Costs and effectiveness of alternative strategies for cervical cancer screening in military beneficiaries

Obstetrics and Gynecology

Volumn 100, Issue 4, 2002, Pages 740-748

  Maxwell, G Larry ^a,c   Carlson, Jay W ^a   Ochoa, Mark ^a   Krivak, Tom ^a   Rose, G Scott ^a   Myers, Evan R ^b  

^a WALTER REED ARMY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b DUKE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c DUKE UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ADULT; AGED; ARMY; ARTICLE; CANCER INCIDENCE; CANCER MORTALITY; CANCER SCREENING; CANCER STAGING; CANCER SURVIVAL; CANCER TEST; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; CYTOLOGY; EMERGENCY HEALTH SERVICE; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE COST; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER; VIRUS INFECTION; WART VIRUS;

ADULT; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE COSTS; HUMANS; INCIDENCE; MARKOV CHAINS; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; MILITARY PERSONNEL; PAPILLOMAVIRIDAE; PAPILLOMAVIRUS INFECTIONS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TIME FACTORS; TUMOR VIRUS INFECTIONS; UNITED STATES; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS;

EID: 0036806306     PISSN: 00297844     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0029-7844(02)02195-6     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. American Cancer Society . Statistics for 2002. 2002;American Cancer Society Inc, Atlanta. Available at: http://www.cancer.org/eprise/main/docroot/stt/stt_0. Accessed 2002 Aug 21.
2. Gustafsson L., Ponten J., Zack M., Adami H.O. International incidence rates of invasive cervical cancer after introduction of cytologic screening. Cancer Causes Control. 8:1997;755-763.
3. Ries L., Kosary C., Hankey B., Miller B.A., Edwards B.K. SEER cancer statistics review, 1973-1995. 1998;National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD.
4. Hutchinson M.L., Zahniser D.J., Sherman M.E., Herrero R., Alfaro M., Bratti M.C., et al. Utility of liquid-based cytology for cervical carcinoma screening. Cancer. 87:1999;45-55.
5. Manos M.M., Kinney W.K., Hurley L.B., Sherman M.E., Shieh-Ngai J., Kurman R.J., et al. Identifying women with cervical neoplasia Using human papillomavirus DNA testing for equivocal Papanicolaou results . JAMA. 281:1999;1605-1610.
6. Wright T.C., Lorincz A., Ferris D.G., Richart R.M., Ferenczy A., Mielzynska I., et al. Reflex human papillomavirus deoxyribonucleic acid testing in women with abnormal Papanicolaou smears. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 178:1998;962-966.
7. Sherman M.E., Chiffman M.H., Lorincz A.T., Herrero R., Hutchinson M.L., Bratti C., et al. Cervical specimens collected in liquid buffer are suitable for both cytologic screening and ancillary human papillomavirus testing. Cancer. 81:1997;89-97.
8. Hartmann K.E., Nanda K., Hall S., Myers E. Technologic advances for evaluation of cervical cytology Is newer better? Obstet Gynecol Surv. 56:2001;765-774.
9. Kaufman R.H. Is there a role for human papillomavirus testing in clinical practice? Obstet Gynecol. 98:2001;724-725.
10. Eddy D.M. Screening for cervical cancer. Ann Intern Med. 113:1990;214-226.
11. Myers E.R., McCrory D.C., Subramanian S., McCall N., Nanda K., Bastian L., et al. Toward a better cervical screening test Criteria for a cost-effective test for cervical neoplasia screening . Obstet Gynecol. 96:2000;645-652.
12. Goldie S.J., Kuhn L., Denny L., Pollack A., Wright T.C. Policy analysis of cervical cancer screening strategies in low-resource settings Clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness . JAMA. 285:2001;3107-3115.
13. McCrory D., Matcher D.B., Bastian L., Datta S., Hasselblad V., Hickey J.D., et al. Evaluation of cervical cytology. Evidence report/technology assessment no. 5. AHCPR publication no. 99-E010. 1999;Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, Rockville, MD.
14. Myers E.R., McCrory D.C., Nanda K., Badstian L., Matchar D.B. Mathematical model for the natural history of human papillomavirus infection and cervical carcinogenesis. Am J Epidemiol. 151:2000;1158-1171.
15. Sonnenberg F.A., Beck J.R. Markov models in medical decision making A practical guide . Med Decis Making. 13:1993;322-338.
16. Nanda K., McCrory D.C., Myers E.R., Bastian L.A., Hasselblad V., Hickey J.D., et al. Accuracy of the Papanicolaou test in screening for and follow-up of cervical cytological abnormalities A systematic review . Ann Intern Med. 132:2000;810-819.
17. Jones B.A., Novis D.A. Cervical biopsy-cytology correlation A College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 22,439 correlations in 348 laboratories . Arch Pathol Lab Med. 120:1996;523-531.
18. Solomon D., Schulman M., Tarn R. Comparison of three management strategies for patients with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance Baseline results from a randomized trial . J Natl Cancer Inst. 93:2001;293-299.
19. The Atypical Squamous Cells of Undetermined Significance/Low-Grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesions Triage Study (ALTS) Group . Human papillomavirus testing for triage of women with cytologic evidence of low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions Baseline data from a randomized trial . J Natl Cancer Inst. 92:2000;397-402.
20. Keys H.M., Bundy B.N., Stehman F.B., Muderspach L.I., Chafe W.E., Suggs C.L., et al. Cisplatin, radiation and adjuvant hysterectomy compared with radiation and adjuvant hysterectomy for bulky stage IB cervical carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 340:1999;1154-1161.
21. Rose P.G., Bundy B.N., Watkins E.B., Thigpen T., Deppe G., Maiman M.A., et al. Concurrent cisplatin-based radiotherapy and chemotherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer. N Engl J Med. 340:1999;1144-1153.
22. Morris M., Eifel P.J., Lu J., Grigsby P.W., Levenbeck C., Stevens R.E., et al. Pelvic radiation with concurrent chemotherapy compared with pelvic and para-aortic radiation for high-risk cervical cancer. N Engl J Med. 340:1999;1137-1143.
23. Peters W.A., Lu P.Y., Barrett R.J., Stock R.J., Monk B.J., Berek B.J., et al. Concurrent chemotherapy and pelvic radiation therapy compared with pelvic radiation therapy alone as adjuvant therapy after radical surgery in high-risk early-stage cancer of the cervix. J Clin Oncol. 18:2000;1606-1613.
24. Brown A.D., Garber A.M. Cost-effectiveness of 3 methods to enhance the sensitivity of Papanicolaou testing. JAMA. 281:1999;347-353.
25. Garber A.M., Phelps C.E. Economic foundations of cost-effectiveness analysis. J Health Econ. 16:1997;1-31.
26. Shireman T.I., Tsevat J., Goldie S.J. Time costs associated with cervical cancer screening. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 17:2001;146-152.