Literature DB >> 29253402

Primary HPV testing versus cytology-based cervical screening in women in Australia vaccinated for HPV and unvaccinated: effectiveness and economic assessment for the National Cervical Screening Program.

Jie-Bin Lew1, Kate T Simms1, Megan A Smith2, Michaela Hall1, Yoon-Jung Kang1, Xiang Ming Xu1, Michael Caruana1, Louiza Sofia Velentzis1, Tracey Bessell3, Marion Saville4, Ian Hammond5, Karen Canfell6.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Australia's National Cervical Screening Program currently recommends cytological screening every 2 years for women aged 18-69 years. Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination was implemented in 2007 with high population coverage, and falls in high-grade lesions in young women have been reported extensively. This decline prompted a major review of the National Cervical Screening Program and new clinical management guidelines, for which we undertook this analysis.
METHODS: We did effectiveness modelling and an economic assessment of potential new screening strategies, using a model of HPV transmission, vaccination, natural history, and cervical screening. First, we evaluated 132 screening strategies, including those based on cytology and primary HPV testing. Second, after a recommendation was made to adopt primary HPV screening with partial genotyping and direct referral to colposcopy of women positive for HPV16/18, we evaluated the final effect of HPV screening after incorporating new clinical guidelines for women positive for HPV. Both evaluations considered both unvaccinated and vaccinated cohorts.
FINDINGS: Strategies entailing HPV testing every 5 years and either partial genotyping for HPV16/18 or cytological co-testing were the most effective. One of the most effective and cost-effective strategies comprised primary HPV screening with referral of women positive for oncogenic HPV16/18 direct to colposcopy, with reflex cytological triage for women with other oncogenic types and direct referral for those in this group with high-grade cytological findings. After incorporating detailed clinical guidelines recommendations, this strategy is predicted to reduce cervical cancer incidence and mortality by 31% and 36%, respectively, in unvaccinated cohorts, and by 24% and 29%, respectively, in cohorts offered vaccination. Furthermore, this strategy is predicted to reduce costs by up to 19% for unvaccinated cohorts and 26% for cohorts offered vaccination, compared with the current programme.
INTERPRETATION: Primary HPV screening every 5 years with partial genotyping is predicted to be substantially more effective and potentially cost-saving compared with the current cytology-based screening programme undertaken every 2 years. These findings underpin the decision to transition to primary HPV screening with partial genotyping in the Australian National Cervical Screening Program, which will occur in May, 2017. FUNDING: Department of Health, Australia.
Copyright © 2017 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29253402     DOI: 10.1016/S2468-2667(17)30007-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Lancet Public Health


  40 in total

1.  Modeling the epidemiological impact and cost-effectiveness of a combined schoolgirl HPV vaccination and cervical cancer screening program among Chinese women.

Authors:  Xiaomeng Ma; Katherine Harripersaud; Kumi Smith; Christopher K Fairley; Huachun Zou; Zhuoru Zou; Yueyun Wang; Guihua Zhuang; Lei Zhang
Journal:  Hum Vaccin Immunother       Date:  2020-12-03       Impact factor: 3.452

2.  Starting cervical cancer screening at 25 years of age.

Authors:  Roni Y Kraut
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2019-07-15       Impact factor: 8.262

3.  Health-related quality of life in women after colposcopy: results from a longitudinal patient survey.

Authors:  M O'Connor; A Ó Céilleachair; K O'Brien; J O'Leary; C Martin; T D'Arcy; G Flannelly; J McRae; W Prendiville; C Ruttle; C White; L Pilkington; L Sharp
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2021-04-01       Impact factor: 4.147

4.  Performance of Cervical Screening a Decade Following HPV Vaccination: The Costa Rica Vaccine Trial.

Authors:  Shang-Ying Hu; Aimée R Kreimer; Carolina Porras; Diego Guillén; Mario Alfaro; Teresa M Darragh; Mark H Stoler; Luis F Villegas; Rebecca Ocampo; Ana Cecilia Rodriguez; Mark Schiffman; Sabrina H Tsang; Douglas R Lowy; John T Schiller; John Schussler; Wim Quint; Mitchell H Gail; Joshua N Sampson; Allan Hildesheim; Rolando Herrero
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2022-09-09       Impact factor: 11.816

5.  Laser-assisted rapid evaporative ionisation mass spectrometry (LA-REIMS) as a metabolomics platform in cervical cancer screening.

Authors:  Maria Paraskevaidi; Simon J S Cameron; Eilbhe Whelan; Sarah Bowden; Menelaos Tzafetas; Anita Mitra; Anita Semertzidou; Antonis Athanasiou; Phillip R Bennett; David A MacIntyre; Zoltan Takats; Maria Kyrgiou
Journal:  EBioMedicine       Date:  2020-09-25       Impact factor: 8.143

6.  Detection of 14 High-Risk Human Papillomaviruses Using Digital LAMP Assays on a Self-Digitization Chip.

Authors:  Jiasi Wang; Jeannette P Staheli; Andrew Wu; Jason E Kreutz; Qiongzheng Hu; Jingang Wang; Thomas Schneider; Bryant S Fujimoto; Yuling Qin; Gloria S Yen; Bob Weng; Kara Shibley; Halia Haynes; Rachel L Winer; Qinghua Feng; Daniel T Chiu
Journal:  Anal Chem       Date:  2021-02-03       Impact factor: 6.986

7.  Effect of introducing human papillomavirus genotyping into real-world screening on cervical cancer screening in China: a retrospective population-based cohort study.

Authors:  Binhua Dong; Huachun Zou; Xiaodan Mao; Yingying Su; Hangjing Gao; Fang Xie; Yuchun Lv; Yaojia Chen; Yafang Kang; Huifeng Xue; Diling Pan; Pengming Sun
Journal:  Ther Adv Med Oncol       Date:  2021-04-28       Impact factor: 8.168

Review 8.  Meta-analysis of downregulated E-cadherin as a diagnostic biomarker for cervical cancer.

Authors:  Xiaoxia Ma; An Ge; Jie Han; Jin Kang; Yating Zhang; Xiaohong Liu; Li Xing; Xiaochun Liu; Li Dong
Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet       Date:  2022-03-13       Impact factor: 2.344

9.  Impact of disruptions and recovery for established cervical screening programs across a range of high-income country program designs, using COVID-19 as an example: A modelled analysis.

Authors:  Megan A Smith; Emily A Burger; Alejandra Castanon; Inge M C M de Kok; Sharon J B Hanley; Matejka Rebolj; Michaela T Hall; Erik E L Jansen; James Killen; Xavier O'Farrell; Jane J Kim; Karen Canfell
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2021-05-23       Impact factor: 4.637

10.  Projected time to elimination of cervical cancer in the USA: a comparative modelling study.

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
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.