Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique · 2010
Cost-effectiveness of high-risk human papillomavirus testing for cervical cancer screening in Québec, Canada.
СтатьяПоддержка 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.
Vijayaraghavan Arthi, Efrusy Molly B, Mayrand Marie-Hélêne, Santas Christopher C, Goggin Patricia
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing is not widely used for triage of equivocal Pap smears or primary screening in Québec, Canada. Our objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening strategies utilizing HPV testing.
METHODS: We used a lifetime Markov model to estimate costs, quality of life, and survival associated with the following strategies: 1) cytology; 2) cytology with HPV testing to triage equivocal Pap smears; 3) HPV testing followed by colposcopy for HPV-positive women; 4) HPV testing with cytology to triage HPV-positive women; and 5) simultaneous HPV testing and cytology. Cytology was used in all strategies prior to age 30. Outcome measures included disease incidence, quality-adjusted life-years saved (QALYs), lifetime risk of cervical cancer, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.
RESULTS: All strategies incorporating HPV testing as a primary screening test were more effective and less expensive than annual cytology alone, while HPV testing to triage equivocal Pap smears annually was very cost-effective ($2,991 per QALY gained compared to annual cytology alone). When compared to cytology every three years, HPV-based strategies cost an additional $8,200 to $13,400 per QALY gained.
CONCLUSION: Strategies incorporating HPV testing are not only more effective than screening based on cytology alone but are also highly cost-effective. Provincial policy-makers should evaluate incorporating HPV-based strategies into current cervical cancer screening guidelines.
METHODS: We used a lifetime Markov model to estimate costs, quality of life, and survival associated with the following strategies: 1) cytology; 2) cytology with HPV testing to triage equivocal Pap smears; 3) HPV testing followed by colposcopy for HPV-positive women; 4) HPV testing with cytology to triage HPV-positive women; and 5) simultaneous HPV testing and cytology. Cytology was used in all strategies prior to age 30. Outcome measures included disease incidence, quality-adjusted life-years saved (QALYs), lifetime risk of cervical cancer, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.
RESULTS: All strategies incorporating HPV testing as a primary screening test were more effective and less expensive than annual cytology alone, while HPV testing to triage equivocal Pap smears annually was very cost-effective ($2,991 per QALY gained compared to annual cytology alone). When compared to cytology every three years, HPV-based strategies cost an additional $8,200 to $13,400 per QALY gained.
CONCLUSION: Strategies incorporating HPV testing are not only more effective than screening based on cytology alone but are also highly cost-effective. Provincial policy-makers should evaluate incorporating HPV-based strategies into current cervical cancer screening guidelines.