OBJECTIVE: 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. METHODS: 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). RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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.
OBJECTIVE: 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. METHODS: 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). RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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.
Authors: Jack Cuzick; Christine Clavel; Karl-Ulrich Petry; Chris J L M Meijer; Heike Hoyer; Samuel Ratnam; Anne Szarewski; Philippe Birembaut; Shalini Kulasingam; Peter Sasieni; Thomas Iftner Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2006-09-01 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Mahboobeh Safaeian; Mark Schiffman; Julia Gage; Diane Solomon; Cosette M Wheeler; Philip E Castle Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2009-04-07 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Thomas C Wright; L Stewart Massad; Charles J Dunton; Mark Spitzer; Edward J Wilkinson; Diane Solomon Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Jeremy D Goldhaber-Fiebert; Natasha K Stout; Joshua A Salomon; Karen M Kuntz; Sue J Goldie Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2008-02-26 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Cosette M Wheeler; William C Hunt; Nancy E Joste; Charles R Key; Wim G V Quint; Philip E Castle Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2009-03-24 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: George F Sawaya; Erinn Sanstead; Fernando Alarid-Escudero; Karen Smith-McCune; Steven E Gregorich; Michael J Silverberg; Wendy Leyden; Megan J Huchko; Miriam Kuppermann; Shalini Kulasingam Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2019-07-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Warner K Huh; Erin Williams; Joice Huang; Tommy Bramley; Nick Poulios Journal: Appl Health Econ Health Policy Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 2.561
Authors: Juan C Felix; Michael J Lacey; Jeffrey D Miller; Gregory M Lenhart; Mark Spitzer; Rucha Kulkarni Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2016-03-29 Impact factor: 2.681