The clinical and economic benefits of co-testing versus primary HPV testing for cervical cancer screening: A modeling analysis

Journal of Women's Health

Volumn 25, Issue 6, 2016, Pages 606-616

  Felix, Juan C ^a   Lacey, Michael J ^b   Miller, Jeffrey D ^b   Lenhart, Gregory M ^b   Spitzer, Mark ^c   Kulkarni, Rucha ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b IBM WATSON HEALTH   (United States)

^c DONALD AND BARBARA ZUCKER SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AT HOFSTRA NORTHWELL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER MORTALITY; CANCER SCREENING; COLPOSCOPY; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; CYTOLOGY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; ECONOMIC ASPECT; FEMALE; GENOTYPE; HUMAN; HUMAN PAPILLOMAVIRUS DNA TEST; HUMAN PAPILLOMAVIRUS TYPE 16; HUMAN PAPILLOMAVIRUS TYPE 18; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; INVASIVE CERVICAL CANCER; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; NONHUMAN; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PAP PLUS HPV MRNA TEST; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER; VIRAL GENETICS; CERVICAL INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA; COMPUTER SIMULATION; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; EARLY CANCER DIAGNOSIS; ECONOMICS; GENETICS; ISOLATION AND PURIFICATION; MARKOV CHAIN; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; PAPILLOMAVIRIDAE; PAPILLOMAVIRUS INFECTIONS; PROCEDURES; STATISTICAL MODEL; UNITED STATES; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VIROLOGY;

VIRUS DNA;

ADULT; AGED; CERVICAL INTRAEPITHELIAL NEOPLASIA; COLPOSCOPY; COMPUTER SIMULATION; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DNA, VIRAL; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; FEMALE; GENOTYPE; HUMAN PAPILLOMAVIRUS 16; HUMAN PAPILLOMAVIRUS 18; HUMANS; LOGISTIC MODELS; MARKOV CHAINS; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, ECONOMETRIC; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; PAPILLOMAVIRIDAE; PAPILLOMAVIRUS INFECTIONS; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS; UNITED STATES; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS;

EID: 84974623919     PISSN: 15409996     EISSN: 1931843X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1089/jwh.2015.5708     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2015. CA Cancer J Clin 2015; 65: 5-29.
2. American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts, and Figures 2015. Available at: www.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/.cancerfactsfigures2015/index. Accessed January 8, 2015.
3. Riethmuller D, Jacquard AC, Lacau St Guily J, et al. Potential impact of a nonavalent HPV vaccine on the occurrence of HPV-related diseases in France.BMCPublic Health 2015; 15: 453.
4. Dunne EF, Naleway A, Smith N, et al. Reduction in human papillomavirus vaccine type prevalence among young women screened for cervical cancer in an integrated US healthcare delivery system in 2007, and 2012-2013. J Infect Dis 2015. [Epub ahead of print].
5. Gage JC, Schiffman M, Katki HA, et al. Reassurance against future risk of precancer, and cancer conferred by a negative human papillomavirus test. J Nat Cancer Inst 2014; 106: dju153.
6. Blatt AJ, Kennedy R, Luff RD, Austin RM, Rabin DS. Comparison of cervical cancer screening results among 256, 648 women in multiple clinical practices. Cancer Cytopathol 2015; 123: 282-288.
7. Saslow D, Solomon D, Lawson HW, et al. American Cancer Society, American Society for Colposcopy, and Cervical Pathology, and American Society for Clinical Pathology screening guidelines for the prevention, and early detection of cervical cancer. Am J Clin Pathol 2012; 137: 516-542.
8. Kinney W, Wright TC, Dinkelspiel HE, DeFrancesco M, Thomas Cox J, Huh W. Increased cervical cancer risk associated with screening at longer intervals. Obstet Gynecol 2015; 125: 311-315.
9. U.S. Food, and Drug Administration (FDA). FDA approves first human papillomavirus test for primary cervical cancer screening. FDA News Release 2014. Available at: www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/.ucm394773.htm. Accessed June 10, 2015.
10. Ronco G, Dillner J, Elfstrom KM, et al. Efficacy of HPVbased screening for prevention of invasive cervical cancer: Follow-up of four European randomised controlled trials. Lancet 2014; 383: 524-532.
11. Kitchener HC, Gilham C, Sargent A, et al A comparison of HPV DNA testing, and liquid based cytology over three rounds of primary cervical screening: Extended follow up in the ARTISTIC trial. Eur J Cancer 2011; 47: 864-871.
12. Kitchener HC, Canfell K, Gilham C, et al. The clinical effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of primary human papillomavirus cervical screening in England: Extended follow-up of the ARTISTIC randomised trial cohort through three screening rounds. Health Technol Assess 2014; 18: 1-196.
13. Health, and Social Care Information Centre (HSCIC). Cervical screening coverage: Lowest levels amongst women under 30. HSCIC News Archive 2014. Available at: www.hscic.gov.uk/article/5215/Cervical-screening-coveragelowest-levels-Amongst-women-under-30. Accessed June 10, 2015.
14. Millions of U.S. women are not getting screened for cervical cancer. CDC Newsroom Releases 2014. Available at: www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2014/p1105-vs-cervicalcancer. html. Accessed June 10, 2015.
15. Huh WK, Williams E, Huang J, Bramley T, Poulios N. Cost effectiveness of human papillomavirus-16/18 genotyping in cervical cancer screening. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2015; 13: 95-107.
16. College of American Pathologists (CAP). Human papillomavirus for cytology laboratories CHPVD, CHPVM, CHPVK, CHPVJ Participant Summary. Washington, DC: CAP, 2015.
17. Kulasingam SL, Havrilesky LJ, Ghebre R, Myers ER. Screening for cervical cancer: A modeling study for the US Preventive Services Task Force. J Lower Genit Tract Dis 2013; 17: 193-202.
18. National Association of Nurse Practitioners in Women?s Health (NPWH). HCP Cervical Cancer Survey. Washington, DC: NPWH, 2015.
19. Verrilli L, Winer RL, Mao C. Adherence to cervical cancer screening guidelines by gynecologists in the Pacific Northwest. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2014; 18: 228-234.
20. King NR, Kasper KM, Daggy JK, Tucker Edmonds B. Current practice patterns in cervical cancer screening in Indiana. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014; 210: 265.e1-8.
21. Huh WK, Ault KA, Chelmow D, et al. Use of primary highrisk human papillomavirus testing for cervical cancer screening: Interim clinical guidance. Gynecol Oncol 2015; 136: 178-182.
22. 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.
23. Kulasingam SL, Havrilesky L, Ghebre R, Myers ER. Screening for cervical cancer: A decision analysis for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Evidence Syntheses 86s. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research, and Quality, 2011.
24. Centers for Disease Control, and Prevention (CDC). Vital signs: Cervical cancer is preventable. Atlanta: CDC, 2014. Available at: www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/pdf/2014-11-vitalsigns.pdf. Accessed March 9, 2016.
25. Documet P, Bear TM, Flatt JD, Macia L, Trauth J, Ricci EM. The association of social support, and education with breast, and cervical cancer screening. Health Educ Behav 2015; 42: 55-64.
26. Campos NG, Burger EA, Sy S, et al. An updated natural history model of cervical cancer: Derivation of model parameters. Am J Epidemiol 2014; 180: 545-555.
27. 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.
28. Cox JT, Castle PE, Behrens CM, et al. Comparison of cervical cancer screening strategies incorporating different combinations of cytology, HPV testing, and genotyping for HPV 16/18: Results from the ATHENA HPV study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2013; 208: 184.e1-184.e11.
29. Hologic Inc. ThinPrep- Imaging System summary of safety, and effectiveness data. Premarket approval application (PMA) number P020002. June 6, 2003.
30. Ting J, Smith JS, Myers ER. Cost-effectiveness of high-risk human papillomavirus testing with messenger RNA versus DNA under United States Guidelines for Cervical Cancer Screening. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2015; 19: 333-339.
31. Monsonego J, Hudgens MG, Zerat L, et al. Evaluation of oncogenic human papillomavirus RNA, and DNA tests with liquid-based cytology in primary cervical cancer screening: The FASE study. Int J Cancer 2011; 129: 691-701.
32. Iftner T, Becker S, Neis KJ, et al. Head-To-head comparison of the RNA-based Aptima Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Assay, and the DNA-based Hybrid Capture 2 HPV Test in a routine screening population of women Aged 30 to 60 years in Germany. J Clin Microbiol 2015; 53: 2509-2516.
33. Hologic Inc. Aptima HPV Assay package insert #503789 Rev A. Marlborough, MA: Hologic, 2013.
34. Vijayaraghavan A, Efrusy MB, Goodman KA, Santas CC, Huh WK. Cost-effectiveness of using human papillomavirus 16/18 genotype triage in cervical cancer screening. Gynecol Oncol 2010; 119: 237-242.
35. Mariotto AB, Yabroff KR, Shao Y, Feuer EJ, Brown ML. Projections of the cost of cancer care in the United States: 2010-2020. J Natl Cancer Inst 2011; 103: 117-128.
36. Simoens S. How to assess the value of medicines?. Front Pharmacol 2010; 1: 115.
37. Howden LM, Meyer JA. Age, and sex composition: 2010. Census Briefs 2010. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, 2011. Available at http://.www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-03.pdf Accessed March 21, 2016.
38. Kosary CL. Cancer of the cervix uteri. In: LAG R, ed. SEER survival monograph: Cancer survival among adults: US SEER Program 1988-2001, patient, and tumor characteristics. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute SEER Program, 2007: 111-122.
39. Sawaya GF, Kuppermann M. Identifying a range of reasonable options for cervical cancer screening. Obstet Gynecol 2015; 125: 308-310.
40. Schiffman M, Boyle S, Raine-Bennett T, et al. The role of human papillomavirus genotyping in cervical cancer screening: A large-scale evaluation of the cobas HPV test. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2015; 24: 1304-1310.
41. de Kok IM, van Rosmalen J, Dillner J, et al. Primary screening for human papillomavirus compared with cytology screening for cervical cancer in European settings: Cost effectiveness analysis based on a Dutch microsimulation model. BMJ 2012; 344: e670.
42. Leyden WA, Manos MM, Geiger AM, et al. Cervical cancer in women with comprehensive health care access: attributable factors in the screening process. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005; 97: 675-683.
43. Stokley S, Jeyarajah J, Yankey D, et al. Human papillomavirus vaccination coverage among adolescents, 2007-2013, and postlicensure vaccine safety monitoring, 2006-2014-United States. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2014; 63: 620-624.
44. US Social Security Administration. Actuarial Life Tables: Table 4.C6-Period life table, 2010. Available at: https://.www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/./4c.xlsx. Accessed June 10, 2015.
45. Howlander N, Noone AM, Krapcho M, et al. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2012, National Cancer Institute. Bethesda, MD. Available at: http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975-2012/. Accessed June 10, 2015.