ArticleGynecologic oncology2010
Cost-effectiveness of using human papillomavirus 16/18 genotype triage in cervical cancer screening.
Article in Gynecologic oncology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Systematic review of model-based cervical screening evaluations.BMC cancer · 2015Pooled it
- Human papillomavirus testing versus repeat cytology for triage of minor cytological cervical lesions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013Pooled it
- Estimated Quality of Life and Economic Outcomes Associated With 12 Cervical Cancer Screening Strategies: A Cost-effectiveness Analysis.JAMA internal medicine · 2019Article
- The Next Generation of Cervical Cancer Screening: Should Guidelines Focus on Best Practices for the Future or Current Screening Capacity?Journal of lower genital tract disease · 2018Article
- The Clinical and Economic Benefits of Co-Testing Versus Primary HPV Testing for Cervical Cancer Screening: A Modeling Analysis.Journal of women's health (2002) · 2016Article
- Cost effectiveness of human papillomavirus-16/18 genotyping in cervical cancer screening.Applied health economics and health policy · 2015Article
- Optimizing technology for cervical cancer screening in high-resource settings.Expert review of obstetrics & gynecology · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTesting for human papillomavirus (HPV) 16 and 18 genotypes, which are known to cause approximately 65-70% of invasive cervical cancer cases, may allow clinicians to identify women at highest risk for underlying cervical intraepithelial neoplasia missed by Pap cytology. Our objective was to determine the cost-effectiveness of adding HPV-16 and 18 genotype triage to current cervical cancer screening strategies in the United States.
methodsWe developed a lifetime Markov model to assess the cost-effectiveness of the following cervical cancer screening algorithms: (1) liquid-based cytology (LBC), (2) LBC+HPV triage, (3) HPV+LBC triage, (4) co-screening, (5) co-screening+HPV genotyping, and (6) HPV only+HPV genotyping. Costs were estimated from a payer perspective in 2007 U.S. dollars. Outcome measures included lifetime risk of cervical cancer, quality-adjusted life years saved (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).
resultsIn our model, the use of HPV genotyping strategies prevented 51-73 deaths per 100,000 women screened compared to screening using LBC followed by HPV triage and 4-26 deaths compared to co-screening with LBC and high-risk HPV. Use of HPV genotyping to triage all high-risk HPV-positive women every three years had an ICER of $34,074 per QALY compared to HPV and LBC co-screening. HPV genotyping with co-screening was the most effective strategy and had an ICER of $33,807 per QALY compared to HPV genotyping for all high-risk HPV-positive women.
conclusionThe addition of HPV-16 and -18 genotype triage to HPV and LBC co-screening was a cost-effective screening strategy in the United States.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.