccine as a “women’s issue” and are less likely to be vaccinated if they are not prompted by health care providers. Additionally, HPV vaccination is remarkably less likely in MSM when patients are older, uninsured, of lower socioeconomic status, or have not disclosed their sexual identity to their health care provider.9 Dermatologists should be mindful of these barriers to promote HPV vaccination in MSM before, or soon after, sexual debut.



Other members of the LGBTQ community, such as women who have sex with women, face notable HPV-related health disparities and would benefit from increased vaccination efforts by dermatologists. Adolescent and young adult women who have sex with women are less likely than heterosexual adolescent and young adult women to receive routine Papanicolaou tests and initiate HPV vaccination, despite having a higher number of lifetime sexual partners and a higher risk for HPV exposure.11 A 2015 survey study (N=3253) found that after adjusting for covariates, only 8.5% of lesbians and 33.2% of bisexual women and girls who had heard of the HPV vaccine had initiated vaccination compared to 28.4% of their heterosexual counterparts.11 The HPV vaccine is an effective public health tool for the prevention of cervical cancer in these populations. A study of women aged 15 to 19 years in the HPV vaccination era (2007-2014) found significant (P<.05) observed population-level decreases in cervical intraepithelial neoplasia incidence across all grades.12

Transgender women also face a high rate of HPV infection, HIV infection, and other structural and financial disparities, such as low insurance coverage, that can limit their access to vaccination. Transgender men have a higher rate of HPV infection than cisgender men, and those with female internal reproductive organs are less likely to receive routine Papanicolaou tests. A 2018 survey study found that approximately one-third of transgender men and women reported initiating the HPV vaccination series,13 but further investigation is required to make balanced comparisons to cisgender patients.

The Role of the Dermatologist

Collectively, these disparities emphasize the need for increased involvement by dermatologists in HPV vaccination efforts for all LGBTQ patients. Adult patients may have concerns about ties of the HPV vaccine to drug manufacturers and the general safety of vaccination. For pediatric patients, parents/guardians also may be concerned about an assumed but not evidence-based increase in sexual promiscuity following HPV vaccination.14 These topics can be challenging to discuss, but dermatologists have the duty to be proactive and initiate conversation about HPV vaccination, as opposed to waiting for patients to express interest. Dermatologists should stress the safety of the vaccine as well as its potential to protect against multiple, even life-threatening diseases. Providers also can explain that the ACIP recommends catch-up vaccination for all individuals through 26 years of age, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.

With the ACIP having recently expanded the appropriate age range for HPV vaccination, we encourage dermatologists to engage in education and shared decision-making to ensure that adult patients with specific risk factors receive the HPV vaccine. Because the expanded ACIP recommendations are aimed at vaccination before HPV exposure, vaccination might not be appropriate for all LGBTQ patients. However, eliciting a sexual history with routine patient intake forms or during the clinical encounter ensures equal access to the HPV vaccine.

Greater awareness of HPV-related disparities and barriers to vaccination in LGBTQ populations has the potential to notably decrease HPV-associated mortality and morbidity. Increased involvement by dermatologists contributes to the efforts of other specialties in universal HPV vaccination, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity—ideally in younger age groups, such that patients receive the vaccine prior to coitarche.



There are many ways that dermatologists can advocate for HPV vaccination. Those in a multispecialty or academic practice can readily refer patients to an associated internist, primary care physician, or vaccination clinic in the same building or institution. Dermatologists in private practice might be able to administer the HPV vaccine themselves or can advocate for patients to receive the vaccine at a local facility of the Department of Health or at a nonprofit organization, such as a Planned Parenthood center. Although pediatricians and family physicians remain front-line providers of these services, dermatologists represent an additional member of a patient’s care team, capable of advocating for this important intervention.

References
  1. Brianti P, De Flammineis E, Mercuri SR. Review of HPV-related diseases and cancers. New Microbiol. 2017;40:80-85.
  2. Meites E, Szilagyi PG, Chesson HW, et al. Human papillomavirus vaccination for adults: updated recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019;68:698-702.
  3. Yeung H, Luk KM, Chen SC, et al. Dermatologic care for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender persons: epidemiology, screening, and disease prevention. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019;80:591-602.
  4. Sonawane K, Suk R, Chiao EY, et al. Oral human papillomavirus infection: differences in prevalence between sexes and concordance with genital human papillomavirus infection, NHANES 2011 to 2014. Ann Intern Med. 2017;167:714-724.
  5. Kosche C, Mansh M, Luskus M, et al. Dermatologic care of sexual and gender minority/LGBTQIA youth, part 2: recognition and management of the unique dermatologic needs of SGM adolescents. Pediatr Dermatol. 2019;35:587-593.
  6. Reiter PL, McRee A-L, Katz ML, et al. Human papillomavirus vaccination among young adult gay and bisexual men in the United States. Am J Public Health. 2015;105:96-102.
  7. Charlton BM, Reisner SL, Agénor M, et al. Sexual orientation disparities in human papillomavirus vaccination in a longitudinal cohort of U.S. males and females. LGBT Health. 2017;4:202-209.
  8. Agénor M, Peitzmeier SM, Gordon AR, et al. Sexual orientation identity disparities in human papillomavirus vaccination initiation and completion among young adult US women and men. Cancer Causes Control. 2016;27:1187-1196.
  9. Loretan C, Chamberlain AT, Sanchez T, et al. Trends and characteristics associated with human papillomavirus vaccination uptake among men who have sex with men in the United States, 2014-2017. Sex Transm Dis. 2019;46:465-473.
  10. Setiawan D, Wondimu A, Ong K, et al. Cost effectiveness of human papillomavirus vaccination for men who have sex with men; reviewing the available evidence. Pharmacoeconomics. 2018;36:929-939.
  11. Agénor M, Peitzmeier S, Gordon AR, et al. Sexual orientation identity disparities in awareness and initiation of the human papillomavirus vaccine among U.S. women and girls: a national survey. Ann Intern Med. 2015;163:99-106.
  12. Benard VB, Castle PE, Jenison SA, et al. Population-based incidence rates of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in the human papillomavirus vaccine era. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3:833-837.
  13. McRee A-L, Gower AL, Reiter PL. Preventive healthcare services use among transgender young adults. Int J Transgend. 2018;19:417-423.
  14. Trinidad J. Policy focus: promoting human papilloma virus vaccine to prevent genital warts and cancer. Boston, MA: The Fenway Institute; 2012. https://fenwayhealth.org/documents/the-fenway-institute/policy-briefs/PolicyFocus_HPV_v4_10.09.12.pdf. Accessed September 15, 2020.
References
  1. Brianti P, De Flammineis E, Mercuri SR. Review of HPV-related diseases and cancers. New Microbiol. 2017;40:80-85.
  2. Meites E, Szilagyi PG, Chesson HW, et al. Human papillomavirus vaccination for adults: updated recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019;68:698-702.
  3. Yeung H, Luk KM, Chen SC, et al. Dermatologic care for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender persons: epidemiology, screening, and disease prevention. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019;80:591-602.
  4. Sonawane K, Suk R, Chiao EY, et al. Oral human papillomavirus infection: differences in prevalence between sexes and concordance with genital human papillomavirus infection, NHANES 2011 to 2014. Ann Intern Med. 2017;167:714-724.
  5. Kosche C, Mansh M, Luskus M, et al. Dermatologic care of sexual and gender minority/LGBTQIA youth, part 2: recognition and management of the unique dermatologic needs of SGM adolescents. Pediatr Dermatol. 2019;35:587-593.
  6. Reiter PL, McRee A-L, Katz ML, et al. Human papillomavirus vaccination among young adult gay and bisexual men in the United States. Am J Public Health. 2015;105:96-102.
  7. Charlton BM, Reisner SL, Agénor M, et al. Sexual orientation disparities in human papillomavirus vaccination in a longitudinal cohort of U.S. males and females. LGBT Health. 2017;4:202-209.
  8. Agénor M, Peitzmeier SM, Gordon AR, et al. Sexual orientation identity disparities in human papillomavirus vaccination initiation and completion among young adult US women and men. Cancer Causes Control. 2016;27:1187-1196.
  9. Loretan C, Chamberlain AT, Sanchez T, et al. Trends and characteristics associated with human papillomavirus vaccination uptake among men who have sex with men in the United States, 2014-2017. Sex Transm Dis. 2019;46:465-473.
  10. Setiawan D, Wondimu A, Ong K, et al. Cost effectiveness of human papillomavirus vaccination for men who have sex with men; reviewing the available evidence. Pharmacoeconomics. 2018;36:929-939.
  11. Agénor M, Peitzmeier S, Gordon AR, et al. Sexual orientation identity disparities in awareness and initiation of the human papillomavirus vaccine among U.S. women and girls: a national survey. Ann Intern Med. 2015;163:99-106.
  12. Benard VB, Castle PE, Jenison SA, et al. Population-based incidence rates of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in the human papillomavirus vaccine era. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3:833-837.
  13. McRee A-L, Gower AL, Reiter PL. Preventive healthcare services use among transgender young adults. Int J Transgend. 2018;19:417-423.
  14. Trinidad J. Policy focus: promoting human papilloma virus vaccine to prevent genital warts and cancer. Boston, MA: The Fenway Institute; 2012. https://fenwayhealth.org/documents/the-fenway-institute/policy-briefs/PolicyFocus_HPV_v4_10.09.12.pdf. Accessed September 15, 2020.
Issue
Cutis - 106(4)
Issue
Cutis - 106(4)
Page Number
159-161
Page Number
159-161
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Medscape Article
Article PDF Media