Dataset Information

Benefits, harms and cost-effectiveness of cervical screening, triage and treatment strategies for women in the general population.

ABSTRACT: In 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) launched a strategy to eliminate cervical cancer as a public health problem. To support the strategy, the WHO published updated cervical screening guidelines in 2021. To inform this update, we used an established modeling platform, Policy1-Cervix, to evaluate the impact of seven primary screening scenarios across 78 low- and lower-middle-income countries (LMICs) for the general population of women. Assuming 70% coverage, we found that primary human papillomavirus (HPV) screening approaches were the most effective and cost-effective, reducing cervical cancer age-standardized mortality rates by 63-67% when offered every 5 years. Strategies involving triaging women before treatment (with 16/18 genotyping, cytology, visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) or colposcopy) had close-to-similar effectiveness to HPV screening without triage and fewer pre-cancer treatments. Screening with VIA or cytology every 3 years was less effective and less cost-effective than HPV screening every 5 years. Furthermore, VIA generated more than double the number of pre-cancer treatments compared to HPV. In conclusion, primary HPV screening is the most effective, cost-effective and efficient cervical screening option in LMICs. These findings have directly informed WHO's updated cervical screening guidelines for the general population of women, which recommend primary HPV screening in a screen-and-treat or screen-triage-and-treat approach, starting from age 30 years with screening every 5 years or 10 years.

SUBMITTER: Simms KT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10719104 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Benefits, harms and cost-effectiveness of cervical screening, triage and treatment strategies for women in the general population.

Simms Kate T KT Keane Adam A Nguyen Diep Thi Ngoc DTN Caruana Michael M Hall Michaela T MT Lui Gigi G Gauvreau Cindy C Demke Owen O Arbyn Marc M Basu Partha P Wentzensen Nicolas N Lauby-Secretan Beatrice B Ilbawi Andre A Hutubessy Raymond R Almonte Maribel M De Sanjosé Silvia S Kelly Helen H Dalal Shona S Eckert Linda O LO Santesso Nancy N Broutet Nathalie N Canfell Karen K

Nature medicine 20231212 12

In 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) launched a strategy to eliminate cervical cancer as a public health problem. To support the strategy, the WHO published updated cervical screening guidelines in 2021. To inform this update, we used an established modeling platform, Policy1-Cervix, to evaluate the impact of seven primary screening scenarios across 78 low- and lower-middle-income countries (LMICs) for the general population of women. Assuming 70% coverage, we found that primary human pa ...[more]

PMID: 38087115

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWhile polygenic risk scores (PRS) could enable the streamlining of organised cancer screening programmes, its current discriminative ability is limited. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis to trade-off the benefits and harms of PRS-stratified cancer screening in China.MethodsThe validated National Cancer Center (NCC) modelling framework for six cancers (lung, liver, breast, gastric, colorectum, and oesophagus) was used to simulate cancer incidence, progression, stage-specific cancer detection, and risk of death. We estimated the number of cancer deaths averted, quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) gained, number needed to screen (NNS), overdiagnosis, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of one-time PRS-stratified screening strategy (screening 25% of PRS-defined high-risk population) for a birth cohort at age 60 in 2025, compared with unstratified screening strategy (screening 25% of general population) and no screening strategy. We applied lifetime horizon, societal perspective, and 3% discount rate. An ICER less than $18,364 per QALY gained is considered cost-effective.FindingsOne-time cancer screening for population aged 60 was the most cost-effective strategy compared to screening at other ages. Compared with an unstratified screening strategy, the PRS-stratified screening strategy averted more cancer deaths (61,237 vs. 40,329), had a lower NNS to prevent one death (307 vs. 451), had a slightly higher overdiagnosis (14.1% vs. 13.8%), and associated with an additional 130,045 QALYs at an additional cost of $1942 million, over a lifetime horizon. The ICER for all six cancers combined was $14,930 per QALY gained, with the ICER varying from $7928 in colorectal cancer to $39,068 in liver cancer. ICER estimates were sensitive to changes in risk threshold and cost of PRS tools.InterpretationPRS-stratified screening strategy modestly improves clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness of organised cancer screening programmes. Reducing the costs of polygenic risk stratification is needed before PRS implementation.FundingThe Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, the Jing-jin-ji Special Projects for Basic Research Cooperation, and the Sanming Project of the Medicine in Shenzhen.

Project description:BackgroundA third of deaths in the UK from ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) are in women. In men, national screening programmes reduce deaths from AAA and are cost-effective. The benefits, harms, and cost-effectiveness in offering a similar programme to women have not been formally assessed, and this was the aim of this study.MethodsWe developed a decision model to assess predefined outcomes of death caused by AAA, life years, quality-adjusted life years, costs, and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for a population of women invited to AAA screening versus a population who were not invited to screening. A discrete event simulation model was set up for AAA screening, surveillance, and intervention. Relevant women-specific parameters were obtained from sources including systematic literature reviews, national registry or administrative databases, major AAA surgery trials, and UK National Health Service reference costs.FindingsAAA screening for women, as currently offered to UK men (at age 65 years, with an AAA diagnosis at an aortic diameter of ≥3·0 cm, and elective repair considered at ≥5·5cm) gave, over 30 years, an estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £30 000 (95% CI 12 000-87 000) per quality-adjusted life year gained, with 3900 invitations to screening required to prevent one AAA-related death and an overdiagnosis rate of 33%. A modified option for women (screening at age 70 years, diagnosis at 2·5 cm and repair at 5·0 cm) was estimated to have an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £23 000 (9500-71 000) per quality-adjusted life year and 1800 invitations to screening required to prevent one AAA-death, but an overdiagnosis rate of 55%. There was considerable uncertainty in the cost-effectiveness ratio, largely driven by uncertainty about AAA prevalence, the distribution of aortic sizes for women at different ages, and the effect of screening on quality of life.InterpretationBy UK standards, an AAA screening programme for women, designed to be similar to that used to screen men, is unlikely to be cost-effective. Further research on the aortic diameter distribution in women and potential quality of life decrements associated with screening are needed to assess the full benefits and harms of modified options.FundingUK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Project description:The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recently concluded that the harms of existing prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening strategies outweigh the benefits.To evaluate comparative effectiveness of alternative PSA screening strategies.Microsimulation model of prostate cancer incidence and mortality quantifying harms and lives saved for alternative PSA screening strategies.National and trial data on PSA growth, screening and biopsy patterns, incidence, treatment distributions, treatment efficacy, and mortality.A contemporary cohort of U.S. men.Lifetime.Societal.35 screening strategies that vary by start and stop ages, screening intervals, and thresholds for biopsy referral.PSA tests, false-positive test results, cancer detected, overdiagnoses, prostate cancer deaths, lives saved, and months of life saved.Without screening, the risk for prostate cancer death is 2.86%. A reference strategy that screens men aged 50 to 74 years annually with a PSA threshold for biopsy referral of 4 µg/L reduces the risk for prostate cancer death to 2.15%, with risk for overdiagnosis of 3.3%. A strategy that uses higher PSA thresholds for biopsy referral in older men achieves a similar risk for prostate cancer death (2.23%) but reduces the risk for overdiagnosis to 2.3%. A strategy that screens biennially with longer screening intervals for men with low PSA levels achieves similar risks for prostate cancer death (2.27%) and overdiagnosis (2.4%), but reduces total tests by 59% and false-positive results by 50%.Varying incidence inputs or reducing the survival improvement due to screening did not change conclusions.The model is a simplification of the natural history of prostate cancer, and improvement in survival due to screening is uncertain.Compared with standard screening, PSA screening strategies that use higher thresholds for biopsy referral for older men and that screen men with low PSA levels less frequently can reduce harms while preserving lives.National Cancer Institute and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Dataset Information

Benefits, harms and cost-effectiveness of cervical screening, triage and treatment strategies for women in the general population.

Publications

Benefits, harms and cost-effectiveness of cervical screening, triage and treatment strategies for women in the general population.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets