Literature DB >> 21110881

Cervical cancer screening in Australia: modelled evaluation of the impact of changing the recommended interval from two to three years.

Prudence Creighton1, Jie-Bin Lew, Mark Clements, Megan Smith, Kirsten Howard, Suzanne Dyer, Sarah Lord, Karen Canfell.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The National Cervical Screening Program in Australia currently recommends that sexually active women between the ages of 18-70 years attend routine screening every 2 years. The publically funded National HPV Vaccination Program commenced in 2007, with catch-up in females aged 12-26 years conducted until 2009; and this may prompt consideration of whether the screening interval and other aspects of the organized screening program could be reviewed. The aim of the current evaluation was to assess the epidemiologic outcomes and cost implications of changing the recommended screening interval in Australia to 3 years.
METHODS: We used a modelling approach to evaluate the effects of moving to a 3-yearly recommended screening interval. We used data from the Victorian Cervical Cytology Registry over the period 1997-2007 to model compliance with routine screening under current practice, and registry data from other countries with 3-yearly recommendations to inform assumptions about future screening behaviour under two alternative systems for screening organisation--retention of a reminder-based system (as in New Zealand), or a move to a call-and-recall system (as in England).
RESULTS: A 3-yearly recommendation is predicted to be of similar effectiveness to the current 2-yearly recommendation, resulting in no substantial change to the total number of incident cervical cancer cases or cancer deaths, or to the estimated 0.68% average cumulative lifetime risk of cervical cancer in unvaccinated Australian women. However, a 3-yearly screening policy would be associated with decreases in the annual number of colposcopy and biopsy procedures performed (by 4-10%) and decreases in the number of treatments for pre-invasive lesions (by 2-4%). The magnitude of the decrease in the number of diagnostic procedures and treatments would depend on the method of screening organization, with call-and-recall screening associated with the highest reductions. The cost savings are predicted to be of the order of A$10-18 M annually, equivalent to 6-11% of the total cost of the current program (excluding overheads), with call-and-recall being associated with the greatest savings.
CONCLUSIONS: Lengthening the recommended screening interval to 3 years in Australia is not predicted to result in increases in rates of cervical cancer and is predicted to decrease the number of women undergoing diagnostic and treatment procedures. These findings are consistent with a large body of international evidence showing that screening more frequently than every three years with cervical cytology does not result in substantial gains in screening effectiveness.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21110881      PMCID: PMC3001736          DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-10-734

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMC Public Health        ISSN: 1471-2458            Impact factor:   3.295


  14 in total

1.  Cervical cancer in Australia and the United Kingdom: comparison of screening policy and uptake, and cancer incidence and mortality.

Authors:  Karen Canfell; Freddy Sitas; Valerie Beral
Journal:  Med J Aust       Date:  2006-11-06       Impact factor: 7.738

2.  Should the Pap smear be repeated at the first colposcopy visit?

Authors:  Grace Dolman; Jeffrey Tan; Michael Quinn
Journal:  Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 2.100

Review 3.  Obstetric outcomes after conservative treatment for intraepithelial or early invasive cervical lesions: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  M Kyrgiou; G Koliopoulos; P Martin-Hirsch; M Arbyn; W Prendiville; E Paraskevaidis
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2006-02-11       Impact factor: 79.321

4.  Screening for squamous cervical cancer: duration of low risk after negative results of cervical cytology and its implication for screening policies. IARC Working Group on evaluation of cervical cancer screening programmes.

Authors: 
Journal:  Br Med J (Clin Res Ed)       Date:  1986-09-13

5.  Quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccination and trends in genital warts in Australia: analysis of national sentinel surveillance data.

Authors:  Basil Donovan; Neil Franklin; Rebecca Guy; Andrew E Grulich; David G Regan; Hammad Ali; Handan Wand; Christopher K Fairley
Journal:  Lancet Infect Dis       Date:  2010-11-08       Impact factor: 25.071

6.  High-grade cervical abnormalities and screening intervals in New South Wales, Australia.

Authors:  Suzanne Schindeler; Stephen Morrell; Yeqin Zuo; Deborah Baker
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 2.136

7.  The predicted impact of vaccination on human papillomavirus infections in Australia.

Authors:  Megan A Smith; Karen Canfell; Julia M L Brotherton; Jie-Bin Lew; Ruanne V Barnabas
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2008-10-15       Impact factor: 7.396

Review 8.  Perinatal mortality and other severe adverse pregnancy outcomes associated with treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: meta-analysis.

Authors:  M Arbyn; M Kyrgiou; C Simoens; A O Raifu; G Koliopoulos; P Martin-Hirsch; W Prendiville; E Paraskevaidis
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2008-09-18

9.  Benefit of cervical screening at different ages: evidence from the UK audit of screening histories.

Authors:  P Sasieni; J Adams; J Cuzick
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2003-07-07       Impact factor: 7.640

10.  The predicted effect of changes in cervical screening practice in the UK: results from a modelling study.

Authors:  K Canfell; R Barnabas; J Patnick; V Beral
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2004-08-02       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  12 in total

Review 1.  Eurogin Roadmap 2015: How has HPV knowledge changed our practice: Vaccines.

Authors:  Julia M L Brotherton; Mark Jit; Patti E Gravitt; Marc Brisson; Aimée R Kreimer; Sara I Pai; Carole Fakhry; Joseph Monsonego; Silvia Franceschi
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2016-03-22       Impact factor: 7.396

Review 2.  Modeling preventative strategies against human papillomavirus-related disease in developed countries.

Authors:  Karen Canfell; Harrell Chesson; Shalini L Kulasingam; Johannes Berkhof; Mireia Diaz; Jane J Kim
Journal:  Vaccine       Date:  2012-11-20       Impact factor: 3.641

3.  Quality of screening with conventional Pap smear in Austria - a longitudinal evaluation.

Authors:  Éva Rásky; Peter Regitnig; Michél Schenouda; Nathalie Burkert; Wolfgang Freidl
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2013-10-23       Impact factor: 3.295

4.  Cost effectiveness of human papillomavirus-16/18 genotyping in cervical cancer screening.

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

5.  Optimal Management Strategies for Primary HPV Testing for Cervical Screening: Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation for the National Cervical Screening Program in Australia.

Authors:  Kate T Simms; Michaela Hall; Megan A Smith; Jie-Bin Lew; Suzanne Hughes; Susan Yuill; Ian Hammond; Marion Saville; Karen Canfell
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-01-17       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Projected future impact of HPV vaccination and primary HPV screening on cervical cancer rates from 2017-2035: Example from Australia.

Authors:  Michaela T Hall; Kate T Simms; Jie-Bin Lew; Megan A Smith; Marion Saville; Karen Canfell
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-02-14       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Cost effectiveness of human papillomavirus test of cure after treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in England: economic analysis from NHS Sentinel Sites Study.

Authors:  Rosa Legood; Megan Smith; Jie-Bin Lew; Robert Walker; Sue Moss; Henry Kitchener; Julietta Patnick; Karen Canfell
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2012-10-31

8.  Expenditure and resource utilisation for cervical screening in Australia.

Authors:  Jie-Bin Lew; Kirsten Howard; Dorota Gertig; Megan Smith; Mark Clements; Carolyn Nickson; Ju-Fang Shi; Suzanne Dyer; Sarah Lord; Prudence Creighton; Yoon-Jung Kang; Jeffrey Tan; Karen Canfell
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2012-12-05       Impact factor: 2.655

9.  Effectiveness Modelling and Economic Evaluation of Primary HPV Screening for Cervical Cancer Prevention in New Zealand.

Authors:  Jie-Bin Lew; Kate Simms; Megan Smith; Hazel Lewis; Harold Neal; Karen Canfell
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-05-17       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Transitioning from cytology-based screening to HPV-based screening at longer intervals: implications for resource use.

Authors:  Megan A Smith; Dorota Gertig; Michaela Hall; Kate Simms; Jie-Bin Lew; Michael Malloy; Marion Saville; Karen Canfell
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2016-04-26       Impact factor: 2.655

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.