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. 1. Cancer Council NSW, Cancer Research Division, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 2. Cancer Council NSW, Cancer Research Division, Sydney, NSW, Australia; School of Public Health, Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 3. Department of Health, Cancer and Palliative Care Branch, Canberra, ACT, Australia. 4. Victorian Cytology Service, Carlton, VIC, Australia; Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 5. School of Women's and Infant's Health, University of Western Australia, Perth, WA, Australia. 6. Cancer Council NSW, Cancer Research Division, Sydney, NSW, Australia; School of Public Health, Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. Electronic address: Karen.Canfell@nswcc.org.au.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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