The German Cervical Cancer Screening Model: Development and validation of a decision-analytic model for cervical cancer screening in Germany

European Journal of Public Health

Volumn 16, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 185-192

  Siebert, Uwe ^a,b,c,d,i   Sroczynski, Gaby ^a,b,c,d   Hillemanns, Peter ^e   Engel, Jutta ^d   Stabenow, Roland ^f   Stegmaier, Christa ^g   Voigt, Kerstin ^b   Gibis, Bernhard ^g   Hölzel, Dieter ^h   Goldie, Sue J ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY FOR HEALTH SCIENCES   (Austria)

^b HARVARD CENTER FOR RISK ANALYSIS   (United States)

^c MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH   (Germany)

^e FRIEDRICH SCHILLER UNIVERSITY JENA   (Germany)

^f Berlin/Brandenburg/Mecklenburg Vorpommern/Sachsen Anhalt/Sachsen/Thuringen   (Germany)

^g Saarland Cancer Registry   (Germany)

^h National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians   (Germany)

ⁱ Eduard Wallnöfer Zentrum I   (Austria)

Author keywords

Cervical cancer; Decision analysis; Markov model; Screening

Indexed keywords

ANALYTIC METHOD; ARTICLE; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER MORTALITY; CANCER REGISTRY; CANCER SCREENING; CANCER SURVIVAL; CLINICAL PRACTICE; EPIDEMIOLOGICAL DATA; FOLLOW UP; GERMANY; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; LIFE EXPECTANCY; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; STATISTICAL MODEL; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER; VALIDATION PROCESS;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; FEMALE; GERMANY; HUMANS; MARKOV CHAINS; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 33645500841     PISSN: 11011262     EISSN: 1464360X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/eurpub/cki163     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Boyle P, Maisonneuve P, Autier P. Update on cancer control in women. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2000;70:263-303.
2. Robert Koch-Institute. Krebs: Trends zu Inzidenz und Mortalität. Interaktive Datenbankabfrage. Stand 2. Quartal 2003. [Cancer: Trends of incidence and mortality. Interactive database query. Status second quarter 2003.] http://www.oki.de 2004 Accessed August 19, 2005.
3. Hillemanns P, Thaler C, Kimmig R. Epidemiology and diagnosis of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia - is the present concept of screening and diagnosis still current? Gynakol Geburtshilfliche Rundsch 1997;37:179-90.
4. Walboomer JM, Jacobs MV, Nanos MM, et al. Human papillomavirus is a necessary cause of invasive cervical cancer worldwide. J Pathol 1999;189:12-9.
5. Bertz B., Hentschel S., Hundsdörfer G., et al. Arbeitsgemeinschaft Bevölkerungsbezogener Krebsregister in Deutschland, editors. In collaboration with the Robert Koch-Institute. Krebs in Deutschland - Häufigkeiten und Trends. [Cancer in Germany - Prevalences and Trends]. 4th edited edition, Saarbrücken, 2004. Available online at http://www.rki.de Accessed August 19, 2005.
6. Peto J, Gilham C, Fletcher O, Matthews FE. The cervical cancer epidemic that screening has prevented in the UK. Lancet 2004;364:249-56.
7. Mandelblatt JS, Fahs MC. The cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening for low-income elderly women. JAMA 1988;259:2409-13.
8. Eddy DM. Screening for cervical cancer. Ann Intern Med 1990;113:214-26.
9. Fahs MC, Mandelblatt J, Schechter C, Muller C. Cost effectiveness of cervical cancer screening for the elderly. Ann Intern Med 1992;117:520-7.
10. Sherlaw-Johnson C, Gallivan S, Jenkins D, Jones MH. Cytological screening and management of abnormalities in prevention of cervical cancer: an overview with stochastic modelling. J Clin Pathol 1994;47:430-5.
11. Fahs MC, Plichta SB, Mandelblatt JS. Cost-effective policies for cervical cancer screening. An international review. Pharmacoeconomics 1996;9:211-30.
12. Brown AD, Garber AM. Cost-effectiveness of 3 methods to enhance the sensitivity of Papanicolaou testing. JAMA 1999;281:347-53.
13. Goldie SJ, Weinstein MC, Kuntz KM, Freedberg KA. The costs, clinical benefits, and cost-effectiveness of screening for cervical cancer in HIV-infected women. Ann Intern Med 1999;130:97-107.
14. McCrory DC, Matchar DB. McCrory DC, Matchar DB. Evaluation of Cervical Cytology. Summary, Evidence Report/Technology Assessment: Number 5, January 1999. Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, Rockville, MD. Available online at http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/epcsums/ cervsumm.htm Accessed August 19, 2005.
15. Myers ER, McCrory DC, Nanda K, et al. Mathematical model for the natural history of human papillomavirus infection and cervical carcinogenesis. Am J Epidemiol 2000;151:1158-71.
16. Hutchinson ML, Farber FL. Cost-effectiveness of new cytology technologies. Am J Clin Pathol 2000;113:149-51.
17. Goldie S, Kuhn L, Denny L, et al. Policy Analysis of cervical cancer screening strategies in low-resource settings: clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness. JAMA 2001;285:3107-15.
18. Kim JJ, Wright TC, Goldie SJ. Cost-effectiveness of alternative triage strategies for atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance. JAMA 2002;287:2382-90.
19. Mandelblatt JS, Lawrence WF, Womack SM, et al. Benefits and costs of using HPV testing to screen for cervical cancer. JAMA 2002;287:2372-81.
20. Maxwell GL, Carlson JW, Ochoa M, et al. Costs and effectiveness of alternative strategies for cervical cancer screening in military beneficiaries. Obstet Gynecol 2002;100:740-8.
21. Goldie SJ, Grima D, Kohli M, et al. A comprehensive natural history model of HPV infection and cervical cancer to estimate the clinical impact of a prophylactic HPV-16/18 vaccine. Int J Cancer 2003;106:896-904.
22. Goldie SJ, Kim JJ, Wright TC. Cost-effectiveness of human papillomavirus DNA testing for cervical cancer screening in women aged 30 years or more. Obstet Gynecol 2004;103:619-31.
23. Goldie SJ, Kohli M, Grima D, et al. Projected clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness of a human papillomavirus 16/18 vaccine. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004;96:604-15.
24. Payne N, Chilcott J, McGoogan E. Liquid-based cytology in cervical screening: a rapid and systematic review. HTA Report: The National Coordinating Centre for Health Technology Assessment (NCCHTA); 2000. http://www.ncchta.org/ execsumm/summ418.htm Accessed August 19, 2005.
25. Habbema JD, van Oortmarssen GJ, Lubbe JT, van der Maas PJ. Model building on the basis of Dutch cervical cancer screening data. Maturitas 1985;7:11-20.
26. Cantor SB, Fahs MC, Mandelblatt JS, et al. Decision science and cervical cancer. Cancer 2003;98 (9 Suppl):2003-8.
27. Etzioni R, Thomas D. Modelling the effect of screening for cervical cancer on the population. Lancet 2004;364:224-5.
28. Siebert U, Muth C, Sroczynski G, et al. Dünnschichtprä parationen und computergestützte Untersuchungen von Zervixabstrichen - Medizinische Effektivität, gesundheitsökonomische Evaluation und systematische Entscheidungsanalyse. [Liquid-Based Preparation and Computer Assisted Analysis of Cervical Smears - Medical Effectiveness, Health Economic Evaluation and Systematic Decision Analysis]; 2003. Available online at http://gripsdb.dimdi.de/de/hta/hta_berichte/hta067_bericht_de.pdf Accessed August 19, 2005.
29. Sonnenberg FA, Beck JR. Markov models in medical decision making: a practical guide. Med Decis Making 1993;13:322-38.
30. Kiviat N. Natural history of cervical neoplasia: overview and update. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996;175:1099-104.
31. Koutsky L. Epidemiology of genital human papillomavirus infection. Am J Med 1997;102:3-8.
32. Ho GYF, Bierman R, Beardsley L. Natural history of cervicovaginal papillomavirus infection in young women. N Engl J Med 1998;338:423-8.
33. Hildesheim A, Schiffman M, Gravitt P. Persistence of type-specific human papillomavirus infection among cytologically normal women. J Infect Dis 1994;169:235-40.
34. Munoz N, Kato I, Bosch FX. Risk factors for HPV DNA detection in middle-aged women. Sex Transm Dis 1996;23:504-10.
35. Oortmarssen G, Habbema J. Epidemiological evidence for age-dependant regression of pre-invasive cervical cancer. Br J Cancer 1991;64:559-65.
36. Syrjanen K, Kataja V, Yliskoski M. Natural history of cervical humanpapillomavirus lesions does not substantiate the biologic relevance of the Bethesda System. Obstet Gynecol 1992;79:675-82.
37. Kataja V, Syrjanen S, Mantyjarvi R et al. Prognostic factors in cervical human papillomavirus infections. Sex Transm Dis 1992;19:154-60.
38. Östör AG. Natural history of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a critical review. Int J Gynecol Pathol 1993;12:186-92.
39. Brenner H, Stegmaier C, Ziegler H. Incidence of secondary tumors following cervical neoplasia in Saarland 1968-1987. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkund 1990;50:614-8.
40. Goldie SJ, Kuntz KM. A potential error in evaluating cancer screening: a comparison of 2 approaches for modeling underlying disease progression. Med Decis Making 2003;23:232-41.
41. Vessey MP, Villard-Mackintosh L. The epidemiology of hysterectomy: findings in a large cohort study. Br J Obstet Gynecol 1992;99:402-7.
42. Statistisches Bundesamt Deutschland. Sterbetafeln für Deutschland 1997-1999. [Mortality tables for Germany 1997 - 1999]; 2000. http:// www.stabu.de/ Accessed May 10, 2001.
43. 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;6:810-9.
44. Schneider A, Hoyer H, Lotz B, et al. Screening for high-grade cervical intra-epithelial neoplasia and cancer by testing for high-risk HPV, routine cytology or colposcopy. Int J Cancer 2000;89:529-34.
45. Freie Hansestadt Bremen. Der Senator für Arbeit, Frauen, Gesundheit, Jugend und Soziales. Abteilung Gesundheitswesen. Referat Gesundheitsberichterstattung. [Unit of Health Reporting. The Federal Ministry for Employment, Women, Health, Youth and Social Welfare. Department of Health Care. Unit of Health Reporting.
46. Kim J, Leung G, Woo P, Goldie S. Cost-effectiveness of organized versus opportunistic cervical cytology screening in Hong Kong. J Public Health 2004;26:130-7.
47. Gustafsson L, Ponten J, Bergstrom R, Adami HO. International incidence rates of invasive cervical cancer before cytological screening. Int J Cancer 1997;71:159-65.
48. Drummond M, Bloom B, Carrin G, et al Issues in the cross-national assessment of health technology. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1992;8:671-82.
49. Welte R, Leidl R. Übertragung ausländischer Studienergebnisse aus dem Bereich der ökonomischen Evaluation auf Deutschland: Probleme und Lösungsvorschläge. Projekt "Aufbau einer Datenbasis 'Evaluation medizinischer Verfahren und Technologien' in der Bundesrepublik" [Transfer of international study results from economic evaluations to Germany: problems and solutions]; 1998. http://www.dimdi.de Accessed August 15, 2005.
50. Willke RJ, Glick HA, Polsky D, Schulman K. Estimating country-specific cost-effectiveness from multinational clinical trials. Health Econ 1998;7:481-93.
51. Kuntz KM, Goldie SJ. Assessing the sensitivity of decision-analytic results to unobserved markers of risk: defining the effects of heterogeneity bias. Med Decis Making 2002;22:218-27.