Cost-effectiveness of using human papillomavirus 16/18 genotype triage in cervical cancer screening

Vijayaraghavan, Arthi; Efrusy, Molly B.; Goodman, Karyn A.; Santas, Christopher C.; Huh, Warner K.

doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2010.07.004

Cited by 23 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Kulasingam et al performed a study in Canada and found that a strategy with initial HPV DNA testing in women at 25 years was cost-effective (Kulasingam et al, 2009). Vijayaraghavan (2010) in the USA, expressed that implementing a program with HPV triage every three years after 30 years was the most costeffective strategy (Vijayaraghavan et al, 2010a).…”

Section: Comparison Of Starting Age Of Screeningmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Berkhof et al (2010) in the Netherlands, indicated that starting screening with HPV triage with 5 years interval was the most cost effective strategies (Berkhof et al, 2010).Vijayaraghavan in South Africa reported that coscreening with HPV testing was less costly and the most effective strategy (Vijayaraghavan et al, 2009). Based on income we just found 5 articles in high income countries suggested starting age of screening below age 30 (Mandelblatt et al, 2002b;Kulasingam et al, 2009;Chuck, 2010;Vijayaraghavan et al, 2010a;Sroczynski et al, 2011)(Table1).…”

Section: Comparison Of Starting Age Of Screeningmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Five articles recommended three-year intervals (Brown and Garber, 1999;Goldie et al, 2001, Maxwell et al, 2002Chuck, 2010;Vijayaraghavan et al, 2010a), and three selected co-screening every three years (Maxwell et al, 2002;Sherlaw-Johnson and Philips, 2004;Chuck, 2010). One article remarked that HPV DNA triage should occur every three years (Vijayaraghavan et al, 2010a), another declared that HPV DNA testing or VIA every three years was most effective (Goldie et al, 2001), and one suggested Pap smears with 10% re-screening every three years with PAPNET, which is a type of LBC method (Brown and Garber, 1999). Goldie in the USA, declared that a two-to three-year interval for screening with a co-screening strategy was best (Goldie et al, 2004).…”

Section: Comparison Of Strategies By Screening Intervalmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Six articles proposed 3-5 years interval (Brown and Garber, 1999;Maxwell et al, 2002;Kim et al, 2005;Chuck, 2010;Vijayaraghavan et al, 2010b;Burger et al, 2012) and three articles showed that 5 years interval between screenings was cost effective (Kulasingam et al, 2009;Berkhof et al, 2010;de Kok et al, 2012). We just found one article in Sweden indicating that 9 years interval was cost effective (Bistoletti et al, 2008)…”

Section: Comparison Of Strategies By Screening Intervalmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Fourteen studies were categorized as a high income countries (Brown and Garber, 1999;Mandelblatt et al, 2002b;Maxwell et al, 2002;Goldie et al, 2004;Kim et al, 2005;Bidus et al, 2006;Bistoletti et al, 2008;Kulasingam et al, 2009;Berkhof et al, 2010;Chuck, 2010;Vijayaraghavan et al, 2010a;Sroczynski et al, 2011;Burger et al, 2012;de Kok et al, 2012). Six studies were designed in middle income countries (Goldie et al, 2001;Maxwell et al, 2002;Andres-Gamboa et al, 2008;Vijayaraghavan et al, 2009;Chow et al, 2010;Levin et al, 2010).…”

Section: Comparison Of Studies Based On Incomementioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

A Systematic Review of Economic Aspects of Cervical Cancer Screening Strategies Worldwide: Discrepancy between Economic Analysis and Policymaking

Nahvijou

Hadji

Ahmad

et al. 2014

Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Organized cervical screening has decreased the incidence of cervical cancer. However, screening strategies vary in different countries. Objectives: We performed a systematic review to evaluate the economic aspects of different screening methods. Materials and Methods: We searched databases and then data were abstracted from each study. We evaluated articles based on different types of screening tests as well as screening age and intervals, and using incremental cost effectiveness ratio via calculating quality adjusted life years (QALY), or life years gained (LYG) per cost. We compared the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of each study using GDP per capita. Furthermore, we compared national guidelines with recommendations of costeffectiveness studies in different countries. Results: A total of 21 articles met our criteria, of which 19 studies showed that HPV DNA testing, 13 suggested an age of 30 years or more, and 10 papers concluded that at least a 5-year or longer interval were the most cost-effective strategies. In some countries, the national guidelines did not match the recommendations of the cost-effectiveness studies. Conclusions: HPV testing, starting at age 30 years or older and repeated at 5-year or longer intervals, is the most cost-effective strategy in any setting. Closer collaboration with health economists is required during guideline development.

show abstract

Section: Comparison Of Starting Age Of Screeningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Comparison Of Starting Age Of Screeningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Comparison Of Strategies By Screening Intervalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Comparison Of Strategies By Screening Intervalmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Comparison Of Studies Based On Incomementioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A Systematic Review of Economic Aspects of Cervical Cancer Screening Strategies Worldwide: Discrepancy between Economic Analysis and Policymaking

Nahvijou

Hadji

Ahmad

et al. 2014

Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Estimated Quality of Life and Economic Outcomes Associated With 12 Cervical Cancer Screening Strategies

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IMPORTANCE Many cervical cancer screening strategies are now recommended in the United States, but the benefits, harms, and costs of each option are unclear. OBJECTIVE To estimate the cost-effectiveness of 12 cervical cancer screening strategies. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS The cross-sectional portion of this study enrolled a convenience sample of 451 English-speaking or Spanish-speaking women aged 21 to 65 years from September 22, 2014, to June 16, 2016, identified at women's health clinics in San Francisco. In this group, utilities (preferences) were measured for 23 cervical cancer screening-associated health states and were applied to a decision model of type-specific high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV)-induced cervical carcinogenesis. Test accuracy estimates were abstracted from systematic reviews. The evaluated strategies were cytologic testing every 3 years for women aged 21 to 65 years with either repeat cytologic testing in 1 year or immediate hrHPV triage for atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US), cytologic testing every 3 years for women age 21 to 29 years followed by cytologic testing plus hrHPV testing (cotesting), or primary hrHPV testing alone for women aged 30 to 65 years. Screening frequency, abnormal test result management, and the age to switch from cytologic testing to hrHPV testing (25 or 30 years) were varied. Analyses were conducted from both the societal and health care sector perspectives. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Utilities for 23 cervical cancer screening-associated health states (cross-sectional study) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and total costs for each strategy. RESULTS Utilities were measured in a sociodemographically diverse group of 451 women (mean [SD] age, 38.2 [10.7] years; 258 nonwhite [57.2%]). Cytologic testing every 3 years with repeat cytologic testing for ASC-US yielded the most lifetime QALYs and conferred more QALYs at higher costs ($2166 per QALY) than the lowest-cost strategy (cytologic testing every 3 years with hrHPV triage of ASC-US). All cytologic testing plus hrHPV testing (cotesting) and primary hrHPV testing strategies provided fewer QALYs at higher costs. Adding indirect costs did not change the conclusions. In sensitivity analyses, hrHPV testing every 5 years with genotyping triage beginning at age 30 years was the lowest-cost strategy when hrHPV test sensitivity was markedly higher than cytologic test sensitivity or when hrHPV test cost was equated to the lowest reported cytologic test cost ($14). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Cytologic testing every 3 years for women aged 21 to 29 years with either continued cytologic testing every 3 years or switching to a low-cost hrHPV test every 5 years confers a reasonable balance of benefits, harms, and costs. Comparative modeling is needed to confirm the association of these novel utilities with cost-effectiveness.

show abstract

Human papillomavirus testing versus repeat cytology for triage of minor cytological cervical lesions

Arbyn

Roelens

Simoens

et al. 2013

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

110

156

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Cost-effectiveness of using human papillomavirus 16/18 genotype triage in cervical cancer screening

Cited by 23 publications

References 39 publications

A Systematic Review of Economic Aspects of Cervical Cancer Screening Strategies Worldwide: Discrepancy between Economic Analysis and Policymaking

A Systematic Review of Economic Aspects of Cervical Cancer Screening Strategies Worldwide: Discrepancy between Economic Analysis and Policymaking

Estimated Quality of Life and Economic Outcomes Associated With 12 Cervical Cancer Screening Strategies

Human papillomavirus testing versus repeat cytology for triage of minor cytological cervical lesions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About