Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2012
Liquid-based cervical cytology using ThinPrep technology: weighing the pros and cons in a cost-effectiveness analysis.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
de Bekker-Grob Esther W, de Kok Inge M C M, Bulten Johan, van Rosmalen Joost, Vedder Judith E M, Arbyn Marc, Klinkhamer Paul J J M, Siebers Albertus G, van Ballegooijen Marjolein
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Cervical cancer screening with liquid-based cytology (LBC) has been developed as an alternative to the conventional Papanicolaou (CP) smear. Cost-effectiveness is one of the issues when evaluating LBC. Based on the results of a Dutch randomised controlled trial, we conducted cost-effectiveness threshold analyses to investigate under what circumstances manually screened ThinPrep LBC is cost-effective for screening.
METHODS: The MISCAN-Cervix microsimulation model and data from the Dutch NETHCON trial (including 89,784 women) were used to estimate the costs and (quality-adjusted) life years ((QA)LYs) gained for EU screening schedules, varying cost-effectiveness threshold values. Screening strategies were primary cytological screening with LBC or CP, and triage with human papillomavirus (HPV) testing.
RESULTS: Threshold analyses showed that screening with LBC as a primary test can be cost-effective if LBC is less than <euro>3.2 more costly per test than CP, if the sensitivity of LBC is at least 3-5 % points higher than CP, if the quality of life for women in triage follow-up is only 0.39, or if the rate of inadequate CP smears is at least 16.2 %.
CONCLUSIONS: Regarding test characteristics and costs of LBC and CP, only under certain conditions will a change from CP to manually screened ThinPrep LBC be cost-effective. If none of these conditions are met, implementation of manually screened ThinPrep LBC seems warranted only if there are advantages other than cost-effectiveness. Further research is needed to establish whether other LBC systems will be more favorable with regard to cost-effectiveness.
METHODS: The MISCAN-Cervix microsimulation model and data from the Dutch NETHCON trial (including 89,784 women) were used to estimate the costs and (quality-adjusted) life years ((QA)LYs) gained for EU screening schedules, varying cost-effectiveness threshold values. Screening strategies were primary cytological screening with LBC or CP, and triage with human papillomavirus (HPV) testing.
RESULTS: Threshold analyses showed that screening with LBC as a primary test can be cost-effective if LBC is less than <euro>3.2 more costly per test than CP, if the sensitivity of LBC is at least 3-5 % points higher than CP, if the quality of life for women in triage follow-up is only 0.39, or if the rate of inadequate CP smears is at least 16.2 %.
CONCLUSIONS: Regarding test characteristics and costs of LBC and CP, only under certain conditions will a change from CP to manually screened ThinPrep LBC be cost-effective. If none of these conditions are met, implementation of manually screened ThinPrep LBC seems warranted only if there are advantages other than cost-effectiveness. Further research is needed to establish whether other LBC systems will be more favorable with regard to cost-effectiveness.