Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28988162›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2017

Organised screening for cervical cancer in France: a cost-effectiveness assessment.

Stéphanie Barré, Marc Massetti, Henri Leleu, Frédéric De Bels

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. A systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of interventions to increase cervical cancer screening among underserved women in Europe.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. High-risk human papillomavirus cervical infection prevalence: a nationwide retrospective study comparing opportunistic and organised screening, France, 2020 to 2023.Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin · 2025
    Article
  4. The Role of p16/Ki67 Dual Staining in Cervical Cancer Screening.Current issues in molecular biology · 2023
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Health-related quality of life in women after colposcopy: results from a longitudinal patient survey.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2021
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Stéphanie BarréScreening Department, French National Cancer Institute (INCa), Boulogne-Billancourt, Île-de-France, France.
Marc MassettiModeling & Simulation, Public Health Expertise, Paris, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8728-9043
Henri LeleuModeling & Simulation, Public Health Expertise, Paris, France.
Frédéric De BelsScreening Department, French National Cancer Institute (INCa), Boulogne-Billancourt, Île-de-France, France.
Institut National du Cancer · FRMaison de la Simulation · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveAccording to the third cancer plan, organised screening (OS) of cervical cancer (CC) among women aged 25-65 years should be implemented in France in the forthcoming years. The most efficient way to implement OS in the French healthcare system is yet to be determined.

methodsA microsimulation model was developed adopting a collective 'all payers' perspective. A closed cohort of women eligible for CC screening and representative in terms of age and participation in individual screening (IndScr) by annual Papanicolaou (Pap) testing every 3 years was modelled on a lifetime horizon. Different OS strategies, additive to IndScr with a 61.9% participation rate based on mailed invitations to non-participant women to perform OS were assessed. Similar modalities were applied to OS and IndScr participants. Strategies implied different screening tests (Papanicolaou (Pap) test, human papillomavirus (HPV) test and p16/Ki67 double staining) and OS periodicity.

resultsCompared with IndScr only, all OS strategies were associated with decreased cancer incidence/mortality (from 14.2%/13.5% to 22.9%/25.8%). Most strategies generated extra costs ranging from €37.9 to €1607 per eligible woman. HPV testing every 10 and 5 years were cost saving. HPV tests every 10 and 5 years were the most efficient strategies, generating more survival at lower costs than Pap-based strategies. Compared to IndScr only, an HPV test every 10 years was cost saving. The most effective strategies were p16/Ki67 as primary or HPV positive confirmation tests, with respective incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of €6 541 250 and €101 391 per life year. Pap-based strategies generated intermediary results.

conclusionOS strategies based on the HPV test appear highly efficient. However, our results rely on the assumption that women and practitioners comply with the recommended OS periodicities (3, 5, 10 years). Implementing these OS modalities will require major adaptations to the current CC screening organisation. Pap test-based strategies might be simpler to setup while preparing an appropriate implementation of more efficient OS screening modalities.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisPapanicolaou TestPapillomaviridaeAdultAgedCervix UteriDNA, ViralEarly Detection of CancerFemaleFranceHealth PromotionHumansKi-67 AntigenMass ScreeningMiddle AgedPapillomavirus InfectionsDNA, ViralKi-67 Antigengynaecological oncologyhealth economicspublic health

Identifiers

PMID28988162
PMCPMC5640017
OpenAlexW2760955578

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.