Literature DB >> 24615416

The value of improving failures within a cervical cancer screening program: an example from Norway.

Emily A Burger1, Jane J Kim.   

Abstract

Failures in cervical cancer (CC) screening include nonparticipation, underscreening and loss to follow-up of abnormal results. We estimated the long-term health benefits from and maximum investments in interventions targeted to improving compliance to guidelines while remaining cost-effective. We used a mathematical model empirically calibrated to simulate the natural history of CC in Norway. A baseline scenario reflecting current practice using cytology-based screening was compared to scenarios that target different sources of noncompliance: (i) failure to follow-up women with abnormal results, (ii) screening less frequently than recommended (i.e., underscreening) and (iii) absence of screening. A secondary analysis included human papillomavirus (HPV)-based screening as the primary test. Model outcomes included reductions in lifetime cancer risk and incremental net monetary benefit (INMB) resulting from improvements with compliance. Compared to the status quo, improving all sources of noncompliance leads to important health gains and produced positive INMBs across a range of developed-country willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds. For example, a 2% increase in compliance could reduce lifetime cancer risk by 1-3%, depending on the targeted source of noncompliance and primary screening method. Assuming a WTP threshold of $83,000 per year of life saved and cytology-based screening, interventions that increase follow-up of abnormal results yielded the highest INMB per 2% increase in coverage [$19 ($10-21)]. With HPV-based screening, recruiting nonscreeners resulted in the largest INMB [$23 ($18-32)]. Considerable funds could be allocated toward policies that improve compliance with screening under the current cytology-based program or toward adoption of primary HPV-based screening while remaining cost-effective.
© 2014 UICC.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Pap smear; cervical cancer; compliance; cost-effectiveness; human papillomavirus; mass screening

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24615416      PMCID: PMC4126887          DOI: 10.1002/ijc.28838

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Cancer        ISSN: 0020-7136            Impact factor:   7.396


  24 in total

1.  Human papillomavirus E6/E7 mRNA expression in women younger than 30 years of age.

Authors:  T Molden; I Kraus; F Karlsen; H Skomedal; B Hagmar
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2005-09-08       Impact factor: 5.482

2.  How much does a reminder letter increase cervical screening among under-screened women in NSW?

Authors:  Stephen Morrell; Richard Taylor; Sue Zeckendorf; Amanda Niciak; Gerard Wain; Jayne Ross
Journal:  Aust N Z J Public Health       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 2.939

3.  Cervical-cancer screening: attendance and cost-effectiveness.

Authors:  M A Koopmanschap; G J van Oortmarssen; H M van Agt; M van Ballegooijen; J D Habbema; K T Lubbe
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  1990-03-15       Impact factor: 7.396

4.  Screening histories of women with CIN 2/3 compared with women diagnosed with invasive cervical cancer: a retrospective analysis of the Norwegian Coordinated Cervical Cancer Screening Program.

Authors:  Jan F Nygård; Mari Nygård; Gry B Skare; Steinar Ø Thoresen
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 2.506

5.  Comparison of human papillomavirus messenger RNA and DNA detection: a cross-sectional study of 4,136 women >30 years of age with a 2-year follow-up of high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion.

Authors:  Tor Molden; Irene Kraus; Frank Karlsen; Hanne Skomedal; Jan F Nygård; Bjørn Hagmar
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 4.254

6.  Mortality of non-participants in cervical screening: Register-based cohort study.

Authors:  Pierre-Antoine Dugué; Elsebeth Lynge; Matejka Rebolj
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2013-11-29       Impact factor: 7.396

7.  Screening-preventable cervical cancer risks: evidence from a nationwide audit in Sweden.

Authors:  Bengt Andrae; Levent Kemetli; Pär Sparén; Lena Silfverdal; Björn Strander; Walter Ryd; Joakim Dillner; Sven Törnberg
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2008-04-29       Impact factor: 13.506

8.  Cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening with human papillomavirus DNA testing and HPV-16,18 vaccination.

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

9.  Multiparameter calibration of a natural history model of cervical cancer.

Authors:  Jane J Kim; Karen M Kuntz; Natasha K Stout; Salaheddin Mahmud; Luisa L Villa; Eduardo L Franco; Sue J Goldie
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2007-05-25       Impact factor: 4.897

10.  Promoting participation in a population screening program for breast and cervical cancer: a randomized trial of different invitation strategies.

Authors:  N Segnan; C Senore; L Giordano; A Ponti; G Ronco
Journal:  Tumori       Date:  1998 May-Jun
View more
  6 in total

1.  Impact of GP reminders on follow-up of abnormal cervical cytology: a before-after study in Danish general practice.

Authors:  Bettina Kjær Kristiansen; Berit Andersen; Flemming Bro; Hans Svanholm; Peter Vedsted
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2017-07-17       Impact factor: 5.386

2.  Inefficiencies and High-Value Improvements in U.S. Cervical Cancer Screening Practice: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

Authors:  Jane J Kim; Nicole G Campos; Stephen Sy; Emily A Burger; Jack Cuzick; Philip E Castle; William C Hunt; Alan Waxman; Cosette M Wheeler
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2015-09-29       Impact factor: 25.391

3.  Worldwide initiatives to eliminate cervical cancer.

Authors:  Sarikapan Wilailak; Malika Kengsakul; Sean Kehoe
Journal:  Int J Gynaecol Obstet       Date:  2021-10       Impact factor: 4.447

4.  Estimating the value of point-of-care HPV testing in three low- and middle-income countries: a modeling study.

Authors:  Nicole G Campos; Vivien Tsu; Jose Jeronimo; Mercy Mvundura; Jane J Kim
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2017-11-25       Impact factor: 4.430

5.  The costs of offering HPV-testing on self-taken samples to non-attendees of cervical screening in Finland.

Authors:  Anni Virtanen; Ahti Anttila; Pekka Nieminen
Journal:  BMC Womens Health       Date:  2015-11-05       Impact factor: 2.809

6.  Organised screening for cervical cancer in France: a cost-effectiveness assessment.

Authors:  Stéphanie Barré; Marc Massetti; Henri Leleu; Frédéric De Bels
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2017-10-06       Impact factor: 2.692

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.