BACKGROUND: In Canada, discussion about changing from cytology to human papillomavirus (hpv) dna testing for primary screening in cervical cancer is ongoing. However, the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care has not yet made a recommendation, concluding that the evidence is insufficient. METHODS: We used the cervical cancer and hpv transmission models of the Cancer Risk Management Model to study the health and economic outcomes of primary cytology compared with hpv dna testing in 14 screening scenarios with varying screening modalities and intervals. Projected cervical cancer cases, deaths, colposcopies, screens, costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness were evaluated. We performed sensitivity analyses for hpv dna test costs. RESULTS: Compared with triennial cytology from age 25, 5-yearly hpv dna screening alone from age 30 resulted in equivalent incident cases and deaths, but 55% (82,000) fewer colposcopies and 43% (1,195,000) fewer screens. At hpv dna screening intervals of 3 years, whether alone or in an age-based sequence with cytology, screening costs are greater, but at intervals of more than 5 years, they are lower. Scenarios on the cost-effectiveness frontier were hpv dna testing alone every 10, 7.5, 5, or 3 years, and triennial cytology starting at age 21 or 25 when combined with hpv dna testing every 3 years. CONCLUSIONS: Changing from cytology to hpv dna testing as the primary screening test for cervical cancer would be an acceptable strategy in Canada with respect to incidence, mortality, screening and diagnostic test volumes.
BACKGROUND: In Canada, discussion about changing from cytology to human papillomavirus (hpv) dna testing for primary screening in cervical cancer is ongoing. However, the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care has not yet made a recommendation, concluding that the evidence is insufficient. METHODS: We used the cervical cancer and hpv transmission models of the Cancer Risk Management Model to study the health and economic outcomes of primary cytology compared with hpv dna testing in 14 screening scenarios with varying screening modalities and intervals. Projected cervical cancer cases, deaths, colposcopies, screens, costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness were evaluated. We performed sensitivity analyses for hpv dna test costs. RESULTS: Compared with triennial cytology from age 25, 5-yearly hpv dna screening alone from age 30 resulted in equivalent incident cases and deaths, but 55% (82,000) fewer colposcopies and 43% (1,195,000) fewer screens. At hpv dna screening intervals of 3 years, whether alone or in an age-based sequence with cytology, screening costs are greater, but at intervals of more than 5 years, they are lower. Scenarios on the cost-effectiveness frontier were hpv dna testing alone every 10, 7.5, 5, or 3 years, and triennial cytology starting at age 21 or 25 when combined with hpv dna testing every 3 years. CONCLUSIONS: Changing from cytology to hpv dna testing as the primary screening test for cervical cancer would be an acceptable strategy in Canada with respect to incidence, mortality, screening and diagnostic test volumes.
Entities:
Keywords:
Canada; Human papillomavirus; cervical cancer; cytology; hpvdna; modelling; screening
Authors: Andrew J Coldman; Norm Phillips; Dirk van Niekerk; Laurie Smith; Mel Krajden; Darrel Cook; David J Quinlan; Thomas Ehlen; Dianne Miller; Gavin C E Stuart; Stuart Peacock; Ruth Elwood Martin; Eduardo L Franco; Gina Ogilvie Journal: J Obstet Gynaecol Can Date: 2015-05
Authors: James Dickinson; Eva Tsakonas; Sarah Conner Gorber; Gabriela Lewin; Elizabeth Shaw; Harminder Singh; Michel Joffres; Richard Birtwhistle; Marcello Tonelli; Verna Mai; Meg McLachlin Journal: CMAJ Date: 2013-01-07 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Johannes Berkhof; Veerle M Coupé; Johannes A Bogaards; Folkert J van Kemenade; Theo J Helmerhorst; Peter J Snijders; Chris J Meijer Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2010-11-01 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Julia M L Brotherton; Masha Fridman; Cathryn L May; Genevieve Chappell; A Marion Saville; Dorota M Gertig Journal: Lancet Date: 2011-06-18 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: James A Dickinson; Agata Stankiewicz; Cathy Popadiuk; Lisa Pogany; Jay Onysko; Anthony B Miller Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2012-11-16 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: C L Gauvreau; N R Fitzgerald; S Memon; W M Flanagan; C Nadeau; K Asakawa; R Garner; A B Miller; W K Evans; C M Popadiuk; M Wolfson; A J Coldman Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2017-12-20 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Hans Krueger; Sylvia Robinson; Trevor Hancock; Richard Birtwhistle; Jane A Buxton; Bonnie Henry; Jennifer Scarr; John J Spinelli Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2022-04-26 Impact factor: 2.908
Authors: Joy Pader; Yibing Ruan; Abbey E Poirier; Keiko Asakawa; Chaohui Lu; Saima Memon; Anthony Miller; Stephen Walter; Paul J Villeneuve; Will D King; Karena D Volesky; Leah Smith; Prithwish De; Christine M Friedenreich; Darren R Brenner Journal: Can J Public Health Date: 2021-05-25
Authors: Jean H E Yong; Claude Nadeau; William M Flanagan; Andrew J Coldman; Keiko Asakawa; Rochelle Garner; Natalie Fitzgerald; Martin J Yaffe; Anthony B Miller Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2022-03-03 Impact factor: 3.677