Kine Pedersen1, Emily A Burger2, Mari Nygård3, Ivar S Kristiansen4, Jane J Kim5. 1. Department of Health Management and Health Economics, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1089 Blindern, 0317, Oslo, Norway. Electronic address: Kine.pedersen@medisin.uio.no. 2. Department of Health Management and Health Economics, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1089 Blindern, 0317, Oslo, Norway; Center for Health Decision Science, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, 718 Huntington Ave, 2nd Floor, Boston, MA, 02115, USA. 3. Department of Research, Cancer Registry of Norway, P.O. Box 5313 Majorstuen, 0304, Oslo, Norway. 4. Department of Health Management and Health Economics, Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1089 Blindern, 0317, Oslo, Norway. 5. Center for Health Decision Science, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, 718 Huntington Ave, 2nd Floor, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.
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.
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.
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: 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
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: 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
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
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
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: 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: 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
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
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
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
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
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