Xian Wen Jin1, Laura Lipold2, Julie Foucher3, Andrea Sikon4, Jennifer Brainard5, Jerome Belinson6, Sarah Schramm7, Kelly Nottingham7,8, Bo Hu9, Michael B Rothberg4,7. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA. jinx@ccf.org. 2. Department of Family Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA. 3. Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA. 4. Department of Internal Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA. 5. Department of Pathology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA. 6. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA. 7. Medicine Institute Center for Value Based Care Research, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA. 8. Heritage College of Osteopathic Medicine, Ohio University, Athens, OH, USA. 9. Department of Quantitative Health Science, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer screening guidelines for women aged ≥30 years allow for co-testing or primary cytology testing. Our objective was to determine the test characteristics and costs associated with Cytology, HPV and Co-testing screening strategies. MAIN METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of women undergoing cervical cancer screening with both cytology and HPV (Hybrid Capture 2) testing from 2004 to 2010 in an integrated health system. The electronic health record was used to identify women aged ≥30 years who had co-testing. Unsatisfactory or unavailable test results and incorrectly ordered tests were excluded. The main outcome was biopsy-proven cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or higher (CIN3+). KEY RESULTS: The final cohort consisted of 99,549 women. Subjects were mostly white (78.4 %), married (70.7 %), never smokers (61.3 %) and with private insurance (86.1 %). Overall, 5121 (5.1 %) tested positive for HPV and 6115 (6.1 %) had cytology ≥ ASCUS; 1681 had both and underwent colposcopy and 310 (0.3 %) had CIN3+. Sensitivity for CIN3+ was 91.9 % for Primary Cytology, 99.4 % for Co-testing, and 94.8 % for Primary HPV; specificity was 97.3 % for Co-testing and Primary Cytology and 97.9 % for Primary HPV. Over a 3-year screening interval, Primary HPV detected more cases of CIN3+ and was less expensive than Primary Cytology. Co-testing detected 14 more cases of CIN3+ than Primary HPV, but required an additional 100,277 cytology tests and 566 colposcopies at an added cost of $2.38 million, or $170,096 per additional case detected. CONCLUSIONS: Primary HPV was more effective and less expensive than Primary Cytology. Primary HPV screening appears to represent a cost-effective alternative to Co-testing.
BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer screening guidelines for women aged ≥30 years allow for co-testing or primary cytology testing. Our objective was to determine the test characteristics and costs associated with Cytology, HPV and Co-testing screening strategies. MAIN METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of women undergoing cervical cancer screening with both cytology and HPV (Hybrid Capture 2) testing from 2004 to 2010 in an integrated health system. The electronic health record was used to identify women aged ≥30 years who had co-testing. Unsatisfactory or unavailable test results and incorrectly ordered tests were excluded. The main outcome was biopsy-proven cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or higher (CIN3+). KEY RESULTS: The final cohort consisted of 99,549 women. Subjects were mostly white (78.4 %), married (70.7 %), never smokers (61.3 %) and with private insurance (86.1 %). Overall, 5121 (5.1 %) tested positive for HPV and 6115 (6.1 %) had cytology ≥ ASCUS; 1681 had both and underwent colposcopy and 310 (0.3 %) had CIN3+. Sensitivity for CIN3+ was 91.9 % for Primary Cytology, 99.4 % for Co-testing, and 94.8 % for Primary HPV; specificity was 97.3 % for Co-testing and Primary Cytology and 97.9 % for Primary HPV. Over a 3-year screening interval, Primary HPV detected more cases of CIN3+ and was less expensive than Primary Cytology. Co-testing detected 14 more cases of CIN3+ than Primary HPV, but required an additional 100,277 cytology tests and 566 colposcopies at an added cost of $2.38 million, or $170,096 per additional case detected. CONCLUSIONS:Primary HPV was more effective and less expensive than Primary Cytology. Primary HPV screening appears to represent a cost-effective alternative to Co-testing.
Authors: Evelyn P Whitlock; Kimberly K Vesco; Michelle Eder; Jennifer S Lin; Caitlyn A Senger; Brittany U Burda Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2011-10-17 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Thomas C Wright; Mark H Stoler; Abha Sharma; Guili Zhang; Catherine Behrens; Teresa L Wright Journal: Am J Clin Pathol Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 2.493
Authors: Warner K Huh; Kevin A Ault; David Chelmow; Diane D Davey; Robert A Goulart; Francisco A R Garcia; Walter K Kinney; L Stewart Massad; Edward J Mayeaux; Debbie Saslow; Mark Schiffman; Nicolas Wentzensen; Herschel W Lawson; Mark H Einstein Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2015-01-08 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Jeanne S Mandelblatt; William F Lawrence; Sharita Mizell Womack; Denise Jacobson; Bin Yi; Yi-ting Hwang; Karen Gold; James Barter; Keerti Shah Journal: JAMA Date: 2002-05-08 Impact factor: 56.272
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: J Thomas Cox; Phillip E Castle; Catherine M Behrens; Abha Sharma; Thomas C Wright; Jack Cuzick Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2012-11-19 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Inge M C M de Kok; Joost van Rosmalen; Joakim Dillner; Marc Arbyn; Peter Sasieni; Thomas Iftner; Marjolein van Ballegooijen Journal: BMJ Date: 2012-03-05
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: Douglas P Malinowski; Molly Broache; Laurence Vaughan; Jeff Andrews; Devin Gary; Harvey W Kaufman; Damian P Alagia; Zhen Chen; Agnieszka Onisko; R Marshall Austin Journal: Am J Clin Pathol Date: 2021-01-04 Impact factor: 2.493
Authors: Katrina Perehudoff; Heleen Vermandere; Alex Williams; Sergio Bautista-Arredondo; Elien De Paepe; Sonia Dias; Ana Gama; Ines Keygnaert; Adhemar Longatto-Filho; Jose Ortiz; Elizaveta Padalko; Rui Manuel Reis; Nathalie Vanderheijden; Bernardo Vega; Bo Verberckmoes; Olivier Degomme Journal: BMC Int Health Hum Rights Date: 2020-07-31