Cost-effectiveness analysis for Pap smear screening and human papillomavirus DNA testing and vaccination

Meng Kan Chen, Hui Fang Hung, Stephen Duffy, Amy Ming Fang Yen, Hsiu Hsi Chen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

14 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Introduction: As the effectiveness of cytology-based screening programme for cervical cancer in mortality reduction has reached a plateau, various preventive strategies have been considered, including intensive Pap smear screening and the supplemental use of human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA test or HPV vaccination. Cost and effectiveness of these various preventive strategies are therefore of great concern for health policy makers. Objective: We intended to assess whether the combination of HPV DNA testing or HPV vaccination with Pap smear screening programme or the sole annual Pap smear screening is more effective and cost-effective in prevention of cervical cancer than the existing triennial Pap smear screening programme. Methods: A Markov decision model was constructed to compare total costs and effectiveness between different preventive strategies (including annual Pap smear, HPV DNA testing or HPV vaccination together with Pap smear screening programme) as opposed to the triennial Pap smear screening alone (the comparator). Probabilistic cost-effectiveness (C-E) analysis was adopted to plot a series of simulated incremental C-E ratios scattered over C-E plane and also to yield the acceptability curve for different comparisons of strategies. The threshold of vaccine cost and the influence of attendance rate were also investigated. Results: Compared with triennial Pap smear screening programme, most of preventive strategies cost more but gain additional life years (quadrant I of C-E plane) except HPV DNA testing with Pap smear every 5 years dominated by triennial Pap smear screening programme. The most cost-effective strategy was annual Pap smear (incremental C-E ratio = $31 698), followed by HPV DNA testing with Pap smear every 3 years ($36 627), and vaccination programme with triennial Pap smear screening ($44 688) with the corresponding cost-effective probabilities by the acceptability curve being 65.52%, 52.08% and 35.84% given the threshold of $40 000 of willingness to pay. Vaccination combined with triennial Pap smear would be as cost-effective as annual Pap smear provided the cost of vaccination was lowered to $250 per full course of injection. Conclusions: Among various preventive strategies annual Pap smear screening programme is still the most cost-effective and additional HPV DNA testing is a cost-effective choice under a reasonable threshold of willingness to pay. Vaccination programme in combination with triennial screening would be cost-effective if vaccine cost can be greatly reduced in a large economic scale.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1050-1058
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
Volume17
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Dec 2011
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Papanicolaou Test
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Vaccination
DNA
Costs and Cost Analysis
Uterine Cervical Neoplasms
Human Papillomavirus DNA Tests
Vaccines
Preventive Health Services

Keywords

  • cervical cancer
  • cost-effectiveness analysis
  • human papillomavirus virus
  • vaccination

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
  • Health Policy

Cite this

Cost-effectiveness analysis for Pap smear screening and human papillomavirus DNA testing and vaccination. / Chen, Meng Kan; Hung, Hui Fang; Duffy, Stephen; Yen, Amy Ming Fang; Chen, Hsiu Hsi.

In: Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, Vol. 17, No. 6, 12.2011, p. 1050-1058.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Chen, Meng Kan ; Hung, Hui Fang ; Duffy, Stephen ; Yen, Amy Ming Fang ; Chen, Hsiu Hsi. / Cost-effectiveness analysis for Pap smear screening and human papillomavirus DNA testing and vaccination. In: Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice. 2011 ; Vol. 17, No. 6. pp. 1050-1058.
@article{83107ef0c8a640b4b6747fcc3205be2b,
title = "Cost-effectiveness analysis for Pap smear screening and human papillomavirus DNA testing and vaccination",
abstract = "Introduction: As the effectiveness of cytology-based screening programme for cervical cancer in mortality reduction has reached a plateau, various preventive strategies have been considered, including intensive Pap smear screening and the supplemental use of human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA test or HPV vaccination. Cost and effectiveness of these various preventive strategies are therefore of great concern for health policy makers. Objective: We intended to assess whether the combination of HPV DNA testing or HPV vaccination with Pap smear screening programme or the sole annual Pap smear screening is more effective and cost-effective in prevention of cervical cancer than the existing triennial Pap smear screening programme. Methods: A Markov decision model was constructed to compare total costs and effectiveness between different preventive strategies (including annual Pap smear, HPV DNA testing or HPV vaccination together with Pap smear screening programme) as opposed to the triennial Pap smear screening alone (the comparator). Probabilistic cost-effectiveness (C-E) analysis was adopted to plot a series of simulated incremental C-E ratios scattered over C-E plane and also to yield the acceptability curve for different comparisons of strategies. The threshold of vaccine cost and the influence of attendance rate were also investigated. Results: Compared with triennial Pap smear screening programme, most of preventive strategies cost more but gain additional life years (quadrant I of C-E plane) except HPV DNA testing with Pap smear every 5 years dominated by triennial Pap smear screening programme. The most cost-effective strategy was annual Pap smear (incremental C-E ratio = $31 698), followed by HPV DNA testing with Pap smear every 3 years ($36 627), and vaccination programme with triennial Pap smear screening ($44 688) with the corresponding cost-effective probabilities by the acceptability curve being 65.52{\%}, 52.08{\%} and 35.84{\%} given the threshold of $40 000 of willingness to pay. Vaccination combined with triennial Pap smear would be as cost-effective as annual Pap smear provided the cost of vaccination was lowered to $250 per full course of injection. Conclusions: Among various preventive strategies annual Pap smear screening programme is still the most cost-effective and additional HPV DNA testing is a cost-effective choice under a reasonable threshold of willingness to pay. Vaccination programme in combination with triennial screening would be cost-effective if vaccine cost can be greatly reduced in a large economic scale.",
keywords = "cervical cancer, cost-effectiveness analysis, human papillomavirus virus, vaccination",
author = "Chen, {Meng Kan} and Hung, {Hui Fang} and Stephen Duffy and Yen, {Amy Ming Fang} and Chen, {Hsiu Hsi}",
year = "2011",
month = "12",
doi = "10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01453.x",
language = "English",
volume = "17",
pages = "1050--1058",
journal = "Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice",
issn = "1356-1294",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Cost-effectiveness analysis for Pap smear screening and human papillomavirus DNA testing and vaccination

AU - Chen, Meng Kan

AU - Hung, Hui Fang

AU - Duffy, Stephen

AU - Yen, Amy Ming Fang

AU - Chen, Hsiu Hsi

PY - 2011/12

Y1 - 2011/12

N2 - Introduction: As the effectiveness of cytology-based screening programme for cervical cancer in mortality reduction has reached a plateau, various preventive strategies have been considered, including intensive Pap smear screening and the supplemental use of human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA test or HPV vaccination. Cost and effectiveness of these various preventive strategies are therefore of great concern for health policy makers. Objective: We intended to assess whether the combination of HPV DNA testing or HPV vaccination with Pap smear screening programme or the sole annual Pap smear screening is more effective and cost-effective in prevention of cervical cancer than the existing triennial Pap smear screening programme. Methods: A Markov decision model was constructed to compare total costs and effectiveness between different preventive strategies (including annual Pap smear, HPV DNA testing or HPV vaccination together with Pap smear screening programme) as opposed to the triennial Pap smear screening alone (the comparator). Probabilistic cost-effectiveness (C-E) analysis was adopted to plot a series of simulated incremental C-E ratios scattered over C-E plane and also to yield the acceptability curve for different comparisons of strategies. The threshold of vaccine cost and the influence of attendance rate were also investigated. Results: Compared with triennial Pap smear screening programme, most of preventive strategies cost more but gain additional life years (quadrant I of C-E plane) except HPV DNA testing with Pap smear every 5 years dominated by triennial Pap smear screening programme. The most cost-effective strategy was annual Pap smear (incremental C-E ratio = $31 698), followed by HPV DNA testing with Pap smear every 3 years ($36 627), and vaccination programme with triennial Pap smear screening ($44 688) with the corresponding cost-effective probabilities by the acceptability curve being 65.52%, 52.08% and 35.84% given the threshold of $40 000 of willingness to pay. Vaccination combined with triennial Pap smear would be as cost-effective as annual Pap smear provided the cost of vaccination was lowered to $250 per full course of injection. Conclusions: Among various preventive strategies annual Pap smear screening programme is still the most cost-effective and additional HPV DNA testing is a cost-effective choice under a reasonable threshold of willingness to pay. Vaccination programme in combination with triennial screening would be cost-effective if vaccine cost can be greatly reduced in a large economic scale.

AB - Introduction: As the effectiveness of cytology-based screening programme for cervical cancer in mortality reduction has reached a plateau, various preventive strategies have been considered, including intensive Pap smear screening and the supplemental use of human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA test or HPV vaccination. Cost and effectiveness of these various preventive strategies are therefore of great concern for health policy makers. Objective: We intended to assess whether the combination of HPV DNA testing or HPV vaccination with Pap smear screening programme or the sole annual Pap smear screening is more effective and cost-effective in prevention of cervical cancer than the existing triennial Pap smear screening programme. Methods: A Markov decision model was constructed to compare total costs and effectiveness between different preventive strategies (including annual Pap smear, HPV DNA testing or HPV vaccination together with Pap smear screening programme) as opposed to the triennial Pap smear screening alone (the comparator). Probabilistic cost-effectiveness (C-E) analysis was adopted to plot a series of simulated incremental C-E ratios scattered over C-E plane and also to yield the acceptability curve for different comparisons of strategies. The threshold of vaccine cost and the influence of attendance rate were also investigated. Results: Compared with triennial Pap smear screening programme, most of preventive strategies cost more but gain additional life years (quadrant I of C-E plane) except HPV DNA testing with Pap smear every 5 years dominated by triennial Pap smear screening programme. The most cost-effective strategy was annual Pap smear (incremental C-E ratio = $31 698), followed by HPV DNA testing with Pap smear every 3 years ($36 627), and vaccination programme with triennial Pap smear screening ($44 688) with the corresponding cost-effective probabilities by the acceptability curve being 65.52%, 52.08% and 35.84% given the threshold of $40 000 of willingness to pay. Vaccination combined with triennial Pap smear would be as cost-effective as annual Pap smear provided the cost of vaccination was lowered to $250 per full course of injection. Conclusions: Among various preventive strategies annual Pap smear screening programme is still the most cost-effective and additional HPV DNA testing is a cost-effective choice under a reasonable threshold of willingness to pay. Vaccination programme in combination with triennial screening would be cost-effective if vaccine cost can be greatly reduced in a large economic scale.

KW - cervical cancer

KW - cost-effectiveness analysis

KW - human papillomavirus virus

KW - vaccination

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=80755132089&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=80755132089&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01453.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01453.x

M3 - Article

VL - 17

SP - 1050

EP - 1058

JO - Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice

JF - Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice

SN - 1356-1294

IS - 6

ER -