Primary HPV testing versus cytology-based cervical screening in women in Australia vaccinated for HPV and unvaccinated: effectiveness and economic assessment for the National Cervical Screening Program

The Lancet Public Health

Volumn 2, Issue 2, 2017, Pages e96-e107

  Lew, Jie Bin ^a   Simms, Kate T ^a   Smith, Megan A ^a,b   Hall, Michaela ^a   Kang, Yoon Jung ^a   Xu, Xiang Ming ^a   Caruana, Michael ^a   Velentzis, Louiza Sofia ^a   Bessell, Tracey ^c   Saville, Marion ^d,e   Hammond, Ian ^f   Canfell, Karen ^a,b  

^a CANCER RESEARCH DIVISION   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

^c Cancer and Palliative Care Branch   (Australia)

^d VICTORIAN CYTOLOGY SERVICE   (Australia)

^e UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

^f UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

WART VIRUS VACCINE;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; AUSTRALIA; CANCER SCREENING; CHILD; COLPOSCOPY; CONTROLLED STUDY; CYTOLOGY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; GENOTYPE; HEALTH ECONOMICS; HEALTH PROGRAM; HUMAN; MORTALITY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; UTERINE CERVIX; UTERINE CERVIX TUMOR; VACCINATION; VIRUS TRANSMISSION; WART VIRUS; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; EARLY CANCER DIAGNOSIS; ECONOMICS; MIDDLE AGED; PAPILLOMAVIRUS INFECTION; PRIMARY PREVENTION; PROCEDURES; PROGRAM EVALUATION; YOUNG ADULT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AUSTRALIA; CELL BIOLOGY; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC TESTS, ROUTINE; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; FEMALE; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; PAPILLOMAVIRUS INFECTIONS; PAPILLOMAVIRUS VACCINES; PRIMARY PREVENTION; PROGRAM EVALUATION; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 85018277992     PISSN: None     EISSN: 24682667     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S2468-2667(17)30007-5     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. National HPV Vaccination Program Register. HPV vaccination coverage by dose 2013. http://www.hpvregister.org.au/research/coverage-data/HPV-Vaccination-Coverage-by-Dose-20132, July 12, 2016 (accessed Nov 1, 2016).
2. Brotherton, JM, Murray, SL, Hall, MA, et al. Human papillomavirus vaccine coverage among female Australian adolescents: success of the school-based approach. Med J Aust 199 (2013), 614–617.
3. Brotherton, JM, Liu, B, Donovan, B, Kaldor, JM, Saville, M, Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination coverage in young Australian women is higher than previously estimated: independent estimates from a nationally representative mobile phone survey. Vaccine 32 (2014), 592–597.
4. Tabrizi, SN, Brotherton, JML, 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 14 (2014), 958–966.
5. Smith, MA, Liu, B, McIntyre, P, Menzies, R, Dey, A, Canfell, K, Fall in genital warts diagnoses in the general and indigenous Australian population following implementation of a national human papillomavirus vaccination program: analysis of routinely collected national hospital data. J Infect Dis 211 (2015), 91–99.
6. Brotherton, JM, Gertig, DM, May, C, Chappell, G, Saville, M, HPV vaccine impact in Australian women: ready for an HPV-based screening program. Med J Aust, 204, 2016, 184.
7. AIHW. Cervical screening in Australia 2012–2013: cancer series no 93—cat no CAN 91, 2015, AIHW, Canberra.
8. Lew, JB, Howard, K, Gertig, D, et al. Expenditure and resource utilisation for cervical screening in Australia. BMC Health Serv Res, 12, 2012, 446.
9. 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 24 (2013), 1727–1736.
10. Ronco, G, Dillner, J, Elfström, KM, et al., the International HPV screening working group. Efficacy of HPV-based screening for prevention of invasive cervical cancer: follow-up of four European randomised controlled trials. Lancet 383 (2014), 524–532.
11. Rijkaart, DC, Berkhof, J, Rozendaal, L, et al. Human papillomavirus testing for the detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and cancer: final results of the POBASCAM randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 13 (2012), 78–88.
12. 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 47 (2011), 864–871.
13. Elfstrom, KM, Smelov, V, Johansson, AL, et al. Long term duration of protective effect for HPV negative women: follow-up of primary HPV screening randomised controlled trial. BMJ, 348, 2014, g130.
14. 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, 337, 2008, a1754.
15. Bulkmans, NW, Rozendaal, L, Voorhorst, FJ, Snijders, PJ, Meijer, CJ, Long-term protective effect of high-risk human papillomavirus testing in population-based cervical screening. Br J Cancer 92 (2005), 1800–1802.
16. 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 30 (2012), 3044–3050.
17. IARC Working Group on the Evaluation of Cancer. IARC Handbooks of Cancer Prevention, vol 10: cervix cancer screening, 2005, IARC Press, Lyon.
18. National Cervical Screening Program, AIHW. Medical Services Advisory Committee recommendations. http://www.cancerscreening.gov.au/internet/screening/publishing.nsf/Content/MSAC-recommendations, Oct 28, 2016 (accessed Jan 4, 2017).
19. 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. http://www.cancerscreening.gov.au/internet/screening/publishing.nsf/Content/E6A211A6FFC29E2CCA257CED007FB678/$File/Renewal%20Economic%20Evaluation.pdf, November, 2013 (accessed Jan 4, 2017).
20. Smith, MA, Gertig, D, Hall, M, et al. Transitioning from cytology-based screening to HPV-based screening intervals: implications for resource use. BMC Health Serv Res, 16, 2016, 147.
21. Lew, JB, Simms, K, Smith, M, Lewis, H, Neal, H, Canfell, K, Effectiveness modelling and economic evaluation of primary HPV screening for cervical cancer prevention in New Zealand. PLoS One, 11, 2016, e0151619.
22. Kitchener, H, 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 18 (2014), 1–196.
23. Simms, KT, Smith, MA, Lew, JB, et al. Will cervical screening remain cost-effective in women offered the next generation nonavalent HPV vaccine? Results for four developed countries. Int J Cancer 139 (2016), 2771–2780.
24. Protocol Advisory Sub-Committee, Medical Services Advisory Committee. Application 1276: Final Decision Analytic Protocol to guide the assessment of the National Cervical Screening Program Renewal. http://www.msac.gov.au/internet/msac/publishing.nsf/Content/1276-public, September, 2012 (accessed Nov 4, 2016).
25. Sasieni, P, Castanon, A, Parkin, DM, How many cervical cancers are prevented by treatment of screen-detected disease in young women?. Int J Cancer 124 (2009), 461–464.
26. Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC). Automation assisted and liquid based cytology for cervical cancer screening: MSAC 1122—assessment report, 2009, MSAC, Canberra.
27. Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC). Human papillomavirus triage test for women with possible or definite low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions: MSAC 39–assessment report, 2009, MSAC, Canberra.
28. Cancer Council Australia. National Cervical Screening Program: guidelines for the management of screen-detected abnormalities, screening in special populations and investigation of abnormal vaginal bleeding, 2016, CCA, Sydney.
29. Simms, KT, Hall, M, Smith, MA, et al. Optimal management strategies for primary HPV testing for cervical screening: cost-effectiveness evaluation for the National Cervical Screening Program in Australia. PLoS One, 12, 2017, e0163509, 10.1371/journal.pone.0163509.
30. National Cervical Screening Program. Renewal of the National Cervical Screening Program: partner reference group e-newsletter. http://www.cancerscreening.gov.au/internet/screening/publishing.nsf/Content/52DF583BA30DCAD4CA257CED00801847/$File/PRG%20E-newsletter%2011%20May%202015.pdf, May, 2015 (accessed May 23, 2016).
31. Paavonen, J, Naud, P, Salmerón, J, et al., for the HPV PATRICIA Study Group. Efficacy of human papillomavirus (HPV)-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine against cervical infection and precancer caused by oncogenic HPV types (PATRICIA): final analysis of a double-blind, randomised study in young women. Lancet 374 (2009), 301–314.
32. Herrero, R, Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines: limited cross-protection against additional HPV types. J Infect Dis 199 (2009), 919–922.
33. Kim, JJ, Burger, EA, Sy, S, Campos, NG, Optimal cervical cancer screening in women vaccinated against human papillomavirus. J Natl Cancer Inst, 2016, 10.1093/jnci/djw216 published online Oct 17.
34. Accetta, G, Biggeri, A, Carreras, G, et al. Is human papillomavirus screening preferable to current policies in vaccinated and unvaccinated women? A cost-effectiveness analysis. J Med Screen 17 (2010), 181–189.
35. Burger, EA, Ortendahl, JD, Sy, S, Kristiansen, IS, Kim, JJ, Cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening with primary human papillomavirus testing in Norway. Br J Cancer 106 (2012), 1571–1578.
36. Goldhaber-Fiebert, JD, Stout, NK, Salomon, JA, Kuntz, KM, Goldie, SJ, Cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening with human papillomavirus DNA testing and HPV-16,18 vaccination. J Natl Cancer Inst 100 (2008), 308–320.