ArticleBMC health services research2016
Cost-effectiveness analysis of anal cancer screening in women with cervical neoplasia in British Columbia, Canada.
Article in BMC health services research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Rare Diagnosis of HPV-Positive Rectal Squamous Cell Carcinoma in a 59-Year-Old Heterosexual Woman: Implications for Screening Guidelines.The American journal of case reports · 2025Article
- Anal Cancer in High-Risk Women: The Lost Tribe.Cancers · 2022Review
- Anal cancer screening among women with HIV: provider experiences and system-level challenges.AIDS care · 2022Article
- The Lifetime Cost Estimation of Human Papillomavirus-related Diseases in China: A Modeling Study.Journal of translational internal medicine · 2021Article
- Risk of HPV-related extra-cervical cancers in women treated for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia.BMC cancer · 2020Article
- Investigating epidemiologic trends and the geographic distribution of patients with anal squamous cell carcinoma throughout Canada.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2020Article
- Patients with newly diagnosed cervical cancer should be screened for anal human papilloma virus and anal dysplasia: Results of a pilot study using a STELLA computer simulation and economic model.Papillomavirus research (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2018Article
- Anal Cancer and Anal Cancer precursors in Women with a History of HPV-Related Dysplasia and Cancer.Seminars in colon & rectal surgery · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrecursors to anal squamous cell carcinoma may be detectable through screening; however, the literature suggests that population-level testing is not cost-effective. Given that high-grade cervical neoplasia (CIN) is associated with an increased risk of developing anal cancer, and in light of changing guidelines for the follow-up and management of cervical neoplasia, it is worthwhile to examine the costs and effectiveness of an anal cancer screening program delivered to women with previously-detected CIN.
methodsA model of anal cancer screening and treatment was constructed, to estimate the cost-effectiveness of a population of CIN II/III+ women who were screened using anal cytology vs. one that received no anal cancer screening. Costs were based on Canadian estimates, and survival was based on estimates taken from the scientific literature. Effectiveness was measured in terms of life years gained (LYG) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The model was run for 50 cycles, with each cycle representing one year.
resultsIncremental cost (screened vs. unscreened) was $82.17 per woman in the model. Incremental effectiveness was 0.004 LYG, and was equivalent to zero in terms of QALY. An ICER of $20,561/LYG was calculated, while no meaningful incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) could be calculated for quality-adjusted survival.
conclusionOur analysis suggests that anal cancer screening is cost-effective in terms of overall survival in women with a previous diagnosis of CIN II or CIN III as part of regular follow-up, but may not contribute meaningfully-different quality-adjusted survival due to the adverse effects of screening-related interventions.
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.