Will cervical screening remain cost-effective in women offered the next generation nonavalent HPV vaccine? Results for four developed countries

International Journal of Cancer

Volumn 139, Issue 12, 2016, Pages 2771-2780

  Simms, Kate T ^a,b   Smith, Megan A ^a,b,c   Lew, Jie Bin ^a,b   Kitchener, Henry C ^d   Castle, Philip E ^e,f   Canfell, Karen ^a,b,c  

^a CANCER RESEARCH DIVISION   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^d UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

^e ALBERT EINSTEIN COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^f Global Coalition Against Cervical Cancer   (United States)

Author keywords

cervical screening; HPV vaccine; nonavalent HPV vaccine; primary HPV screening

Indexed keywords

WART VIRUS VACCINE;

ARTICLE; AUSTRALIA; CANCER SCREENING; COHORT ANALYSIS; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DEMOGRAPHY; DEVELOPED COUNTRY; DRUG COST; ENGLAND; HUMAN; NEW ZEALAND; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PAPILLOMAVIRUS INFECTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; SCREENING TEST; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SIMULATION; UNITED STATES; UTERINE CERVIX CANCER; ADULT; AGED; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; FEMALE; IMMUNOLOGY; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; PAPILLOMAVIRUS INFECTIONS; PROCEDURES; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VACCINATION;

ADULT; AGED; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DEVELOPED COUNTRIES; FEMALE; HUMANS; MASS SCREENING; MIDDLE AGED; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PAPILLOMAVIRUS INFECTIONS; PAPILLOMAVIRUS VACCINES; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; VACCINATION;

EID: 84994171984     PISSN: 00207136     EISSN: 10970215     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/ijc.30392     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Garland SM, Steben M, Sings HL, et al. Natural history of genital warts: analysis of the placebo arm of 2 randomized phase III trials of a quadrivalent human papillomavirus (types 6, 11, 16, and 18) vaccine. J Infect Dis 2009;199:805–14.
2. Chatterjee A. The next generation of HPV vaccines: nonavalent vaccine V503 on the horizon. Expert Rev Vaccines 2014;13:1279–90.
3. Serrano B, Alemany L, Tous S, et al. Potential impact of a nine-valent vaccine in human papillomavirus related cervical disease. Infect Agent Cancer 2012;7:38
4. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. FDA approves Gardasil 9 for prevention of certain cancers caused by five additional types of HPV, vol. 2015. Silver Spring: USA, 2014.
5. Lew JB, Simms K, Smith MA, et al. National Cervical Screening Program Renewal: Effectiveness modelling and economic evaluation in the Australian setting (Assessment Report). MSAC application number 1276. Department of Health 2014.
6. Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry. Trial from ANZCTR: The use of primary Human Papillomavirus (HPV) testing for cervical screening in New Zealand, vol. 2015. Camperdown: ANZCTR, 2014.
7. Wise J. Pilot study will assess whether HPV test should replace smears to screen for cervical cancer. BMJ 2012;344:e3744
8. 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. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2012;16:175–204.
9. Tabrizi SN, Brotherton JM, Kaldor JM, et al. Assessment of herd immunity and cross-protection after a human papillomavirus vaccination programme in Australia: a repeat cross-sectional study. Lancet Infect Dis 2014;14:958–66.
10. Franco EL, Mahmud SM, Tota J, et al. The expected impact of HPV vaccination on the accuracy of cervical cancer screening: the need for a paradigm change. Arch Med Res 2009;40:478–85.
11. Schiffman M. Integration of human papillomavirus vaccination, cytology, and human papillomavirus testing. Cancer 2007;111:145–53.
12. Creighton P, Lew J, Clements M, et al. Cervical cancer screening in Australia: modelled evaluation of the impact of changing the recommended interval from two to three years. BMC Public Health 2010;10:734
13. Canfell K, Barnabas R, Patnick J, et al. The predicted effect of changes in cervical screening practice in the UK: results from a modelling study. Br J Cancer 2004;91:530–6.
14. Canfell K, Clements M, Harris J. Cost-effectiveness of proposed changes to the national cervical screening program, 2008.
15. Canfell K, Lew JB, Smith M, Walker R. Cost-effectiveness modelling beyond MAVARIC study end-points. In: Kitchener HC, Blanks R, Cubie H, et al., eds. MAVARIC - a comparison of automation-assisted and manual cervical screening: a randomised controlled trial, vol. 15. Health Technology Assessment, 2011.
16. Medical Services Advisory Committee, Human Papillomavirus Triage Test For Women With Possible or Definite Low-Grade Squamous Intraepithelial Lesions. MSAC reference 39, Assessment report. Australian Government Department of Health, 2009.
17. Legood R, Smith M, Lew J-B, et al. Cost effectiveness of human papillomavirus test of cure after treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in England: economic analysis from NHS Sentinel Sites Study. BMJ 2012;345:e7086
18. 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.
19. Smith MA, Canfell K. Testing previous model predictions against new data on human papillomavirus vaccination program outcomes. BMC Res Notes 2014;7:109
20. Lew J-B, Simms K, Smith M, et al. Effectiveness Modelling and Economic Evaluation of Primary HPV Screening for Cervical Cancer Prevention in New Zealand. PLoS ONE 2016;11:e0151619
21. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Cancer Screening — United States, 2010 Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports, 2012.
22. Simonella L, Canfell K. The impact of a two-versus three-yearly cervical screening interval recommendation on cervical cancer incidence and mortality: an analysis of trends in Australia, New Zealand, and England. Cancer Causes Control 2013;24:1727–36.
23. Dillner J, Rebolj M, Birembaut P, et al. Long term predictive values of cytology and human papillomavirus testing in cervical cancer screening: joint European cohort study. BMJ 2008;337:a1754
24. Castle PE, Glass AG, Rush BB, et al. Clinical human papillomavirus detection forecasts cervical cancer risk in women over 18 years of follow-up. J Clin Oncol 2012;30:3044–50.
25. New Zealand Ministry of Health. Mortality data and Stats Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Health, 2014.
26. National Cancer Institute. DevCan - Probability of Developing or Dying of Cancer - Lifetime Risk Tables, vol. 2015, 2014.
27. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW), ACIM (Australian Cancer Incidence and Mortality) Books, 2014.
28. Cancer Research UK. Cervical Cancer Statistics, vol. 2014. London: Cancer Research UK, 2014.
29. Canfell K, Lew JB, Clements M, et al. Impact of HPV vaccination on cost-effectiveness of existing screening programs: Example from New Zealand 28th International Human Papillomavirus Conference & Clinical and Public Health Workshops, 2012.
30. Bruinsma F, Lumley J, Tan J, et al. Precancerous changes in the cervix and risk of subsequent preterm birth. BJOG 2007;114:70–80.
31. Rodriguez-Carunchio L, Soveral I, Steenbergen RD, et al. HPV-negative carcinoma of the uterine cervix: a distinct type of cervical cancer with poor prognosis. Bjog 2015;122:119–27.
32. Saraiya M, Unger ER, Thompson TD, et al. US assessment of HPV types in cancers: implications for current and 9-valent HPV vaccines. J Natl Cancer Inst 2015;107:
33. Castle PE, Sideri M, Jeronimo J, et al. Risk assessment to guide the prevention of cervical cancer. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2008;12:1–7.
34. World Health Organisation. Comprehensive Cervical Cancer Control - A guide to essential practice, 2nd edn. World Health Organisation, 2014.
35. European Medicines Agency. European Public Assessment Report - Gardasil, vol. 2014. European Medicines Agency, 2014.
36. Department of Health. Immunisation against infectious diseases - The Green Book, Chapter 18a. In: England PH, ed. 2014.
37. Weiss T, Pillsbury M, Dasbach E. Potential health and Economic Impact of the 9-valent HPV vaccine in the United States International Human Papillomavirus Converence, 2014.
38. Drolet M, Laprise JF, Boily MC, et al. Potential cost-effectiveness of the nonavalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine. Int J Cancer 2014;134:2264–8.
39. Coupe VM, Bogaards JA, Meijer CJLM, et al. Impact of vaccine protection against multiple HPV types on the cost-effectiveness of cervical screening. Vaccine 2012;30:1813–22.
40. Canfell K, Chesson H, Kulasingam SL, et al. Modeling Preventative Strategies against Human Papillomavirus-Related Disease in Developed Countries. Vaccine 2012;30: F157–F67.
41. Australian Government Department of Health. National Cervical Screening Program Overview, vol. 2016. Australian Government Department of Health, 2016.
42. Cancer Council Australia Cervical Cancer Prevention Guidelines Working Party. Draft clinical management guidelines for the prevention of cervical cancer, vol. 2016. Sydney: Cancer Council Australia, 2016.
43. Programmes NHSCS. NHS Cervical Screening Programme: About Cervical Screening, 2011.
44. National Screening Unit, Guidelines for Cervical Screening in New Zealand: Incorporating the management of women with abnormal cervical smears. National Screening Unit, Ministry of Health, 2008.
45. National Screening Unit. Primary HPV testing consultation, vol. 2016. National Screening Unit, 2016.
46. Centre for Disease control and prevention, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, July 25, 2014.
47. Ministry of Health. HPV immunisation programme, vol. 2015. Wellington: Ministry of Health, 2014.
48. National HPV Vaccination Program Register. HPV Vaccination Coverage Data, vol. 2015. 2015.
49. Public Health England. Annual HPV vaccine coverage 2012 to 2013: by Primary Care Trust and Strategic Health Authority.
50. Markowitz LE, Hariri S, Lin C, et al. Reduction in human papillomavirus (HPV) prevalence among young women following HPV vaccine introduction in the United States, National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys, 2003-2010. J Infect Dis 2013;208:385–93.