Cost-effectiveness of Extending Cervical Cancer Screening Intervals Among Women With Prior Normal Pap Tests

Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, United States
Obstetrics and Gynecology (Impact Factor: 4.37). 03/2006; 107(2 Pt 1):321-8. DOI: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000196500.50044.ce
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Annual cervical cancer screening in women with many prior normal Pap tests is common despite limited evidence on the cost-effectiveness of this strategy. We estimated the cost-effectiveness of screening women with 3 or more prior normal tests compared with screening those with no prior tests.
We used a validated cost-effectiveness model in conjunction with data on the prevalence of biopsy-proven cervical neoplasia in women enrolled in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program. Women were grouped according to age at the final Program Pap test (aged < 30, 30-44, 45-59, and 60-65 years) and by screening history (0, 1, 2, and 3+ consecutive prior normal Program tests) to estimate cost per life-year and quality-adjusted life-year associated with annual, biennial, and triennial screening.
For women aged 30-44 years with no prior tests, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged from 20,533 US dollars for screening triennially (compared with no further screening) to 331,837 US dollars for screening annually (compared with biennially) per life-year saved. Among same-aged women with 3 or more prior normal Program tests, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for the same measures ranged from 60,029 US dollars to 709,067 US dollars per life-year saved. Inclusion of the most conservative utility estimates resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios in excess of 100,000 US dollars per quality-adjusted life-year saved associated with annual screening of same-aged women with 3 or more prior normal tests compared with biennial screening.
As the number of prior normal Pap tests increases, the costs per life-year saved increase substantially. Resources should be prioritized for screening those never or rarely screened women.

  • Source
    • "To our knowledge, this is the first analysis to evaluate the costeffectiveness of alternate screening strategies to prevent cervical cancer in Norway. We expand upon previous modelling studies, which look at primary HPV DNA testing in developed countries (Goldie et al, 2004, 2006; Sherlaw-Johnson and Philips, 2004; Kim et al, 2005; Bidus et al, 2006; Kulasingam et al, 2006; Goldhaber- Fiebert et al, 2008) to include new alternative triage strategies for older women who are HPV-positive, but cytology-negative. There is no consensus regarding how to optimally manage HPV-positive results to avoid over referral and unwarranted stress for women (Cuzick et al, 2006a) and the choice of management strategy for HPV þ /CytÀ women may depend on other factors such as colposcopy resource constraints and preference to minimise false-positive results. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: 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. 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. 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. 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.
    British Journal of Cancer 03/2012; 106(9):1571-8. DOI:10.1038/bjc.2012.94 · 4.82 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "For women with regular access to health care, cervical cancer mortality can be greatly reduced by regular Pap tests (Sanders & Taira, 2003). Still, this disease exacts substantial health and economic costs, suggesting that widespread HPV vaccination could prove cost effective (Elbasha, Dasback, & Insinga, 2007; Kulasingam et al., 2006), particularly among preadolescent girls (Kim & Goldie, 2008). HPV vaccination may be especially beneficial to Hispanic and African American women, who are less likely to get regular Pap tests (Huerta, 2003; O'Brien et al., 2003). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To determine the most effective ways to present human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine risk and benefit information to mothers in Hispanic, African American, and White communities, to increase mothers' intentions to vaccinate their daughters against HPV. The study used a 3 x 2 between-subjects factorial design, involving 3 different risk presentation formats (graphical HPV statistics, nongraphical HPV statistics, or no-statistics control) and the presence or absence of rhetorical questions (RQ). Data were collected from a national sample of 471 mothers of girls ages 11-16. The primary outcome variable was mothers' intention to vaccinate their daughters against HPV. Secondary outcomes included mothers' self-reported message comprehension and perceptions of daughters' vulnerability to HPV infection, infection severity, vaccine efficacy, and obstacles to immunization. Results showed that both risk presentation format and RQs had an overall positive effect on mothers' intention to vaccinate their daughters. However, the interventions appear to be more effective when used separately than when used in combination. Each of these interventions is brief and could easily be implemented by health care providers as well as in patient health communication literature.
    Health Psychology 01/2010; 29(1):29-39. DOI:10.1037/a0016942 · 3.95 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "This chapter will synthesize the findings from costeffectiveness analyses (CEAs) that have focused on cytologybased cervical cancer screening and identify several qualitative themes [2] [3] [4] [5]. Second, consistent findings from analyses that have considered HPV-DNA testing as a triage for equivocal cytologic abnormalities [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] and HPV-DNA testing as a primary screening test with or without cytology [7–9,11–13] will be described for countries with existing screening programs. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: 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.
    Vaccine 09/2006; 24 Suppl 3:S3/164-70. DOI:10.1016/j.vaccine.2006.05.114 · 3.49 Impact Factor
Show more