Cost-effectiveness of 3 methods to enhance the sensitivity of Papanicolaou testing

JAMA

Volumn 281, Issue 4, 1999, Pages 347-353

  Brown, Adalsteinn D ^a,c   Garber, Alan M ^b,d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^b STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

^d STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER SCREENING; CANCER SURVIVAL; COMPUTER ANALYSIS; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE COST; HUMAN; MICROSCOPY; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; PRIORITY JOURNAL; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA;

EID: 0033608234     PISSN: 00987484     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1001/jama.281.4.347     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Eddy DM. Screening for cervical cancer. Ann Intern Med. 1990;113:214-226.
2. Parkin D, Moss S. An evaluation of screening policies for cervical cancer in England and Wales using a computer simulation model. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1986;40:143-153.
3. Koss LG. Cervical (Pap) smear. New Dir Cancer. 1993;71:1406-1412.
4. Hutchinson ML. Assessing the costs and benefits of alternative rescreening strategies. Acta Cytol. 1996; 40:4-8.
5. Food and Drug Administration. Points to Consider for Cervical Cytology Devices. Washington, DC: Food and Drug Administration; 1994:1-18.
6. Intersociety Working Group for Cytology Technologies. Proposed guidelines for primary screening instruments for gynecologic cytology. Am J Clin Pathol. 1998;109:10-15.
7. Wilbur DC, BonfiglioTA, Rutkowski MA. et al. Sensitivity of the AutoPap 300 QC system for cervical cytologic abnormalities: biopsy data confirmation. Acta Cytol. 1996;40:127-132.
8. Colgan TJ, Patten SF, Lee JSJ. A clinical trial of the AutoPap 300 QC system for quality control of cervicovaginal cytology in the clinical laboratory. Acta Cyrol. 1995;39:1191-1198.
9. Koss LG, Sherman ME, Cohen MB, et al Significant reduction in the rate of false negative cervical smears with neural network-based technology (Papnet testing system). Hum Pathol. 1997;28:1196-1203.
10. Koss LG, Lin E, Schreiber K, Elgert P, Mango L. Evaluation of the Papnet cytologic screening system for quality control of cervical smears Am J Clin Pathol. 1994;101:220-229.
11. Keyhani-Rofagha S, Palma T, O'Toole RV. Automated screening for quality control using Papnet: a study of 638 negative pap smears. Diagn Cytopathol. 1996;14:316-320
12. Slagel DD, Zaleski S, Cohen MB. Efficacy of automated cervical cytology screening. Diagn Cytopathol. 1995;13:26-30.
13. O'Leary T, Tellado M, Buckner S-B, Ali I, Stevens A, Ollayos C. Papnet-assisted rescreening of cervical smears: cost and accuracy compared with 100% manual rescreening strategy. JAMA. 1998;279: 235-237.
14. Miller W. Bias in discrepant analysis: when two wrongs don't make a right J Clin Epidemiol. 1998; 51:219-231.
15. Ransohoff DF, Feinstein AR. Problems of spectrum and bias in evaluating the efficacy of diagnostic tests. N Engl J Med. 1978;299:926-930.
16. Cervical Cancer: National Institutes of Health Consensus Statement. Bethesda, Md: National Institutes of Health; 1996:1-38.
17. Luce B, Manning W, Siegel J, Lipscomb J. Estimating costs in cost-effectiveness analysis. In: Gold M, Siegel J, Russell L, Weinstein M, eds. Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1996:176-213.
18. McGoogan E, Reith A. Would monolayers provide more representative samples and improved preparations for cervical screening? overview and evaluations of systems available Acta Cytol. 1996;40: 107-119.
19. Tezuka F, Oikawa H, Shuki H, Higashiiwai H. Diagnostic efficacy and validity of the ThinPrep method in cervical cytology. Acta Cytol. 1996;40:513-518.
20. McMeekin D, McGonigle K, Vasilev S. Cervical cancer prevention: toward cost-effective screening. Medscape Womens Health. 1997;2:1-22.
21. Committee on Gynecologic Practice, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. New Pap test screening techniques. ACOG Committee Opinion. 1998;1:1-3.
22. Buckner S, Tellado M, Ali IS, Stevens A, Ollayos CW, O'Leary TJ. Papnet-assisted rescreening of cervical smears: effectiveness and cost [abstract]. Acta Cytol. 1997;41:1544.
23. Economic Report of the President. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 1997.
24. Mandelblatt J, Freeman H, Winczewski D, et al. The costs and effects of cervical and breast cancer screening in a public hospital emergency room. Am I Public Health. 1997;87:1182-1189.
25. Eddy D. Rationale for the Cancer Screening Benefit Program Screening Policies: Implementation Plan, Part III. Chicago, Ill: Blue Cross Association; 1978.
26. Eddy D. Screening for Cancer: Theory, Analysis, and Design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc; 1980:308.
27. Eddy D. The frequency of cervical cancer screening: comparison of a mathematical model with empirical data. Cancer. 1987;60:1117-1122.
28. IARC Working Group on Evaluation of Cervical Cancer Screening Programs. Screening for squamous cervical cancer: duration of low-risk after negative results of cervical cytology and its implication for screening programs. BMJ. 1986;293:659-664.
29. Schiffman M, Brinton L. The epidemiology of cervical carcinogenesis. Cancer. 1995;76:1888-1901.
30. Siegel J. Weinstein M, Torrance G. Reporting cost-effectiveness studies and results. In: Gold M, Siegel J, Russell L, Weinstein M, eds. Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1996:276-303.
31. Keeney R, Raiffa H. Decisions With Multiple Objectives. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press; 1993.
32. Johanesson M, Weinstein M. On the decision rules of cost-effectiveness analysis. J Health Econ. 1993; 12:459-469
33. Roberts J, Gurley A, Thurloe J, Bowditch R, Laverty C. Evaluation of the ThinPrep test as an adjunct to the conventional Pap smear. Med J Aust 1997;167: 466-469.
34. Bolick D, Hellman D. Laboratory implementation and efficacy assessment of ThinPrep cervical cancer screening system. Acta Cytol. 1998;42:209-213.
35. Sherman ME, Schiffman M, Herrero R, et al. Evaluation of conventional and novel cervical cancer screening methods in a population-based study of 10,000 Costa Rica women [abstract]. Acta Cytol. 1995; 39:983.
36. Sheets EE, Constantine NM, Dinisco S, Dean B, Cibas ES. Colposcopically directed biopsies provide a basis for comparing the accuracy of ThinPrep and Papanicolaou smears. J Gynecol Techniques. 1995;1: 27-33
37. Lee KR, Madge R, Sheets EE. Colposcopically directed biopsy as a basis for comparing the diagnostic accuracy of the ThinPrep and Papanicolaou smear methods [abstract]. Acta Cytol. 1996;40:1047-1048.
38. NeoPath Inc. AutoPap 300 QC Automatic Pap Screener System [product insert]. Redmond, Wash: NeoPath Inc; 1996:10.
39. Boon ME, Kok LP, Nygaard-Nielsen M. Holm K, Holund B. Neural network processing of cervical smears can lead to a decrease in diagnostic variability and an increase in screening efficacy: a study of 63 false-negative smears. Mod Pathol. 1994;7:957-961.
40. Rosenthal DL, Acosta D, Peters RK. Computer-assisted rescreening of clinically important false negative cervical smears using the Papnet system. Acta Cytol. 1996;40:120-126.
41. Jenny J, lsenegger I, Boon ME, Husain OAN. Consistency of a double Papnet scan of cervical smears. Acta Cytol. 1997;41:82-87.
42. Boon ME, Kok LP. Neural network processing can provide means to catch errors that slip through human screening of Pap smears. Diagn Cytopathol. 1993; 9:411-416.
43. Doornewaard H, van de Seijp H, Woudt JMC, van der Graaf Y, van den Tweel JG. Negative cervical smears before CIN 3/carcinoma: reevaluation with the Papnet testing system. Acta Cytol. 1997;41:74-78.
44. Eddy DM. Screening for breast cancer. Ann Intern Med. 1989;111:389-399.
45. Littenberg B, Garber AM, Sox HCJ. Screening for hypertension. Ann Intern Med. 1990;112:192-202.
46. Benneyan J, Kaminsky F. Statistical and economic models for analysis and optimal design of laboratory screening policies for cervical cancer. Ann Operations Res. 1996;67:235-285.
47. Kaminsky FC, Burke RJ, Haberle KR, Mullins DL. An economic model for comparing alternative policies for cervical cytologic smear screening. Acta Cytol. 1995;39:232-238.
48. Kaminsky FC, Burke RJ, Haberle KR, Mullins DL. Rescreening policies in cervical cytology and their effect on detecting the truly positive patient. Acta Cytol. 1995;39:239-245.
49. Raab S. The cost-effectiveness of cervicalvaginal rescreening. Am J Clin Pathol. 1997;108: 525-536.
50. Radensky P, Mango L. Interactive neural-network-assisted rescreening: an economic assessment. Acta Cytol. 1998;42:246-252.
51. Stoler M, Baber G, Barber C, Zahniser D. The use of HPV testing to adjudicate differences between Thin-Prep and conventional Pap smear methods [abstract] Acta Cytol. 1996;40:1045.
52. Cox JT, Lorincz AT, Schiffman MH, Sherman ME, Cullen A, Kurman RJ. Human papillomavirus testing by hybrid capture appears to be useful in triaging women with a cytologic diagnosis of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1995;172:946-954.
53. van Ballegooijen M, van den Akker-van Marie M, Warmerdam P, Meijer C, Walboomers J, Habbema J. Present evidence on the value of HPV testing for cervical cancer screening: a model-based exploration of the (cost-) effectiveness. Br J Cancer. 1997;76: 651-657.
54. Hutchinson M, Isenstein L, Lapidus S. Managing the ASCUS patient through automated image analysis: a pilot study. Acta Cytol. 1995;39:968-969.
55. Chamberlain J. Reasons that some screening programs fail to control cancer. In: Hakama M, Miller A, Day N, eds. Screening for Cancer of the Uterine Cervix. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1986: 161-168.