PURPOSE:Cervical cancer screening with liquid-based cytology (LBC) has been developed as an alternative to the conventional Papanicolaou (CP) smear. Cost-effectiveness is one of the issues when evaluating LBC. Based on the results of a Dutch randomised controlled trial, we conducted cost-effectiveness threshold analyses to investigate under what circumstances manually screened ThinPrep LBC is cost-effective for screening. METHODS: The MISCAN-Cervix microsimulation model and data from the Dutch NETHCON trial (including 89,784 women) were used to estimate the costs and (quality-adjusted) life years ((QA)LYs) gained for EU screening schedules, varying cost-effectiveness threshold values. Screening strategies were primary cytological screening with LBC or CP, and triage with human papillomavirus (HPV) testing. RESULTS: Threshold analyses showed that screening with LBC as a primary test can be cost-effective if LBC is less than <euro>3.2 more costly per test than CP, if the sensitivity of LBC is at least 3-5 % points higher than CP, if the quality of life for women in triage follow-up is only 0.39, or if the rate of inadequate CP smears is at least 16.2 %. CONCLUSIONS: Regarding test characteristics and costs of LBC and CP, only under certain conditions will a change from CP to manually screened ThinPrep LBC be cost-effective. If none of these conditions are met, implementation of manually screened ThinPrep LBC seems warranted only if there are advantages other than cost-effectiveness. Further research is needed to establish whether other LBC systems will be more favorable with regard to cost-effectiveness.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Cervical cancer screening with liquid-based cytology (LBC) has been developed as an alternative to the conventional Papanicolaou (CP) smear. Cost-effectiveness is one of the issues when evaluating LBC. Based on the results of a Dutch randomised controlled trial, we conducted cost-effectiveness threshold analyses to investigate under what circumstances manually screened ThinPrep LBC is cost-effective for screening. METHODS: The MISCAN-Cervix microsimulation model and data from the Dutch NETHCON trial (including 89,784 women) were used to estimate the costs and (quality-adjusted) life years ((QA)LYs) gained for EU screening schedules, varying cost-effectiveness threshold values. Screening strategies were primary cytological screening with LBC or CP, and triage with human papillomavirus (HPV) testing. RESULTS: Threshold analyses showed that screening with LBC as a primary test can be cost-effective if LBC is less than <euro>3.2 more costly per test than CP, if the sensitivity of LBC is at least 3-5 % points higher than CP, if the quality of life for women in triage follow-up is only 0.39, or if the rate of inadequate CP smears is at least 16.2 %. CONCLUSIONS: Regarding test characteristics and costs of LBC and CP, only under certain conditions will a change from CP to manually screened ThinPrep LBC be cost-effective. If none of these conditions are met, implementation of manually screened ThinPrep LBC seems warranted only if there are advantages other than cost-effectiveness. Further research is needed to establish whether other LBC systems will be more favorable with regard to cost-effectiveness.
Authors: Lucy Wanja Karani; Stanslaus Musyoki; Robert Orina; Anthony Kebira Nyamache; Christopher Khayeka-Wandabwa; Benuel Nyagaka Journal: Pan Afr Med J Date: 2020-03-10