Budget impact analysis of cervical cancer screening in Portugal: comparison of cytology and primary HPV screening strategies.
Adult
Budgets
Cohort Studies
Colposcopy
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Cytodiagnosis
/ economics
Early Detection of Cancer
/ economics
Female
Genotype
Human papillomavirus 16
/ genetics
Human papillomavirus 18
/ genetics
Humans
Incidence
Mass Screening
/ economics
Middle Aged
Papillomaviridae
/ genetics
Papillomavirus Infections
/ diagnosis
Portugal
Pregnancy
Triage
Uterine Cervical Neoplasms
/ diagnosis
Uterine Cervical Dysplasia
/ diagnosis
Budget impact
Cervical cancer
Cytology
HPV
HPV 16/18 genotyping
Screening
Journal
BMC public health
ISSN: 1471-2458
Titre abrégé: BMC Public Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968562
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
26 Feb 2019
26 Feb 2019
Historique:
received:
30
07
2018
accepted:
12
02
2019
entrez:
28
2
2019
pubmed:
28
2
2019
medline:
11
4
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Primary Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) testing is the currently recommended cervical cancer (CxCa) screening strategy by the Portuguese Society of Gynecology (SPG) clinical consensus. However, primary HPV testing has not yet been adopted by the Portuguese organized screening programs. This modelling study compares clinical benefits and costs of replacing the current practice, namely cytology with ASCUS HPV triage, with 2 comparative strategies: 1) HPV (pooled) test with cytology triage, or 2) HPV test with 16/18 genotyping and cytology triage, in organized CxCa screenings in Portugal. A budget impact model compares screening performance, clinical outcomes and budget impact of the 3 screening strategies. A hypothetical cohort of 2,078,039 Portuguese women aged 25-64 years old women is followed for two screening cycles. Screening intervals are 3 years for cytology and 5 years for the HPV strategies. Model inputs include epidemiological, test performance and medical cost data. Clinical impacts are assessed with the numbers of CIN2-3 and CxCa detected. Annual costs, budget impact and cost of detecting one CIN2+ were calculated from a public healthcare payer's perspective. HPV testing with HPV16/18 genotyping and cytology triage (comparator 2) shows the best clinical outcomes at the same cost as comparator 1 and is the most cost-effective CxCa screening strategy in the Portuguese context. Compared to screening with cytology, it would reduce annual CxCa incidence from 9.3 to 5.3 per 100,000, and CxCa mortality from 2.7 to 1.1 per 100,000. Further, it generates substantial cost savings by reducing the annual costs by €9.16 million (- 24%). The cost of detecting CIN2+ decreases from the current €15,845 to €12,795. On the other hand, HPV (pooled) test with cytology triage (comparator 1) reduces annual incidence of CxCa to 6.9 per 100,000 and CxCa mortality to 1.6 per 100,000, with a cost of €13,227 per CIN2+ detected with annual savings of €9.36 million (- 24%). The savings are mainly caused by increasing the length of routine screening intervals from three to five years. The results support current clinical recommendations to replace cytology with HPV with 16/18 genotyping with cytology triage as screening algorithm.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Primary Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) testing is the currently recommended cervical cancer (CxCa) screening strategy by the Portuguese Society of Gynecology (SPG) clinical consensus. However, primary HPV testing has not yet been adopted by the Portuguese organized screening programs. This modelling study compares clinical benefits and costs of replacing the current practice, namely cytology with ASCUS HPV triage, with 2 comparative strategies: 1) HPV (pooled) test with cytology triage, or 2) HPV test with 16/18 genotyping and cytology triage, in organized CxCa screenings in Portugal.
METHODS
METHODS
A budget impact model compares screening performance, clinical outcomes and budget impact of the 3 screening strategies. A hypothetical cohort of 2,078,039 Portuguese women aged 25-64 years old women is followed for two screening cycles. Screening intervals are 3 years for cytology and 5 years for the HPV strategies. Model inputs include epidemiological, test performance and medical cost data. Clinical impacts are assessed with the numbers of CIN2-3 and CxCa detected. Annual costs, budget impact and cost of detecting one CIN2+ were calculated from a public healthcare payer's perspective.
RESULTS
RESULTS
HPV testing with HPV16/18 genotyping and cytology triage (comparator 2) shows the best clinical outcomes at the same cost as comparator 1 and is the most cost-effective CxCa screening strategy in the Portuguese context. Compared to screening with cytology, it would reduce annual CxCa incidence from 9.3 to 5.3 per 100,000, and CxCa mortality from 2.7 to 1.1 per 100,000. Further, it generates substantial cost savings by reducing the annual costs by €9.16 million (- 24%). The cost of detecting CIN2+ decreases from the current €15,845 to €12,795. On the other hand, HPV (pooled) test with cytology triage (comparator 1) reduces annual incidence of CxCa to 6.9 per 100,000 and CxCa mortality to 1.6 per 100,000, with a cost of €13,227 per CIN2+ detected with annual savings of €9.36 million (- 24%). The savings are mainly caused by increasing the length of routine screening intervals from three to five years.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The results support current clinical recommendations to replace cytology with HPV with 16/18 genotyping with cytology triage as screening algorithm.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30808324
doi: 10.1186/s12889-019-6536-4
pii: 10.1186/s12889-019-6536-4
pmc: PMC6391842
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
235Références
J Natl Cancer Inst. 1999 Feb 3;91(3):252-8
pubmed: 10037103
Int J Cancer. 2004 May 20;110(1):94-101
pubmed: 15054873
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005 Jul 20;97(14):1072-9
pubmed: 16030305
Pharmacoeconomics. 2005;23(11):1107-22
pubmed: 16277547
Cancer Lett. 2006 Jan 18;231(2):309-13
pubmed: 16399232
Int J Cancer. 2006 Sep 1;119(5):1095-101
pubmed: 16586444
Br J Cancer. 2007 May 7;96(9):1419-24
pubmed: 17342094
Infect Agent Cancer. 2007 Jul 12;2:15
pubmed: 17626624
Am J Clin Pathol. 2007 Aug;128(2):208-17
pubmed: 17638654
Lancet Oncol. 2008 May;9(5):425-34
pubmed: 18407790
Int J Cancer. 2009 Oct 1;125(7):1649-56
pubmed: 19569231
BMC Infect Dis. 2009 Jul 29;9:119
pubmed: 19640281
Health Technol Assess. 2009 Nov;13(51):1-150, iii-iv
pubmed: 19891902
Lancet Oncol. 2010 Mar;11(3):249-57
pubmed: 20089449
Cancer Sci. 2010 Sep;101(9):2065-73
pubmed: 20626752
Anticancer Res. 2010 Jun;30(6):2319-23
pubmed: 20651386
Lancet Oncol. 2011 Jul;12(7):663-72
pubmed: 21684207
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2011 Aug;21(6):1150-8
pubmed: 21792018
Lancet Oncol. 2011 Sep;12(9):880-90
pubmed: 21865084
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Jan;206(1):46.e1-46.e11
pubmed: 21944226
Int J Cancer. 2013 Feb 15;132(4):959-66
pubmed: 22806936
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2013 Mar;23(3):500-6
pubmed: 23392401
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2014 Jan;23(1):55-63
pubmed: 23733907
Int J Cancer. 2014 Apr 15;134(8):1835-43
pubmed: 24122508
Lancet. 2014 Feb 8;383(9916):524-32
pubmed: 24192252
BMJ. 2014 Jan 16;348:g130
pubmed: 24435414
J Med Screen. 2014 Mar;21(1):30-7
pubmed: 24488593
Eur J Epidemiol. 1989 Mar;5(1):1-7
pubmed: 2540024
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015 Jan 07;107(2):null
pubmed: 25568167
Gynecol Oncol. 2015 Feb;136(2):189-97
pubmed: 25579108
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2015 Sep;21(9):817-26
pubmed: 25936581
Cancer Cytopathol. 2015 Dec;123(12):745-54
pubmed: 26230283
Am J Manag Care. 2016 Mar 01;22(3):e95-105
pubmed: 26978241
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2017 May;212:171-181
pubmed: 28081908
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2017 May;212:132-139
pubmed: 28363186
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2017 Nov;26(11):1629-1635
pubmed: 28887297
PLoS Med. 2017 Sep 19;14(9):e1002388
pubmed: 28926579
JAMA. 2018 Jul 3;320(1):43-52
pubmed: 29971397
Ann Ig. 2018 Nov-Dec;30(6):490-501
pubmed: 30614498
J Natl Cancer Inst. 1994 Apr 6;86(7):539-43
pubmed: 8133537