Literature DB >> 29335156

Adapting cervical cancer screening for women vaccinated against human papillomavirus infections: The value of stratifying guidelines.

Kine Pedersen1, Emily A Burger2, Mari Nygård3, Ivar S Kristiansen4, Jane J Kim5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Several countries have implemented vaccination against human papillomavirus (HPV) for adolescent girls and must decide whether and how to adapt cervical cancer (CC) screening for these low-risk women. We aimed to identify the optimal screening strategies for women vaccinated against HPV infections and quantify the amount that could be spent to identify vaccination status among women and stratify CC screening guidelines accordingly.
METHODS: We used a mathematical model reflecting HPV-induced CC in Norway to project the long-term health benefits, resources and costs associated with 74 candidate-screening strategies that varied by screening test, start age and frequency. Strategies were considered separately for women vaccinated with the bivalent/quadrivalent (2/4vHPV) and nonavalent (9vHPV) vaccines. We used a cost-effectiveness framework (i.e. incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and net monetary benefit) and a commonly-cited Norwegian willingness-to-pay threshold of €75,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained.
RESULTS: The most cost-effective screening strategy for 9vHPV- and 2/4vHPV-vaccinated women involved HPV testing once and twice per lifetime, respectively. The value of stratifying guidelines by vaccination status was €599 (2/4vHPV) and €725 (9vHPV) per vaccinated woman. Consequently, for the first birth cohort of ∼22,000 women who were vaccinated in adolescence in Norway, between €10.5-13.2 million over their lifetime could be spent on identifying individual vaccination status and stratify screening while remaining cost-effective.
CONCLUSION: Less intensive strategies are required for CC screening to remain cost-effective in HPV-vaccinated women. Moreover, screening can remain cost-effective even if large investments are made to identify individual vaccination status and stratify screening guidelines accordingly.
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cervical cancer; Cost-effectiveness analysis; Human papillomavirus; Mass screening; Mathematical model

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29335156      PMCID: PMC5803338          DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2017.12.018

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Cancer        ISSN: 0959-8049            Impact factor:   9.162


  15 in total

1.  A 9-valent HPV vaccine against infection and intraepithelial neoplasia in women.

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

2.  Optimal Cervical Cancer Screening in Women Vaccinated Against Human Papillomavirus.

Authors:  Jane J Kim; Emily A Burger; Stephen Sy; Nicole G Campos
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2016-10-18       Impact factor: 13.506

3.  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

Review 4.  Cross-protective efficacy of two human papillomavirus vaccines: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Talía Malagón; Mélanie Drolet; Marie-Claude Boily; Eduardo L Franco; Mark Jit; Jacques Brisson; Marc Brisson
Journal:  Lancet Infect Dis       Date:  2012-08-22       Impact factor: 25.071

5.  Will cervical screening remain cost-effective in women offered the next generation nonavalent HPV vaccine? Results for four developed countries.

Authors:  Kate T Simms; Megan A Smith; Jie-Bin Lew; Henry C Kitchener; Philip E Castle; Karen Canfell
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2016-12-15       Impact factor: 7.396

6.  Cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening with human papillomavirus DNA testing and HPV-16,18 vaccination.

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

7.  End-of-study safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of quadrivalent HPV (types 6, 11, 16, 18) recombinant vaccine in adult women 24-45 years of age.

Authors:  X Castellsagué; N Muñoz; P Pitisuttithum; D Ferris; J Monsonego; K Ault; J Luna; E Myers; S Mallary; O M Bautista; J Bryan; S Vuocolo; R M Haupt; A Saah
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2011-05-31       Impact factor: 7.640

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

9.  Sustained efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety of the HPV-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine: final analysis of a long-term follow-up study up to 9.4 years post-vaccination.

Authors:  Paulo S Naud; Cecilia M Roteli-Martins; Newton S De Carvalho; Julio C Teixeira; Paola C de Borba; Nervo Sanchez; Toufik Zahaf; Gregory Catteau; Brecht Geeraerts; Dominique Descamps
Journal:  Hum Vaccin Immunother       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 3.452

10.  Cervical Cancer Screening in Partly HPV Vaccinated Cohorts - A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

Authors:  Steffie K Naber; Suzette M Matthijsse; Kirsten Rozemeijer; Corine Penning; Inge M C M de Kok; Marjolein van Ballegooijen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-01-29       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  12 in total

1.  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

2.  The Differential Risk of Cervical Cancer in HPV-Vaccinated and -Unvaccinated Women: A Mathematical Modeling Study.

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

3.  Recent increase in incidence of cervical precancerous lesions in Norway: Nationwide study from 1992 to 2016.

Authors:  Madleen Orumaa; Maarit K Leinonen; Suzanne Campbell; Bjørn Møller; Tor Åge Myklebust; Mari Nygård
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2019-03-04       Impact factor: 7.396

4.  Bayesian analysis of baseline risk of CIN2 and ≥CIN3 by HPV genotype in a European referral cohort.

Authors:  Jesper Bonde; Fabio Bottari; Valentin Parvu; Helle Pedersen; Karen Yanson; Anna D Iacobone; Salma Kodsi; Fabio Landoni; Laurence Vaughan; Ditte M Ejegod; Maria T Sandri
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2019-04-30       Impact factor: 7.396

Review 5.  Cervical screening: ESGO-EFC position paper of the European Society of Gynaecologic Oncology (ESGO) and the European Federation of Colposcopy (EFC).

Authors:  Maria Kyrgiou; Marc Arbyn; Christine Bergeron; F Xavier Bosch; Joakim Dillner; Mark Jit; Jane Kim; Mario Poljak; Pekka Nieminen; Peter Sasieni; Vesna Kesic; Jack Cuzick; Murat Gultekin
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2020-06-08       Impact factor: 7.640

6.  Long-term effectiveness of the nine-valent human papillomavirus vaccine in Scandinavian women: interim analysis after 8 years of follow-up.

Authors:  Susanne K Kjaer; Mari Nygård; Karin Sundström; Christian Munk; Sophie Berger; Mensur Dzabic; Katrin Elisabeth Fridrich; Marianne Waldstrøm; Sveinung Wergeland Sørbye; Oliver Bautista; Thomas Group; Alain Luxembourg
Journal:  Hum Vaccin Immunother       Date:  2020-12-16       Impact factor: 3.452

7.  Impact of Delaying Effective and Cost-Effective Policy Decisions: An Example From Cervical Cancer Prevention in Norway.

Authors:  Allison Portnoy; Mari Nygård; Lill Trogstad; Jane J Kim; Emily A Burger
Journal:  MDM Policy Pract       Date:  2022-01-04

8.  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

Review 9.  Willingness to pay for and acceptance of cervical cancer prevention methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Anahita Shokri Jamnani; Aziz Rezapour; Najmeh Moradi; Mostafa Langarizadeh
Journal:  Med J Islam Repub Iran       Date:  2021-06-23

10.  Human papillomavirus genotype-specific risks for cervical intraepithelial lesions.

Authors:  Mari Nygård; Bo T Hansen; Susanne K Kjaer; Maria Hortlund; Laufey Tryggvadóttir; Christian Munk; Camilla Lagheden; Lara G Sigurdardottir; Suzanne Campbell; Kai-Li Liaw; Joakim Dillner
Journal:  Hum Vaccin Immunother       Date:  2020-09-29       Impact factor: 3.452

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.