Literature DB >> 19804436

Cost-effectiveness of 21 alternative cervical cancer screening strategies.

Anderson Chuck1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to assess the cost-effectiveness of 21 alternative cervical cancer screening (CCS) strategies.
METHODS: A cohort simulation model was developed to determine from a health systems perspective the cost-effectiveness of the 21 alternative CCS strategies that incorporated combinations of Papanicolaou's smear test (PAP), liquid-based cytology (LBC) or human papillomavirus deoxyribonucleic acid (HPV-DNA) testing. The model was calibrated to categorize total costs into four budgetary authorities: testing, physician, inpatient, and outpatient services. Within each category, alternative screening strategies were contrasted in terms of their cost impacts and the percent change calculated within each category. Epidemiologic data and costs were derived from administrative health databases. Estimates of test characteristics and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were derived from available literature.
RESULTS: Three-year screening with PAP and HPV-DNA triage testing for women older than 30 years of age (3-year PAP+HPV+PAP-age) is less costly and more effective saving $16,078 per additional QALY gained. Although there was an associated net cost decrease of 4.2% driven by a reduction in testing and physician costs of 22.1% and 18.6%, respectively, there is a cost increase of 0.8% and 27.7% in inpatient and outpatient services, respectively.
CONCLUSION: There is economic evidence to support adopting 3-year PAP+HPV+PAP-age. Budgetary resources can potentially be shifted from testing and physician services to fund the additional resource requirements for inpatient and outpatient services.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19804436     DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00611.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Value Health        ISSN: 1098-3015            Impact factor:   5.725


  6 in total

Review 1.  Economic and humanistic burden of external genital warts.

Authors:  Adam J N Raymakers; Mohsen Sadatsafavi; Fawziah Marra; Carlo A Marra
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 4.981

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

Authors:  J van Rosmalen; I M C M de Kok; M van Ballegooijen
Journal:  BJOG       Date:  2012-01-18       Impact factor: 6.531

3.  Cost-effectiveness analysis of human papillomavirus DNA testing and Pap smear for cervical cancer screening in a publicly financed health-care system.

Authors:  I H-I Chow; C-H Tang; S-L You; C-H Liao; T-Y Chu; C-J Chen; C-A Chen; R-F Pwu
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2010-11-23       Impact factor: 7.640

Review 4.  Simple but not simpler: a systematic review of Markov models for economic evaluation of cervical cancer screening.

Authors:  Juliana Yukari Kodaira Viscondi; Christine Grutzmann Faustino; Alessandro Gonçalves Campolina; Alexander Itria; Patricia Coelho de Soárez
Journal:  Clinics (Sao Paulo)       Date:  2018-07-10       Impact factor: 2.365

5.  Cost-effectiveness analysis of primary human papillomavirus testing in cervical cancer screening: Results from the HPV FOCAL Trial.

Authors:  Ian Cromwell; Laurie W Smith; Kim van der Hoek; Lindsay Hedden; Andrew J Coldman; Darrel Cook; Eduardo L Franco; Mel Krajden; Ruth Martin; Marette H Lee; Gavin Stuart; Dirk van Niekerk; Gina Ogilvie; Stuart Peacock
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2021-04-02       Impact factor: 4.452

6.  The potential harms of primary human papillomavirus screening in over-screened women: a microsimulation study.

Authors:  Steffie K Naber; Inge M C M de Kok; Suzette M Matthijsse; Marjolein van Ballegooijen
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2016-03-12       Impact factor: 2.506

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.