Literature DB >> 27624639

The Cost-Effectiveness of Cervical Self-Sampling to Improve Routine Cervical Cancer Screening: The Importance of Respondent Screening History and Compliance.

Emily A Burger1,2, Stephen Sy3, Mari Nygård4, Jane J Kim3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing allows women to self-collect cervico-vaginal cells at home (i.e., self-sampling). Using primary data from a randomized pilot study, we evaluated the long-term consequences and cost-effectiveness of using self-sampling to improve participation to routine cervical cancer screening in Norway.
METHODS: We compared a strategy reflecting screening participation (using reminder letters) to strategies that involved mailing self-sampling device kits to women noncompliant to screening within a 5- or 10-year period under two scenarios: (A) self-sampling respondents had moderate under-screening histories, or (B) respondents to self-sampling had moderate and severe under-screening histories. Model outcomes included quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) and lifetime costs. The "most cost-effective" strategy was identified as the strategy just below $100,000 per QALY gained.
RESULTS: Mailing self-sampling device kits to all women noncompliant to screening within a 5- or 10-year period can be more effective and less costly than the current reminder letter policy; however, the optimal self-sampling strategy was dependent on the profile of self-sampling respondents. For example, "10-yearly self-sampling" is preferred ($95,500 per QALY gained) if "5-yearly self-sampling" could only attract moderate under-screeners; however, "5-yearly self-sampling" is preferred if this strategy could additionally attract severe under-screeners.
CONCLUSIONS: Targeted self-sampling of noncompliers likely represents good value-for-money; however, the preferred strategy is contingent on the screening histories and compliance of respondents. IMPACT: The magnitude of the health benefit and optimal self-sampling strategy is dependent on the profile and behavior of respondents. Health authorities should understand these factors prior to selecting and implementing a self-sampling policy. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 26(1); 95-103. ©2016 AACR. ©2016 American Association for Cancer Research.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27624639      PMCID: PMC5225039          DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-16-0350

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev        ISSN: 1055-9965            Impact factor:   4.254


  11 in total

Review 1.  Reaching women who do not participate in the regular cervical cancer screening programme by offering self-sampling kits: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials.

Authors:  F Verdoodt; M Jentschke; P Hillemanns; C S Racey; P J F Snijders; M Arbyn
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2015-08-18       Impact factor: 9.162

2.  Increasing participation in cervical cancer screening: offering a HPV self-test to long-term non-attendees as part of RACOMIP, a Swedish randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Gudrun Broberg; Dorte Gyrd-Hansen; Junmei Miao Jonasson; Mare-Liis Ryd; Mikael Holtenman; Ian Milsom; Björn Strander
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2013-10-31       Impact factor: 7.396

3.  Human papillomavirus transmission and cost-effectiveness of introducing quadrivalent HPV vaccination in Denmark.

Authors:  Jens Olsen; Martin Rudbeck Jepsen
Journal:  Int J Technol Assess Health Care       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 2.188

4.  Offering Self-Sampling to Non-Attendees of Organized Primary HPV Screening: When Do Harms Outweigh the Benefits?

Authors:  Kirsten Rozemeijer; Inge M C M de Kok; Steffie K Naber; Folkert J van Kemenade; Corine Penning; Joost van Rosmalen; Marjolein van Ballegooijen
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2014-11-28       Impact factor: 4.254

Review 5.  High-risk HPV testing on self-sampled versus clinician-collected specimens: a review on the clinical accuracy and impact on population attendance in cervical cancer screening.

Authors:  Peter J F Snijders; Viola M J Verhoef; Marc Arbyn; Gina Ogilvie; Silvia Minozzi; Rita Banzi; Folkert J van Kemenade; Daniëlle A M Heideman; Chris J L M Meijer
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2012-09-14       Impact factor: 7.396

6.  Trends of cervical cancer mortality in the member states of the European Union.

Authors:  Marc Arbyn; Amidu O Raifu; Elisabete Weiderpass; Freddie Bray; Ahti Anttila
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2009-08-18       Impact factor: 9.162

7.  An updated natural history model of cervical cancer: derivation of model parameters.

Authors:  Nicole G Campos; Emily A Burger; Stephen Sy; Monisha Sharma; Mark Schiffman; Ana Cecilia Rodriguez; Allan Hildesheim; Rolando Herrero; Jane J Kim
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2014-07-31       Impact factor: 4.897

8.  Cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening with primary human papillomavirus testing in Norway.

Authors:  E A Burger; J D Ortendahl; S Sy; I S Kristiansen; J J Kim
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2012-03-22       Impact factor: 7.640

Review 9.  Systematic review of model-based cervical screening evaluations.

Authors:  Diana Mendes; Iren Bains; Tazio Vanni; Mark Jit
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2015-05-01       Impact factor: 4.430

10.  Self-Sampling for Human Papillomavirus Testing among Non-Attenders Increases Attendance to the Norwegian Cervical Cancer Screening Programme.

Authors:  Espen Enerly; Jesper Bonde; Kristina Schee; Helle Pedersen; Stefan Lönnberg; Mari Nygård
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-04-13       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  5 in total

1.  Cost-effectiveness studies of HPV self-sampling: A systematic review.

Authors:  Colin Malone; Ruanne V Barnabas; Diana S M Buist; Jasmin A Tiro; Rachel L Winer
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2020-01-03       Impact factor: 4.018

Review 2.  Interventions targeted at women to encourage the uptake of cervical screening.

Authors:  Helen Staley; Aslam Shiraz; Norman Shreeve; Andrew Bryant; Pierre Pl Martin-Hirsch; Ketankumar Gajjar
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2021-09-06

3.  Choosing wisely: a model-based analysis evaluating the trade-offs in cancer benefit and diagnostic referrals among alternative HPV testing strategies in Norway.

Authors:  Emily A Burger; Kine Pedersen; Stephen Sy; Ivar Sønbø Kristiansen; Jane J Kim
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2017-08-03       Impact factor: 7.640

4.  Randomised study shows that repeated self-sampling and HPV test has more than two-fold higher detection rate of women with CIN2+ histology than Pap smear cytology.

Authors:  Inger Gustavsson; Riina Aarnio; Malin Berggrund; Julia Hedlund-Lindberg; Ann-Sofi Strand; Karin Sanner; Ingrid Wikström; Stefan Enroth; Matts Olovsson; Ulf Gyllensten
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2018-02-13       Impact factor: 7.640

5.  Cost-effectiveness analysis of repeated self-sampling for HPV testing in primary cervical screening: a randomized study.

Authors:  Riina Aarnio; Ellinor Östensson; Matts Olovsson; Inger Gustavsson; Ulf Gyllensten
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2020-07-13       Impact factor: 4.430

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.