Gynecologic oncology · 2010
Cost-effectiveness of using human papillomavirus 16/18 genotype triage in cervical cancer screening.
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, Goodman Karyn A, Santas Christopher C, Huh Warner K
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Testing for human papillomavirus (HPV) 16 and 18 genotypes, which are known to cause approximately 65-70% of invasive cervical cancer cases, may allow clinicians to identify women at highest risk for underlying cervical intraepithelial neoplasia missed by Pap cytology. Our objective was to determine the cost-effectiveness of adding HPV-16 and 18 genotype triage to current cervical cancer screening strategies in the United States.
METHODS: We developed a lifetime Markov model to assess the cost-effectiveness of the following cervical cancer screening algorithms: (1) liquid-based cytology (LBC), (2) LBC+HPV triage, (3) HPV+LBC triage, (4) co-screening, (5) co-screening+HPV genotyping, and (6) HPV only+HPV genotyping. Costs were estimated from a payer perspective in 2007 U.S. dollars. Outcome measures included lifetime risk of cervical cancer, quality-adjusted life years saved (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).
RESULTS: In our model, the use of HPV genotyping strategies prevented 51-73 deaths per 100,000 women screened compared to screening using LBC followed by HPV triage and 4-26 deaths compared to co-screening with LBC and high-risk HPV. Use of HPV genotyping to triage all high-risk HPV-positive women every three years had an ICER of $34,074 per QALY compared to HPV and LBC co-screening. HPV genotyping with co-screening was the most effective strategy and had an ICER of $33,807 per QALY compared to HPV genotyping for all high-risk HPV-positive women.
CONCLUSION: The addition of HPV-16 and -18 genotype triage to HPV and LBC co-screening was a cost-effective screening strategy in the United States.
METHODS: We developed a lifetime Markov model to assess the cost-effectiveness of the following cervical cancer screening algorithms: (1) liquid-based cytology (LBC), (2) LBC+HPV triage, (3) HPV+LBC triage, (4) co-screening, (5) co-screening+HPV genotyping, and (6) HPV only+HPV genotyping. Costs were estimated from a payer perspective in 2007 U.S. dollars. Outcome measures included lifetime risk of cervical cancer, quality-adjusted life years saved (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).
RESULTS: In our model, the use of HPV genotyping strategies prevented 51-73 deaths per 100,000 women screened compared to screening using LBC followed by HPV triage and 4-26 deaths compared to co-screening with LBC and high-risk HPV. Use of HPV genotyping to triage all high-risk HPV-positive women every three years had an ICER of $34,074 per QALY compared to HPV and LBC co-screening. HPV genotyping with co-screening was the most effective strategy and had an ICER of $33,807 per QALY compared to HPV genotyping for all high-risk HPV-positive women.
CONCLUSION: The addition of HPV-16 and -18 genotype triage to HPV and LBC co-screening was a cost-effective screening strategy in the United States.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
AdolescentAdultChildChild, PreschoolCost-Benefit AnalysisFemaleGenotypeHuman papillomavirus 16Human papillomavirus 18HumansIncidenceMarkov ChainsMass ScreeningMonte Carlo MethodPapillomavirus InfectionsSensitivity and SpecificityTriageUnited StatesUterine Cervical NeoplasmsYoung AdultUterine Cervical Dysplasia