Cargando…

Cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening with primary human papillomavirus testing in Norway

BACKGROUND: New screening technologies and vaccination against human papillomavirus (HPV), the necessary cause of cervical cancer, may impact optimal approaches to prevent cervical cancer. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of alternative screening strategies to inform cervical cancer prevention gu...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Burger, E A, Ortendahl, J D, Sy, S, Kristiansen, I S, Kim, J J
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3341862/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22441643
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2012.94
_version_ 1782231598339457024
author Burger, E A
Ortendahl, J D
Sy, S
Kristiansen, I S
Kim, J J
author_facet Burger, E A
Ortendahl, J D
Sy, S
Kristiansen, I S
Kim, J J
author_sort Burger, E A
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: New screening technologies and vaccination against human papillomavirus (HPV), the necessary cause of cervical cancer, may impact optimal approaches to prevent cervical cancer. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of alternative screening strategies to inform cervical cancer prevention guidelines in Norway. METHODS: We leveraged the primary epidemiologic and economic data from Norway to contextualise a simulation model of HPV-induced cervical cancer. The current cytology-only screening was compared with strategies involving cytology at younger ages and primary HPV-based screening at older ages (31/34+ years), an option being actively deliberated by the Norwegian government. We varied the switch-age, screening interval, and triage strategies for women with HPV-positive results. Uncertainty was evaluated in sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: Current cytology-only screening was less effective and more costly than strategies that involve switching to primary HPV testing in older ages. For unvaccinated women, switching at age 34 years to primary HPV testing every 4 years was optimal given the Norwegian cost-effectiveness threshold ($83 000 per year of life saved). For vaccinated women, a 6-year screening interval was cost-effective. When we considered a wider range of strategies, we found that an earlier switch to HPV testing (at age 31 years) may be preferred. CONCLUSIONS: Strategies involving a switch to HPV testing for primary screening in older women is expected to be cost-effective compared with current recommendations in Norway.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3341862
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2012
publisher Nature Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-33418622013-04-24 Cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening with primary human papillomavirus testing in Norway Burger, E A Ortendahl, J D Sy, S Kristiansen, I S Kim, J J Br J Cancer Epidemiology BACKGROUND: New screening technologies and vaccination against human papillomavirus (HPV), the necessary cause of cervical cancer, may impact optimal approaches to prevent cervical cancer. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of alternative screening strategies to inform cervical cancer prevention guidelines in Norway. METHODS: We leveraged the primary epidemiologic and economic data from Norway to contextualise a simulation model of HPV-induced cervical cancer. The current cytology-only screening was compared with strategies involving cytology at younger ages and primary HPV-based screening at older ages (31/34+ years), an option being actively deliberated by the Norwegian government. We varied the switch-age, screening interval, and triage strategies for women with HPV-positive results. Uncertainty was evaluated in sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: Current cytology-only screening was less effective and more costly than strategies that involve switching to primary HPV testing in older ages. For unvaccinated women, switching at age 34 years to primary HPV testing every 4 years was optimal given the Norwegian cost-effectiveness threshold ($83 000 per year of life saved). For vaccinated women, a 6-year screening interval was cost-effective. When we considered a wider range of strategies, we found that an earlier switch to HPV testing (at age 31 years) may be preferred. CONCLUSIONS: Strategies involving a switch to HPV testing for primary screening in older women is expected to be cost-effective compared with current recommendations in Norway. Nature Publishing Group 2012-04-24 2012-03-22 /pmc/articles/PMC3341862/ /pubmed/22441643 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2012.94 Text en Copyright © 2012 Cancer Research UK https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/From twelve months after its original publication, this work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/
spellingShingle Epidemiology
Burger, E A
Ortendahl, J D
Sy, S
Kristiansen, I S
Kim, J J
Cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening with primary human papillomavirus testing in Norway
title Cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening with primary human papillomavirus testing in Norway
title_full Cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening with primary human papillomavirus testing in Norway
title_fullStr Cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening with primary human papillomavirus testing in Norway
title_full_unstemmed Cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening with primary human papillomavirus testing in Norway
title_short Cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening with primary human papillomavirus testing in Norway
title_sort cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening with primary human papillomavirus testing in norway
topic Epidemiology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3341862/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22441643
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2012.94
work_keys_str_mv AT burgerea costeffectivenessofcervicalcancerscreeningwithprimaryhumanpapillomavirustestinginnorway
AT ortendahljd costeffectivenessofcervicalcancerscreeningwithprimaryhumanpapillomavirustestinginnorway
AT sys costeffectivenessofcervicalcancerscreeningwithprimaryhumanpapillomavirustestinginnorway
AT kristiansenis costeffectivenessofcervicalcancerscreeningwithprimaryhumanpapillomavirustestinginnorway
AT kimjj costeffectivenessofcervicalcancerscreeningwithprimaryhumanpapillomavirustestinginnorway