Jane J Kim1, Emily A Burger1,2, Stephen Sy1, Nicole G Campos1. 1. Center for Health Decision Science, Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. 2. Department of Health Management and Health Economics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Abstract
Background: Current US cervical cancer screening guidelines do not differentiate recommendations based on a woman's human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination status. Changes to cervical cancer screening policies in HPV-vaccinated women should be evaluated. Methods: We utilized an individual-based mathematical model of HPV and cervical cancer in US women to project the health benefits, costs, and harms associated with screening strategies in women vaccinated with the bivalent, quadrivalent, or nonavalent vaccine. Strategies varied by the primary screening test, including cytology, HPV, and combined cytology and HPV "cotesting"; age of screening initiation and/or switching to a new test; and interval between routine screens. Cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from the societal perspective to identify screening strategies that would be considered good value for money according to thresholds of $50 000 to $200 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Results: Among women fully vaccinated with the bivalent or quadrivalent vaccine, optimal screening strategies involved either cytology or HPV testing alone every five years starting at age 25 or 30 years, with cost-effectiveness ratios ranging from $34 680 to $138 560 per QALY gained. Screening earlier or more frequently was either not cost-effective or associated with exceedingly high cost-effectiveness ratios. In women vaccinated with the nonavalent vaccine, only primary HPV testing was efficient, involving decreased frequency (ie, every 10 years) starting at either age 35 years ($40 210 per QALY) or age 30 years ($127 010 per QALY); with lower nonavalent vaccine efficacy, 10-year HPV testing starting at earlier ages of 25 or 30 years was optimal. Importantly, current US guidelines for screening were inefficient in HPV-vaccinated women. Conclusions: This model-based analysis suggests screening can be modified to start at later ages, occur at decreased frequency, and involve primary HPV testing in HPV-vaccinated women, providing more health benefit at lower harms and costs than current screening guidelines.
Background: Current US cervical cancer screening guidelines do not differentiate recommendations based on a woman's human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination status. Changes to cervical cancer screening policies in HPV-vaccinated women should be evaluated. Methods: We utilized an individual-based mathematical model of HPV and cervical cancer in US women to project the health benefits, costs, and harms associated with screening strategies in women vaccinated with the bivalent, quadrivalent, or nonavalent vaccine. Strategies varied by the primary screening test, including cytology, HPV, and combined cytology and HPV "cotesting"; age of screening initiation and/or switching to a new test; and interval between routine screens. Cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from the societal perspective to identify screening strategies that would be considered good value for money according to thresholds of $50 000 to $200 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Results: Among women fully vaccinated with the bivalent or quadrivalent vaccine, optimal screening strategies involved either cytology or HPV testing alone every five years starting at age 25 or 30 years, with cost-effectiveness ratios ranging from $34 680 to $138 560 per QALY gained. Screening earlier or more frequently was either not cost-effective or associated with exceedingly high cost-effectiveness ratios. In women vaccinated with the nonavalent vaccine, only primary HPV testing was efficient, involving decreased frequency (ie, every 10 years) starting at either age 35 years ($40 210 per QALY) or age 30 years ($127 010 per QALY); with lower nonavalent vaccine efficacy, 10-year HPV testing starting at earlier ages of 25 or 30 years was optimal. Importantly, current US guidelines for screening were inefficient in HPV-vaccinated women. Conclusions: This model-based analysis suggests screening can be modified to start at later ages, occur at decreased frequency, and involve primary HPV testing in HPV-vaccinated women, providing more health benefit at lower harms and costs than current screening guidelines.
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: Debbie Saslow; Diane Solomon; Herschel W Lawson; Maureen Killackey; Shalini L Kulasingam; Joanna Cain; Francisco A R Garcia; Ann T Moriarty; Alan G Waxman; David C Wilbur; Nicolas Wentzensen; Levi S Downs; Mark Spitzer; Anna-Barbara Moscicki; Eduardo L Franco; Mark H Stoler; Mark Schiffman; Philip E Castle; Evan R Myers Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2012-03-14 Impact factor: 508.702
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: Elmar A Joura; Anna R Giuliano; Ole-Erik Iversen; Celine Bouchard; Constance Mao; Jesper Mehlsen; Edson D Moreira; Yuen Ngan; Lone Kjeld Petersen; Eduardo Lazcano-Ponce; Punnee Pitisuttithum; Jaime Alberto Restrepo; Gavin Stuart; Linn Woelber; Yuh Cheng Yang; Jack Cuzick; Suzanne M Garland; Warner Huh; Susanne K Kjaer; Oliver M Bautista; Ivan S F Chan; Joshua Chen; Richard Gesser; Erin Moeller; Michael Ritter; Scott Vuocolo; Alain Luxembourg Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-02-19 Impact factor: 91.245
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
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
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
Authors: Sarah Reagan-Steiner; David Yankey; Jenny Jeyarajah; Laurie D Elam-Evans; James A Singleton; C Robinette Curtis; Jessica MacNeil; Lauri E Markowitz; Shannon Stokley Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2015-07-31 Impact factor: 17.586
Authors: Mark Schiffman; Walter K Kinney; Li C Cheung; Julia C Gage; Barbara Fetterman; Nancy E Poitras; Thomas S Lorey; Nicolas Wentzensen; Brian Befano; John Schussler; Hormuzd A Katki; Philip E Castle Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2018-05-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Kate T Simms; Susan Yuill; James Killen; Megan A Smith; Shalini Kulasingam; Inge M C M de Kok; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Emily A Burger; Catherine Regan; Jane J Kim; Karen Canfell Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2020-07-26 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Emi Naslazi; Jan A C Hontelez; Steffie K Naber; Marjolein van Ballegooijen; Inge M C M de Kok Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2021-04-09 Impact factor: 4.090
Authors: Emily A Burger; Megan A Smith; James Killen; Stephen Sy; Kate T Simms; Karen Canfell; Jane J Kim Journal: Lancet Public Health Date: 2020-02-10