Cost-effectiveness Of Cervical Cancer Screening Research Articles

Cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening in rural Bengaluru with demographic analysis of epithelial cell abnormalities: A cross-sectional descriptive study

Cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening in rural Bengaluru with demographic analysis of epithelial cell abnormalities: A cross-sectional descriptive study

Health economic evaluation of primary human papillomavirus screening in urban populations in China

BackgroundOn Nov 17, 2020, WHO launched a global initiative to accelerate the elimination of cervical cancer through the implementation of HPV vaccination, cervical cancer screening and treatment for precancer and cancer. China has the largest burden of cervical cancer in the world, but only has a national cervical cancer screening program in rural areas since 2009. Here, we aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening in urban China, using Shenzhen City as an example. MethodsWe use an extensively validated platform (‘Policy1-Cervix’), calibrated to data from Shenzhen city and Guandong Province. We evaluated a range of strategies that have previously been implemented as pilot studies in China, or recommended as guidelines within China and globally, spanning primary HPV, cytology and co-testing strategies. We additionally considered alternate triaging methods, age ranges and screening intervals, resulting in 19 algorithms in total. ResultsOf the 19 strategies considered, the most effective approach involved primary HPV testing. At 3- to 10-yearly intervals, primary HPV testing reduced the age-standardized cancer mortality rate by 37–71 %. The most cost-effective strategy was 5-yearly primary HPV testing with partial genotyping triage for ages 25−65, discharging to 10-yearly screening for low-risk women (ICER = US$7191/QALYS using 2018 costs; willingness-to-pay threshold<1xGDP [US$9771]). This strategy gave an incidence and mortality reduction of 56 % and 63 %, respectively. This remained the most cost-effective strategy under most conditions in sensitivity analysis. ConclusionPrimary HPV testing would be cost-effective in Shenzhen and could more than halve cervical cancer incidence rates to 6 per 100,000 over the long term. In order to achieve rates below 4 per 100,000, the elimination threshold set by the World Health Organization, vaccination will likely also be necessary.

Cost-Effectiveness of Cervical Cancer Screening in Women Living With HIV in South Africa: A Mathematical Modeling Study.

Women with HIV face an increased risk of human papillomavirus (HPV) acquisition and persistence, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, and invasive cervical cancer. Our objective was to determine the cost-effectiveness of different cervical cancer screening strategies among women with HIV in South Africa. We modified a mathematical model of HPV infection and cervical disease to reflect coinfection with HIV. The model was calibrated to epidemiologic data from HIV-infected women in South Africa. Clinical and economic data were drawn from in-country data sources. The model was used to project reductions in the lifetime risk of cervical cancer and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of Pap and HPV DNA screening and management algorithms beginning at HIV diagnosis, at 1-, 2-, or 3-year intervals. Strategies with an ICER below South Africa's 2016 per capita gross domestic product (US$5270) were considered "cost-effective." HPV testing followed by treatment (test-and-treat) at 2-year intervals was the most effective strategy that was also cost-effective, reducing lifetime cancer risk by 56.6% with an ICER of US$3010 per year of life saved. Other cost-effective strategies included Pap (referral threshold: HSIL+) at 1-, 2-, and 3-year intervals, and HPV test-and-treat at 3-year intervals. Pap (ASCUS+), HPV testing with 16/18 genotyping, and HPV testing with Pap or visual triage of HPV-positive women were less effective and more costly than alternatives. Considering per capita gross domestic product as the benchmark for cost-effectiveness, HPV test-and-treat is optimal in South Africa. At lower cost-effectiveness benchmarks, Pap (HSIL+) would be optimal.

Quality of life assumptions determine which cervical cancer screening strategies are cost-effective.

Quality-adjusted life years are used in cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs). To calculate QALYs, a "utility" (0-1) is used for each health state induced or prevented by the intervention. We aimed to estimate the impact of quality of life (QoL) assumptions (utilities and durations of health states) on CEAs of cervical cancer screening. To do so, 12 alternative sets of utility assumptions were retrieved from published cervical cancer screening CEAs. Two additional sets were based on empirical QoL data that were integrally obtained through two different measures (SF-6D and EQ-5D) from eight groups of women (total n = 3,087), from invitation for screening to diagnosis with cervical cancer. Per utility set we calculated the number of quality-adjusted days lost (QADL) for each relevant health state in cervical cancer screening, by multiplying the study-specific assumed disutilities (i.e., 1-utility) with study-specific durations of the loss in QoL, resulting in 14 "QADL-sets." With microsimulation model MISCAN we calculated cost-effectiveness of 342 alternative screening programs (varying in primary screening test [Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vs. cytology], starting ages, and screening interval) for each of the 14 QADL-sets. Utilities used in CEAs appeared to differ largely. We found that ten QADL-sets from the literature resulted in HPV and two in cytology as preferred primary test. The SF-6D empirical QADL-set resulted in cytology and the EQ-5D one in HPV as preferred primary test. In conclusion, assumed utilities and health state durations determine cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening. Also, the measure used to empirically assess utilities can be crucial for CEA conclusions.

Cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening and preventative cryotherapy at an HIV treatment clinic in Kenya

ObjectiveThis study evaluated the potential cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening in HIV treatment clinics in Nairobi, Kenya.MethodsA Markov model was used to project health outcomes and costs of cervical cancer screening and cryotherapy at an HIV clinic in Kenya using cryotherapy without screening, visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA), Papanicolaou smear (Pap), and testing for human papillomavirus (HPV). Direct and indirect medical and non-medical costs were examined from societal and clinic perspectives.ResultsCosts of cryotherapy, VIA, Pap, and HPV for women with CD4 200–500 cells/mL were $99, $196, $219, and $223 from a societal perspective and $19, $94, $124, and $113 from a clinic perspective, with 17.3, 17.1, 17.1, and 17.1 years of life expectancy, respectively. Women at higher CD4 counts (>500 cells/mL) given cryotherapy VIA, Pap, and HPV resulted in better life expectancies (19.9+ years) and lower cost (societal: $49, $99, $115, and $102; clinic: $13, $51, $71, and $56). VIA was less expensive than HPV unless HPV screening could be reduced to a single visit.ConclusionsPreventative cryotherapy was the least expensive strategy and resulted in highest projected life expectancy, while VIA was most cost-effective unless HPV could be reduced to a single visit.

Cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening with primary human papillomavirus testing in Norway

Background:New screening technologies and vaccination against human papillomavirus (HPV), the necessary cause of cervical cancer, may impact optimal approaches to prevent cervical cancer. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of alternative screening strategies to inform cervical cancer prevention guidelines in Norway.Methods:We leveraged the primary epidemiologic and economic data from Norway to contextualise a simulation model of HPV-induced cervical cancer. The current cytology-only screening was compared with strategies involving cytology at younger ages and primary HPV-based screening at older ages (31/34+ years), an option being actively deliberated by the Norwegian government. We varied the switch-age, screening interval, and triage strategies for women with HPV-positive results. Uncertainty was evaluated in sensitivity analysis.Results:Current cytology-only screening was less effective and more costly than strategies that involve switching to primary HPV testing in older ages. For unvaccinated women, switching at age 34 years to primary HPV testing every 4 years was optimal given the Norwegian cost-effectiveness threshold ($83 000 per year of life saved). For vaccinated women, a 6-year screening interval was cost-effective. When we considered a wider range of strategies, we found that an earlier switch to HPV testing (at age 31 years) may be preferred.Conclusions:Strategies involving a switch to HPV testing for primary screening in older women is expected to be cost-effective compared with current recommendations in Norway.

Cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening: cytology versus human papillomavirus DNA testing.

ObjectiveTo determine the most cost-effective screening programme for cervical cancer.DesignCost-effectiveness analysis from a societal perspective.SettingThe Netherlands.PopulationDutch women who have not been invited for human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination.MethodsWe calibrated the microsimulation screening analysis (MISCAN) model to Dutch epidemiological data. We used this model to consider nine screening strategies that use: (i) cytological testing with cytology triage for borderline/mildly abnormal smears; (ii) HPV testing with cytology triage for HPV-positive smears; or (iii) cytological testing with HPV triage for borderline/mildly abnormal smears. For each strategy, we varied the number of screening rounds, the time interval, the age of the first screening, and the type of cytological testing (conventional or liquid-based cytology).Main outcome measuresQuality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained and costs from a societal perspective.ResultsUnder the base-case assumptions, primary HPV testing with cytology triage is the most cost-effective strategy. Using cost-effectiveness thresholds of €20 000 and €50 000 per QALY gained yields optimal screening programmes with three and seven screening rounds, respectively. The results are sensitive to several uncertain model inputs, most importantly the costs of the HPV test. For women aged 32 years or younger, primary cytology screening is more cost-effective than primary HPV testing.ConclusionsIncreasing the interval between screening rounds and changing the primary test from cytology to HPV testing can improve the effectiveness and decrease the costs of cervical cancer screening in the Netherlands.

Modeling Cost-Effectiveness of Cervical Cancer Screening in Hungary

ObjectivesOur aim was to compare the cost-effectiveness of two national cervical cancer screening programs aiming to involve those who do not regularly participate in the screening program in Hungary with no screening, using a public health-care payer's perspective and a 20-year time horizon. MethodsWe built a Markov model based on disease progression. The health-care costs of screening and treatment were received from real-word data. Other input data were obtained from the literature. The cost-effectiveness of the current screening program (a screening test that combines cytology and colposcopy in gynecological outpatient services) and of a planned new screening program (only cytology, and Pap smear is taken locally by public health nurses), both supported with a more active communication campaign, were compared with no screening. ResultsThe incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of the intensified current screening practice was $33,100 per quality-adjusted life-year compared with no screening, whereas the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of the renewed program was $18,990 per quality-adjusted life-year compared with no screening. The most influential parameters in the deterministic analysis were the quality-of-life weights of undetected stage I or IIA cancer. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, 99.9% of the simulations were below the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year in the case of the renewed strategy. ConclusionsProviding services closer to the population is a rational economic option for the reform of the Hungarian cervical cancer screening program. The other policy aspects of this development, human resource need, stakeholders' interests, organizational aspects, and attitude of the target population need to be carefully considered.

Impact of Patient Adherence and Test Performance on the Cost-Effectiveness of Cervical Cancer Screening in Developing Countries: The Case of Honduras

We examined the impact of patient adherence and screening test performance on the cost-effectiveness of visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) and Pap smears when used with colposcopy for diagnosis. Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using computer modeling. The primary outcome was cancer prevalence in the 10 years after screening. Three hypothetical populations of 35-year-old women were compared: never-screened women, women screened with VIA, and women screened with Pap smears. We used community-based data from our screening program in Honduras to estimate screening test sensitivity and specificity, adherence to follow-up, and costs of screening and colposcopy services. Published data were used to model disease outcomes. VIA was more sensitive than Pap smears (70% vs. 4%), less expensive (U.S. 0.23 dollars vs. 3.17 dollars), and the 2-vist VIA system had a higher rate of adherence to follow-up than the 3-visit Pap smear system (84% vs. 38%). VIA had a higher false-positive rate than Pap smears resulting in higher colposcopy referral rates, but more dysplasia was detected and treated. Cost-effectiveness analysis revealed that screening with VIA would cost U.S. 3,198 dollars per cancer case avoided and reduce cancer cases by 42%, versus U.S. 36,802 dollars and 2% for Pap screening. Although Pap smear quality was low in Honduras, sensitivity analysis showed that VIA was more cost-effective than Pap smears, even when test accuracy was equivalent. In developing countries, systems barriers can limit the cost-effectiveness of Pap smears. VIA may be a cost-effective alternative for some resource-poor settings, although systems barriers, quality control, and feasibility issues must be considered.

Re: Cost-Effectiveness of Cervical Cancer Screening With Human Papillomavirus DNA Testing and HPV-16,18 Vaccination

Goldhaber-Fiebert et al. (1) presented a convincing model for the natural history of cervical cancer. The results of this study should be considered by all policy makers in taking decisions about the preventive strategies for cervical cancer. The evaluation of this model was made by comparing the observed incidence curve by age of cervical cancer onset with the predicted incidence curve. In industrialized countries, this incidence curve is the result of a complex interaction involving the clinical history of the disease, sexual behaviors, and the screening habits of the different cohorts of women. The model reproduces the observed curve perfectly, and this reproduction is the result of a mixture of five populations with different cervical cancer screening behaviors and age distributions. The sum of these five populations produces the observed figures of screening behaviors by age in the United States and the number of invasive cancers that occurred (2). The preventive strategies proposed are based mainly on two interventions: vaccination and screening. Both of these interventions have two main factors that determine their effectiveness: the technical characteristics of vaccine and screening test (ie, the protection against infection and the types of human papillomaviruses that the vaccine is directed against and the sensitivity and specificity of the test) and the compliance of the population (ie, the vaccine coverage and test uptake). To better understand the role that each factor plays in determining effectiveness and also to have a valid target that is sensitive to the model characteristics, we believe that the proportion of cancer occurring in screened women, in unscreened people, and in vaccinated and unvaccinated women should be one of the most important outcomes to be presented for validation of a model for the natural history of cervical cancer. Given the structure of the model, it should be very easy to provide this output. Unfortunately, for the United States, there are few data on screening history for invasive cervical cancers (3,4) that could be used to validate the model; however, these data are available for other countries (5–7). All of these studies conclude that lack of participation in screening is still a major risk factor for invasive cancer in industrialized countries. Will lack of participation still be the major failure for the future preventive programs?

Cost-Effectiveness of Cervical Cancer Screening With Human Papillomavirus DNA Testing and HPV-16,18 Vaccination

The availability of human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing and vaccination against HPV types 16 and 18 (HPV-16,18) motivates questions about the cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer prevention in the United States for unvaccinated older women and for girls eligible for vaccination. An empirically calibrated model was used to assess the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (2004 US dollars per QALY) of screening, vaccination of preadolescent girls, and vaccination combined with screening. Screening varied by initiation age (18, 21, or 25 years), interval (every 1, 2, 3, or 5 years), and test (HPV DNA testing of cervical specimens or cytologic evaluation of cervical cells with a Pap test). Testing strategies included: 1) cytology followed by HPV DNA testing for equivocal cytologic results (cytology with HPV test triage); 2) HPV DNA testing followed by cytology for positive HPV DNA results (HPV test with cytology triage); and 3) combined HPV DNA testing and cytology. Strategies were permitted to switch once at age 25, 30, or 35 years. For unvaccinated women, triennial cytology with HPV test triage, beginning by age 21 years and switching to HPV testing with cytology triage at age 30 years, cost $78,000 per QALY compared with the next best strategy. For girls vaccinated before age 12 years, this same strategy, beginning at age 25 years and switching at age 35 years, cost $41,000 per QALY with screening every 5 years and $188,000 per QALY screening triennially, each compared with the next best strategy. These strategies were more effective and cost-effective than screening women of all ages with cytology alone or cytology with HPV triage annually or biennially. For both vaccinated and unvaccinated women, age-based screening by use of HPV DNA testing as a triage test for equivocal results in younger women and as a primary screening test in older women is expected to be more cost-effective than current screening recommendations.

Intégration du test HPV dans le dépistage primaire ?

Cervical cancer, the second most common cancer in young women in France, is still today imperfectly screened even with the advent of primary prevention for this cancer in the form of prophylactic HPV vaccination. Indeed, the cervical Pap smear and its cytologic analysis, both operator and reader dependent, have limited sensitivities requiring repeated samplings and above all, producing a high rate of falsely negative tests. Although most cancers occur in women who are either not or insufficiently screened, the problem with cervical smears is the fact that cancers are also often diagnosed in young women having follow-ups in accordance with professional guidelines. The absence of an organized screening in France results in an inadequate female population coverage. Nowadays, it is unanimously recognized that high-risk papillomaviruses (HR HPV) represent the only independent risk factor for cervical cancer and that there cannot be any disease without this virus. It is therefore this strong association between a viral agent and the cervical cancer which opened the door firstly, to the notion of prophylactic vaccination and secondly, to the integration of HR HPV testing in the screening for precancerous lesions. Molecular biological techniques based on the HR HPV genome detection within the female genital tract have shown a very high sensitivity without any inter and intraobserver variability and an excellent negative predictive value. Their integration in the primary screening for cervical cancer would improve the relevance of the latter and would suit the need for a wider population coverage and even for an organized screening thanks to the possibility for self-sampling. The specificity of these tests is inferior to that of the cervical smear, but the management of the falsely positive HPV tests has proved to be efficient by sorting residual cells obtained from liquid-based cytology. What is urgent in France is the need for an organized screening programme in order to improve population coverage and, this does not go against neither a vaccination promotion nor the integration of new technologies. Moreover, the last three randomized trials published in October 2007 have shown that it was quite safely possible to extend the time interval between two consecutive viral testing and thus improving the cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening. The aim of this work was to analyze publications on the subject in order to conclude, according to proof levels obtained by different studies, on its usefulness in the secondary prevention of cervical cancer.

Cost-Effectiveness of Cervical-Cancer Screening in Developing Countries

Cost-Effectiveness of Cervical-Cancer Screening in Developing Countries

Chapter 19: Cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening

In the last two decades, computer-based models of cervical cancer screening have been used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of different secondary prevention policies. Analyses in countries with existing screening programs have focused on identifying the optimal screening interval, ages for starting and stopping screening, and consideration of enhancements to conventional cytology, such as human papillomavirus (HPV)-DNA testing as a triage for equivocal results or as a primary screening test for women over the age of 30. Analyses in resource-poor settings with infrequent or no screening have focused on strategies that enhance the linkage between screening and treatment, consider noncytologic alternatives such as HPV-DNA testing, and target women between the ages of 35 and 45 for screening one, two, or three times per lifetime. Despite differences in methods and assumptions, this paper identifies the qualitative themes that are consistent among studies, and highlights important methodological challenges and high-priority areas for further work.

Cost-Effectiveness of Cervical-Cancer Screening in Developing Countries

The study by the Alliance for Cervical Cancer Prevention Cost Working Group reported by Goldie et al. is biased against cytologic screening. Costs for cytologic tests are overestimated. Costs for human papillomavirus (HPV) tests are underestimated. Single-visit cytologic screening is not considered. The Alliance was awarded a $50-million gift from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation on the assumption that noncytologic screening tests constitute the most likely solution to the problem of cervical cancer in developing countries. This assumption constitutes a potential source of bias against cytology that should be disclosed. Similarly the partnership between the Program for Appropriate Technology in Health a study cosponsor and Digene which markets HPV tests should be disclosed. (excerpt)

Cost-Effectiveness of Cervical-Cancer Screening in Five Developing Countries

Cervical-cancer screening strategies that involve the use of conventional cytology and require multiple visits have been impractical in developing countries. We used computer-based models to assess the cost-effectiveness of a variety of cervical-cancer screening strategies in India, Kenya, Peru, South Africa, and Thailand. Primary data were combined with data from the literature to estimate age-specific incidence and mortality rates for cancer and the effectiveness of screening for and treatment of precancerous lesions. We assessed the direct medical, time, and program-related costs of strategies that differed according to screening test, targeted age and frequency, and number of clinic visits required. Single-visit strategies involved the assumption that screening and treatment could be provided in the same day. Outcomes included the lifetime risk of cancer, years of life saved, lifetime costs, and cost-effectiveness ratios (cost per year of life saved). The most cost-effective strategies were those that required the fewest visits, resulting in improved follow-up testing and treatment. Screening women once in their lifetime, at the age of 35 years, with a one-visit or two-visit screening strategy involving visual inspection of the cervix with acetic acid or DNA testing for human papillomavirus (HPV) in cervical cell samples, reduced the lifetime risk of cancer by approximately 25 to 36 percent, and cost less than 500 dollars per year of life saved. Relative cancer risk declined by an additional 40 percent with two screenings (at 35 and 40 years of age), resulting in a cost per year of life saved that was less than each country's per capita gross domestic product--a very cost-effective result, according to the Commission on Macroeconomics and Health. Cervical-cancer screening strategies incorporating visual inspection of the cervix with acetic acid or DNA testing for HPV in one or two clinical visits are cost-effective alternatives to conventional three-visit cytology-based screening programs in resource-poor settings.

Cost-effectiveness of rescreening conventionally prepared cervical smears by PAPNET testing.

This study explored the cost-effectiveness of the use of PAPNET testing-supplemental, neural network-based testing used to increase the accuracy of cervical smear screening practice. Using a model adapted from one developed under contract from the United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment to evaluate cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening in elderly women, the study evaluated U.S. women aged 20-64. The study reviewed various screening intervals and examined the course of follow-up (i.e., repeat abnormal smear vs. immediate colposcopy) to offer a range into which most routine medical practice will fall. Assuming a false negative rate of 25% for low grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (SIL) and 15% for high grade SIL and applying increased sensitivity of 30% from PAPNET, we can expect a cost of $48,474 per life-year saved among biennially screened women. For women screened triennially, as recommended by most groups, the cost per life-year saved is $25,185. The PAPNET rescreening program is an economical approach to decreasing mortality and morbidity from cervical cancer and compares favorably to other commonly used interventions and diagnostic procedures.

Cervical‐cancer screening: Attendance and cost‐effectiveness

The influence of attendance on the health effects and cost-effectiveness of cervical-cancer screening was studied, both for organized screening programmes and for spontaneous screening. The asymmetric distribution of smears among the female population and the higher risk incurred by women who never or only occasionally attend screening appear crucial in determining the health effects of screening. An increase in attendance rate induces a substantial rise in health effects and a less than proportionate rise in costs, thus improving cost-effectiveness. Wider screening coverage, in order to increase the number of life-years saved, is achieved more efficiently by encouraging a greater number of women to attend than by inviting the same number of women to attend more often, i.e., with a shorter interval between successive screens. Spontaneous screening is characterized by high coverage for younger women and low coverage for middle-aged and older women. This leads to a small amount of health effects and poor cost-effectiveness as compared with organized screening.

The cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening for low-income elderly women

Controversy surrounds prevention policy for the elderly. While some cost-effectiveness analyses have been done for the general elderly population, to our knowledge no study has examined the provision of preventive services to a low-income elderly population. We conducted a study of the cost-effectiveness of a cervical cancer screening program for infrequently screened elderly women attending an urban municipal hospital clinic. The results of Papanicolaou testing were abnormal (malignant or premalignant) in 11 of 816 women screened. This early detection of cervical neoplasia saved $5907 and 3.7 years of life per 100 Papanicolaou tests. When average medical costs per year of life extended by screening were included, the program cost $2874 per year of life saved. Comprehensive sensitivity analyses performed on competing medical and economic points of view did not change the conclusion of a favorable cost-effectiveness ratio for screening. Our findings indicate that the benefits from some prevention programs for the elderly can offset the costs of these programs. More research is needed to guide public policy on prevention for selected population groups. (<i>JAMA</i>1988;259:2409-2413)

The Cost-effectiveness of Cervical Cancer Screening for Low-Income Elderly Women

Controversy surrounds prevention policy for the elderly. While some cost-effectiveness analyses have been done for the general elderly population, to our knowledge no study has examined the provision of preventive services to a low-income elderly population. We conducted a study of the cost-effectiveness of a cervical cancer screening program for infrequently screened elderly women attending an urban municipal hospital clinic. The results of Papanicolaou testing were abnormal (malignant or premalignant) in 11 of 816 women screened. This early detection of cervical neoplasia saved +5907 and 3.7 years of life per 100 Papanicolaou tests. When average medical costs per year of life extended by screening were included, the program cost +2874 per year of life saved. Comprehensive sensitivity analyses performed on competing medical and economic points of view did not change the conclusion of a favorable cost-effectiveness ratio for screening. Our findings indicate that the benefits from some prevention programs for the elderly can offset the costs of these programs. More research is needed to guide public policy on prevention for selected population groups.