Cost-effectiveness of primarily human papillomavirus-based cervical cancer screening in settings with currently established Pap screening: A systematic review commissioned by the German Federal Ministry of Health

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Volumn 24, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 184-192

  Mühlberger, Nikolai ^a   Sroczynski, Gaby ^a   Esteban, Eva ^a   Mittendorf, Thomas ^b   Miksad, Rebecca A ^c   Siebert, Uwe ^d  

^a UMIT University for Health Sciences Medical Informatics and Technology

^b LEIBNIZ UNIVERSITY HANNOVER   (Germany)

^c MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

^d HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

Cervical cancer; Cost effectiveness; Health technology assessment; Human papillomavirus; Screening

Indexed keywords

CERVICAL CANCER; HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; HUMAN PAPILLOMAVIRUS;

COST EFFECTIVENESS; MEDICAL PROBLEMS; SCREENING;

HEALTH CARE;

BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; CANCER SCREENING; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; FEMALE; GERMANY; HEALTH PROGRAM; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; PROSPECTIVE PAYMENT; REVIEW; STANDARDIZATION; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER; WART VIRUS;

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; FEMALE; GERMANY; HUMANS; MASS SCREENING; PAPILLOMAVIRUS INFECTIONS; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VAGINAL SMEARS;

EID: 42049114266     PISSN: 02664623     EISSN: 14716348     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0266462308080264     Document Type: Review

References (33)

1. Bosch FX, Lorincz A, Munoz N, Meijer CJ, Shah KV. The causal relation between human papillomavirus and cervical cancer. J Clin Pathol. 2002;55:244-265.
2. Boyle P, Maisonneuve P, Autier P. Update on cancer control in women. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2000;70:263-303.
3. Clavel C, Masure M, Bory JP, et al. Human papillomavirus testing in primary screening for the detection of high-grade cervical lesions: A study of 7932 women. Br J Cancer. 2001;84:1616-1623.
4. Cuzick J, Beverley E, Ho L, et al. HPV testing in primary screening of older women. Br J Cancer. 1999;81:554-558.
5. Cuzick J, Sasieni P, Davies P, et al. A systematic review of the role of human papillomavirus testing within a cervical screening programme. Health Technol Assess. 1999;3:i-iv 1-196.
6. Cuzick J, Szarewski A, Cubie H, et al. Management of women who test positive for high-risk types of human papillomavirus: The HART study. Lancet. 2003;362:1871-1876.
7. Gandjour A, Lauterbach KW. [Cost-effectiveness of quality improvement measures in health care]. Med Klin (Munich). 2002;97:499-502.
8. 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;103:619-631.
9. Gustafsson L, Ponten J, Zack M, Adami HO. International incidence rates of invasive cervical cancer after introduction of cytological screening. Cancer Causes Control. 1997;8:755-763.
10. Henderson JW. Cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening strategies. Expert Rev Pharmacoeconom Outcomes Res. 2004;4:287-296.
11. Holmes J, Hemmett L, Garfield S. The cost-effectiveness of human papillomavirus screening for cervical cancer. A review of recent modelling studies. Eur J Health Econ. 2005;6:30-37.
12. IARC. Cervix cancer screening. Lyon: IARC Press; 2005.
13. Kim JJ, Wright TC, Goldie SJ. Cost-effectiveness of human papillomavirus DNA testing in the United Kingdom, The Netherlands, France, and Italy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97:888-895.
14. 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.
15. McCrory DC, Matchar DB, Bastian L, et al. Evaluation of cervical cytology. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Summ). 1999:1-6.
16. Mittendorf T, Petry KU, Iftner T, Greiner W, von der Schulenburg JM. Economic evaluation of human papillomavirus screening in Germany. Eur J Health Econ. 2003;4:209-215.
17. Munoz N, Bosch FX, de Sanjose S, et al. Epidemiologic classification of human papillomavirus types associated with cervical cancer. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:518-527.
18. 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.
19. Nieminen P, Kallio M, Hakama M. The effect of mass screening on incidence and mortality of squamous and adenocarcinoma of cervix uteri. Obstet Gynecol. 1995;85:1017-1021.
20. Noorani HZ, Brown A, Skidmore B, Stuart GCE. Liquid-based cytology and human papillomavirus testing in cervical cancer screening. Ottawa: Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA); 2003.
21. Petry KU, Menton S, Menton M, et al. Inclusion of HPV testing in routine cervical cancer screening for women above 29 years in Germany: Results for 8466 patients. Br J Cancer. 2003;88:1570-1577.
22. Ratnam S, Franco EL, Ferenczy A. Human papillomavirus testing for primary screening of cervical cancer precursors. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2000;9:945-951.
23. Sasieni PD, Cuzick J, Lynch-Farmery E. Estimating the efficacy of screening by auditing smear histories of women with and without cervical cancer. The National Co-ordinating Network for Cervical Screening Working Group. Br J Cancer. 1996;73:1001-1005.
24. Schenck U, von Karsa L. Cervical cancer screening in Germany. Eur J Cancer. 2000;36:2221-2226.
25. Schiffman M, Herrero R, Hildesheim A, et al. HPV DNA testing in cervical cancer screening: Results from women in a high-risk province of Costa Rica. JAMA. 2000;283:87-93.
26. 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;89:529-534.
27. Sherlaw-Johnson C, Gallivan S. The planning of cervical cancer screening programmes in eastern Europe: Is viral testing a suitable alternative to smear testing? Health Care Manag Sci. 2000;3:323-329.
28. Sherlaw-Johnson C, Philips Z. An evaluation of liquid-based cytology and human papillomavirus testing within the UK cervical cancer screening programme. Br J Cancer. 2004;91:84-91.
29. Siebert U, Behrend C, Mühlberger N, et al. Development of a criteria catalogue for the description and assessment of economic evaluations in Germany. [German; original title: Entwicklung eines Kriterienkataloges zur Beschreibung und Bewertung ökonomischer Evaluationsstudien in Deutschland]. In: Leidl R, Schulenburg JM, Wasem vdJ, eds. Ansätze und Methoden der ökonomischen Evaluation - eine internationale Perspektive. Health Technology Assessment, vol. 9. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 1999.
30. Slater DN, Milner PC, Radley H. Audit of deaths from cervical cancer: Proposal for an essential component of the National Screening Programme. J Clin Pathol. 1994;47:27-28.
31. van Ballegooijen M, Van Den Akker-van Marle ME, Warmerdam PG, Meijer CJ, Walboomers JM, Habbema JD. 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.
32. 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.
33. World Health Organization. The World Health Report 2004: Changing history. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2004.