Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT: Testing for human papillomavirus (HPV) 16 and 18 genotypes, which are known to cause approximately 65-70% of invasive cervical cancer cases, may allow clinicians to identify women at highest risk for underlying cervical intraepithelial neoplasia missed by Pap cytology. Our objective was to determine the cost-effectiveness of adding HPV-16 and 18 genotype triage to current cervical cancer screening strategies in the United States.We developed a lifetime Markov model to assess the cost-effectiveness of the following cervical cancer screening algorithms: (1) liquid-based cytology (LBC), (2) LBC+HPV triage, (3) HPV+LBC triage, (4) co-screening, (5) co-screening+HPV genotyping, and (6) HPV only+HPV genotyping. Costs were estimated from a payer perspective in 2007 U.S. dollars. Outcome measures included lifetime risk of cervical cancer, quality-adjusted life years saved (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).In our model, the use of HPV genotyping strategies prevented 51-73 deaths per 100,000 women screened compared to screening using LBC followed by HPV triage and 4-26 deaths compared to co-screening with LBC and high-risk HPV. Use of HPV genotyping to triage all high-risk HPV-positive women every three years had an ICER of $34,074 per QALY compared to HPV and LBC co-screening. HPV genotyping with co-screening was the most effective strategy and had an ICER of $33,807 per QALY compared to HPV genotyping for all high-risk HPV-positive women.The addition of HPV-16 and -18 genotype triage to HPV and LBC co-screening was a cost-effective screening strategy in the United States.

SUBMITTER: Vijayaraghavan A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4568837 | biostudies-literature | 2010 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Vijayaraghavan Arthi A Efrusy Molly B MB Goodman Karyn A KA Santas Christopher C CC Huh Warner K WK

Gynecologic oncology 20100814 2

<h4>Objective</h4>Testing for human papillomavirus (HPV) 16 and 18 genotypes, which are known to cause approximately 65-70% of invasive cervical cancer cases, may allow clinicians to identify women at highest risk for underlying cervical intraepithelial neoplasia missed by Pap cytology. Our objective was to determine the cost-effectiveness of adding HPV-16 and 18 genotype triage to current cervical cancer screening strategies in the United States.<h4>Methods</h4>We developed a lifetime Markov mo ...[more]

PMID: 20713299

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceTriage tests enhance the efficiency cervical cancer screening based on human papillomavirus (HPV), but the best approach for maximizing programmatic effectiveness is still uncertain, particularly in a real-world scenario.ObjectiveTo compare the clinical performance of 6 triage strategies based on liquid-based cytology (LBC) and HPV-16 and HPV-18 genotyping individually or in combination as sequential triage tests to detect cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 2 or higher among women with high-risk HPV.Design, setting, and participantsThis diagnostic study of routine cervical cancer screening was conducted at 100 primary health centers in Tlaxcala, Mexico. Women aged 30 to 64 years were recruited from August 1, 2013, to February 24, 2016, as part of the Forwarding Research for Improved Detection and Access for Cervical Cancer Screening and Triage study. Six triage scenarios for referral to colposcopy were examined: (1) LBC testing that found atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US) or worse, (2) positive results in HPV-16 genotyping, (3) positive results in HPV-18 genotyping, (4) positive results in HPV-16/HPV-18 genotyping, (5) positive results in HPV-16 genotyping or, if genotyping results were negative, reflex LBC testing that found ASC-US or worse, and (6) positive results in HPV-16/HPV-18 genotyping or, if genotyping results were negative, reflex LBC testing that found ASC-US or worse. Data were analyzed from October 2017 to August 2018.ExposuresLiquid-based cytological testing with simultaneous HPV-16 and HPV-18 genotyping. Women whose HPV genotyping results were positive for HPV-16 or HPV-18 or whose LBC results found ASC-US or worse and a random set of negative and normal results were referred to colposcopy with histologic analysis used for disease confirmation.Main outcomes and measuresClinical performance of each test strategy for detection of CIN grade 2 or higher. Secondary outcomes included resource utilization of each triage scenario, measured by the number of tests performed, the referral rate for colposcopy, and the numbers of colposcopies per CIN grade 2 or higher detected.ResultsA total of 36 212 women (median [interquartile range] age, 40 [35-47] years) were screened, and 4051 women (11.2%) had high-risk HPV. Of these women, 1109 (24.6%) were found to have HPV-16, HPV-18, or ASC-US or worse. Further histologic testing detected CIN grade 2 or higher in 110 of 788 women (14.0%) who underwent follow-up colposcopy. Sensitivity and specificity for 3 main triage strategies were 42.9% and 74.0% for LBC; 58.3% and 54.4% for HPV-16/HPV-18 genotyping; and 86.6% and 34.0% for HPV-16/HPV-18 genotyping with reflex LBC. The referral rate to colposcopy was 29% for HPV-16/HPV-18 with reflex LBC, which was 2-fold higher than the referral rate of 12% for LBC.Conclusions and relevanceTriage of women with high-risk HPV with HPV-16/HPV-18 genotyping with reflex LBC was significantly associated with improvement in detection of CIN grade 2 or higher compared with LBC alone. The benefit of disease prevented may outweigh the cost of increasing requirements for colposcopy services in settings with limited adherence to follow-up after a positive screening result.

Project description: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.

Dataset Information

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

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets