Potential Health and Economic Impact of Adding a Human Papillomavirus Vaccine to Screening Programs

JAMA

Volumn 290, Issue 6, 2003, Pages 781-789

  Kulasingam, Shalini L ^a,b   Myers, Evan R ^a  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b Ctr for Clin Hlth Policy Research   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CANCER VACCINE; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG; VIRUS VACCINE; WART VIRUS VACCINE; PAPILLOMA VIRUS VACCINE;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER INCIDENCE; CANCER MORTALITY; CANCER PREVENTION; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; CYTOLOGY; ECONOMIC ASPECT; FEMALE; HEALTH PROGRAM; HUMAN; LIFE EXPECTANCY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SCHOOL CHILD; SCREENING; UNITED STATES; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER; VACCINATION; WART VIRUS; AGE; COLPOSCOPY; DISEASE COURSE; ECONOMICS; IMMUNOLOGY; ISOLATION AND PURIFICATION; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; PAPILLOMA VIRUS; PATHOLOGY; PROBABILITY; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; THEORETICAL MODEL; UTERINE CERVIX CARCINOMA IN SITU; UTERINE CERVIX TUMOR; VAGINA SMEAR; VIROLOGY; VIRUS INFECTION;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGE FACTORS; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; CERVICAL INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA; COLPOSCOPY; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DISEASE PROGRESSION; FEMALE; HUMANS; LIFE EXPECTANCY; MARKOV CHAINS; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, THEORETICAL; PAPILLOMAVIRIDAE; PAPILLOMAVIRUS INFECTIONS; PAPILLOMAVIRUS VACCINES; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS; TUMOR VIRUS INFECTIONS; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VACCINATION; VAGINAL SMEARS; VIRAL VACCINES;

EID: 0042661252     PISSN: 00987484     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1001/jama.290.6.781     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Walboomers JM, Jacobs MV, Manos MM, et al. Human papillomavirus is a necessary cause of invasive cervical cancer worldwide. J Pathol. 1999;189: 12-19.
2. Bosch FX, Manos MM, Munoz N, et al, for the International Biological Study on Cervical Cancer (IBSCC) Study Group. Prevalence of human papillomavirus in cervical cancer: a worldwide perspective. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1995;87:796-802.
3. National Cancer Institute. Surveillance, Epidemiology and End-Results. Washington, DC: Dept of Health and Human Services; 2000.
4. Koutsky LA, Ault KA, Wheeler CM, et al. A controlled trial of a human papillomavirus type 16 vaccine. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:1645-1651.
5. Phelps CE, Mushlin AI. Focusing technology assessment using medical decision theory. Med Decis Making. 1988;8:279-289.
6. Hueston WJ, Mainous AG III, Brauer N. Predicting cost-benefits before programs are started: looking at a conjugate vaccine for invasive pneumococcal infections. J Community Health. 2000;25:23-33.
7. McCrory DC, Matchar DB, Bastian L, et al. Evaluation of Cervical Cytology: Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 5. Rockville, Md: Agency for Health Care Policy and Research; 1999. Publication No. 99-E010.
8. Myers ER, McCrory DC, Nanda K, Bastian L, Matchar DB. Mathematical model for the natural history of human papillomavirus infection and cervical carcinogenesis. Am J Epidemiol. 2000;151:1158-1171.
9. Kim JJ, Wright TC, Goldie SJ. Cost effectiveness of alternative triage strategies for atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance. JAMA. 2002;287:2382-2390.
10. Mandelblatt JS, Lawrence WF, Womack SM, et al. Benefits and costs of using HPV testing to screen for cervical cancer. JAMA. 2002;287:2372-2381.
11. Sherlaw-Johnson C, Gallivan S, Jenkins D. Evaluating cervical cancer screening programmes for developing countries. Int J Cancer. 1997;72:210-216.
12. Maxwell GL, Carlson JW, Ochoa M, Krivak T, Rose GS, Myers ER. Costs and effectiveness of alternative strategies for cervical cancer screening in military beneficiaries. Obstet Gynecol. 2002;100:740-748.
13. Goldie SJ, Kuhn L, Denny L, Pollack A, Wright TC. Policy analysis of cervical cancer screening strategies in low-resource settings: clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness. JAMA. 2001;285:3107-3115.
14. Gustaffson L, Ponten J, Zack M, Adami H-O. International incidence of invasive cervical cancer after introduction of cytological screening. Cancer Causes Control. 1997;8:755-763.
15. Myers ER, McCrory DC, Subramanian S, et al. Setting the target for a better cervical screening test: characteristics of a cost-effective test for cervical neoplasia screening. Obstet Gynecol. 2000;96:645-652.
16. Jacobs MV, Walboomers JMM, Snijders PJF, et al. Distribution of 37 mucosotropic HPV types in women with cytologically normal cervical smears: the age-related patterns for high-risk and low-risk types. Int J Cancer. 2000;87:221-227.
17. Liaw KL, Glass AG, Manos MM, et al. Detection of human papillomavirus DNA in cytologically normal women and subsequent cervical squamous intraepithelial lesions. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1999;91:954-960.
18. Koutsky LA, Holmes KK, Critchlow CW, et al. A cohort study of the risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or 3 in relation to papillomavirus infection. N Engl J Med. 1992;327:1272-1278.
19. Saslow D, Runowicz CD, Solomon D, et al. American Cancer Society guidelines for the early detection of cervical neoplasia and cancer. CA Cancer J Clin. 2002;52:342-362.
20. Leigh BC, Morrison DM, Trocki K, Temple MT. Sexual behavior of American adolescents: results from a US national survey. J Adolesc Health. 1994;15:117-125.
21. Cuzick J, Szarewski A, Terry G, et al. Human papillomavirus testing in primary cervical screening. Lancet. 1995;345:1533-1536.
22. Nanda K, McCrory DC, Myers ER, et al. Accuracy of the Papanicolaou test in screening for and follow-up of cervical cytologic abnormalities: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2000;132:810-819.
23. Ratnam S, Franco EL, Ferenczy A. Human papillomavirus testing for primary screening of cervical cancer precursors. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2000;9:945-951.
24. Kulasingam SL, Hughes JP, Kiviat NB, et al. Evaluation of human papillomavirus testing in primary screening for cervical abnormalities: comparison of sensitivity, specificity, and frequency of referral. JAMA. 2002;288:1749-1757.
25. Obwegeser JH, Brack S. Does liquid-based technology really improve detection of cervical neoplasia? a prospective, randomized trial comparing the ThinPrep Pap Test with the conventional Pap Test, including follow-up of HSIL cases. Acta Cytol. 2001; 45:709-714.
26. Coste J, Cochand-Priollet B, de Cremoux P, et al, for the French Society of Clinical Cytology Study Group. Cross-sectional study of conventional cervical smear, monolayer cytology, and human papillomavirus DNA testing for cervical cancer screening. BMJ. 2003;326: 733-738.
27. Solomon D, Davey D, Kurman R, et al. The 2001 Bethesda System: terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology. JAMA. 2002;287:2114-2119.
28. Solomon D, Schiffman M, Tarone R. Comparison of three management strategies for patients with atypical squamous cells of unknown significance: baseline results from a randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001;93:293-299.
29. Hughes JP, Garnett GP, Koutsky L. The theoretical population-level impact of a prophylactic human papillomavirus vaccine. Epidemiology. 2002;13:631-639.
30. Stratton KR, Durch JS, Lawrence RS, eds. Vaccines for the 21st Century: A Tool for Decisionmaking. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2001.
31. Kulasingam S, Harper DM, Tosteson AT, Myers ER. Impact of quality of life assumptions on cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening. Presented at: 20th International Papillomavirus Conference; October 5-9, 2002; Paris, France.
32. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russel LB, Weinstein MC, eds. Cost-effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York, NY: Oxford University Press Inc; 1996.
33. Thomas KK, Hughes JP, Kuypers JM, et al. Concurrent and sequential acquisition of different genital human papillomavirus types. J Infect Dis. 2000;182: 1097-1102.
34. Ho GYF, Bierman R, Beardsley L, Chang CJ, Burk RD. Natural history of cervicovaginal papillomavirus infection in young women. N Engl J Med. 1998;338: 423-428.
35. Winkelmayer WC, Weinstein WC, Mittleman MA, Glynn RJ, Pliskin JS. Health economic evaluations: the special case of end-stage renal disease treatment. Med Decis Making. 2002;22:417-430.
36. 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. 2000;92:397-402.
37. Munoz N, Bosch FX, de Sanjose S, et al, for the International Agency for Research on Cancer Multicenter Cervical Cancer Study Group. Epidemiologic classification of human papillomavirus types associated with cervical cancer. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:518-527.
38. Crum CP. The beginning of the end for cervical cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:1703-1705.
39. Eddy DM. Screening for cervical cancer. Ann Intern Med. 1990;113:214-226.
40. Brown AD, Garber AM. Cost-effectiveness of 3 methods to enhance the sensitivity of Papanicolau testing. JAMA. 1999;281:347-353.
41. Fahs MC, Plichta SB, Mandelblatt JS. Cost effective policies for cervical cancer screening: an international review. Pharmacoeconomics. 1996;9:211-230.
42. Fahs MC, Mandelblatt J, Schechter C, Muller C. Cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening for the elderly. Ann Intern Med. 1992;117:520-527.
43. Anderson RM, Swinton J, Garnett GP. Potential impact of low efficacy HIV-1 vaccine in populations with high rates of infection. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1995;261:147-151.
44. Conaglen HM, Hughes R, Conaglen JV, Morgan J. A prospective study of the psychological impact on patients of first diagnosis of human papillomavirus. Int J STD AIDS. 2001;12:651-658.
45. Jones MH, Singer A, Jenkins D. The mildly abnormal cervical smear: patient anxiety and choice of management. J R Soc Med. 1996;89:257-260.
46. Klee M, Thranov I, Machin D. Life after radiotherapy: the psychological and social effects experienced by women treated for advanced states of cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2000;76:5-13.
47. Li C, Samsioe G, Iosif G. Quality of life in long-term survivors of cervical cancer. Maturitas. 1999;32: 95-102.