Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

The cost-effectiveness of human papillomavirus screening for cervical cancer

A review of recent modelling studies

  • Original Papers
  • Published:
The European Journal of Health Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We compared findings from recent studies modelling the cost-effectiveness of screening for cervical cancer using human papillomavirus (HPV) testing and alternative strategies. Data were standardized to facilitate comparison of costs per life year or costs per QALY gained in six studies. Absolute changes in costs, life years and QALYs for each strategy were normalized to a comparison with no screening. Costs were standardized to US$ in 2000 values. Most models assume screening starts at age 18 or 20 years. Assumed prevalence of HPV ranges from 10% for those aged 18 years to 20% for those aged 20–25 years and drops substantially after age 30. All except one model assume sensitivity to LSIL of 83% or higher. Two models distinguish the increasing specificity of HPV testing in older age groups (up to 95% for LSIL in women aged 55 years or older). All the models include consultation costs as well as screening and treatment costs, but costs for follow-up diagnosis and treatment vary considerably. Two models also include patient time costs. Despite these differences all strategies involving HPV testing have cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) ratios in the range of $12,400–$16,600. Costs per life year vary more widely, the highest being $19,246 (annual screening with liquid cytology and HPV). However, excluding strategies using liquid cytology, the highest costs per life year for a strategy including HPV testing are under $14,000 (simultaneous conventional cytology and HPV every two years). The cost per life year for HPV testing alone triennially is lower than for Pap smear testing alone biennially. Costs per QALY are generally lower than costs per life year (given the reported modelling assumptions and settings). Even with inclusion of patient costs, no strategies involving HPV testing cost more than $16,600 per QALY. Adoption of the ACOG guidelines to include HPV testing with cytology as a screening option for women aged 30 years or older therefore appears to be cost-effective.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Anonymous (2003) Clinical management guidelines for obstetrician-gynecologists. ACOG practice bulletin no. 45. Obstet Gynaecol 102:417–427

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Saslow D et al. (2002) American Cancer Society guideline for the early detection of cervical neoplasia and cancer. CA Cancer J Clin 52:342–362

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Association of Reproductive Health Professionals (2004) Advances in cervical cancer protection. Clin Proc, Sept 2003

  4. Wright TC et al. (1998) Reflex human papillomavirus deoxyribonucleic acid testing in women with abnormal Papanicolaou smears. Am J Obstet Gynaecol 178:962–966

    Google Scholar 

  5. Mandelblatt JS et al. (2002) Benefits and costs of using HPV testing to screen for cervical cancer. JAMA 287:2372–2381

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Cuzick J, Sasieni P (1997) Estimates of the cost impact of introducing human papillomavirus testing into a cervical screening programme. In: Franco, Monsonego (eds) New developments in cervical cancer screening & prevention. Oxford: Blackwell

  7. Goldie S, Kim J, Wright T (2004) Cost-effectiveness of human papillomavirus DNA testing for cervical cancer screening in women aged 30 years or more. Obstet Gynaecol 103:619–631

    Google Scholar 

  8. Cuzick J et al. (1999) Assessing effectiveness, costs and cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening and HPV testing. Health Technol Assess 3:95–109

    Google Scholar 

  9. Goldie S (2002) Health economics and cervical cancer prevention: a global perspective. Virus Res 89:301–309

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kim J, Wright T, Goldie S (2002) Cost-effectiveness and alternative triage strategies for atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance. JAMA 287:2382–2390

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Maxwell GL et al. (2002) Costs and effectiveness of alternative strategies for cervical cancer screening in military beneficiaries. Obstet Gynaecol 100:740–748

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Mittendorf T, Schulenburg JMG von der, Petry K, Iftner T (2003) Economic evaluation of human papillomavirus screening in Germany. Eur J Health Econ 4:209–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Ballegooijen M van et al. (1997) Present evidence on the value of HPV testing for cervical cancer screening: a model-based exploration of the (cost-)effectiveness. Br J Cancer 76:651–657

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Linos A, Riza E (2000) Comparisons of cervical cancer screening programmes in the European Union. Eur J Cancer 36:2260–2265

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Clavel C et al. (2001) Human papillomavirus testing in primary screening for the detection of high-grade cervical lesions: a study of 7932 women. Br J Cancer 89:1616–1623

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Salzmann P, Kerlikowske K, Phillips K (1997) Cost effectiveness of extending screening mammography guidelines to include women 40–49 years of age. Ann Intern Med 127:955–965

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Sherlaw-Johnson C & Philips Z (2004) An evaluation of liquid-based cytology and human papillomavirus testing within the UK cervical cancer screening programme. BR J Cancer 91:84–91

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Annual country-specific inflation rates taken from OECD: Wages, Costs, Unemployment & Inflation, E 073

  19. Average annual exchange rates taken from http://www.oaanda.com

  20. Guidance for Manufacturers & Sponsors, National Institute for Clinical Excellence, June 2001. http://www.nice.org.uk

Download references

Acknowledgements

The preparation of this contribution was funded by an educational grant from Digene Corporation.

Conflict of interest:

No information supplied

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeremy Holmes.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Holmes, J., Hemmett, L. & Garfield, S. The cost-effectiveness of human papillomavirus screening for cervical cancer. Eur J Health Econ 6, 30–37 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-004-0254-1

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-004-0254-1

Keywords

Navigation