Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38404421›Full record

ArticleThe Lancet regional health. Western Pacific2024

The impact of alternate HPV vaccination and cervical screening strategies in Japan: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Matthew R Palmer, Eiko Saito, Kota Katanoda, Haruka Sakamoto, Jane S Hocking, Julia M L Brotherton, Jason J Ong

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Cost-effectiveness analysis of 9-valent human papillomavirus vaccine combined with screening for cervical cancer in Japan.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2025
    Article
  8. Review
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

7 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Matthew R PalmerMelbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Eiko SaitoInstitute for Global Health Policy Research, National Center for Global Health Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Kota KatanodaDivision of Population Data Science, National Cancer Center Institute for Cancer Control and Information Services, Tokyo, Japan.
Haruka SakamotoDepartment of Hygiene and Public Health, Tokyo Women's Medical University, Tokyo, Japan.
Jane S HockingMelbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Julia M L BrothertonMelbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Jason J OngMelbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
The University of Melbourne · AUHealth and Global Policy Institute · JPNational Cancer Research Institute · GBNational Center for Global Health and Medicine · JPUniversity of London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The Japanese 2020 cervical screening guidelines recommend conventional cervical cytology screening every 2-years for women aged 20-69 years. The nonavalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine has also recently been approved in Japan. We therefore evaluated the cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening strategies alongside universal nonavalent HPV vaccination of girls (12-16 years). Methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using an age-specific Markov microsimulation model for Japan to evaluate total costs, quality adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER), colposcopies, biopsies, precancer and cervical cancer treatments for 29 combined vaccination and screening strategies (conventional cytology, liquid-based cytology (LBC), HPV testing, and HPV self-collection). A cohort of 100,000 girls (12-16 years old) over a lifetime offered the nonavalent HPV vaccine was used (current vaccination coverage = 0.08%, current screening coverage = 43.7%). A discount rate of 3% was applied to costs and QALYs. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to assess robustness of the findings. Costs were reported in US dollars (2023). Findings: Compared with conventional cytology, evaluated strategies would incur an additional cost of US$839,280-738,182,669 and gain 62,755-247,347 quality-adjusted-life-years. HPV testing distinguishing HPV16/18 with reflex LBC (3-yearly) would be most cost-effective (ICER = US$7511 per QALY gained). At a willingness-to-pay (WTP) of 1-times gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, the probability of it being cost-effective was 70%. At historically high vaccination coverage (70%) ICERs decreased overall but did not affect the ranking of the most cost-effective strategy. While a 5-yearly interval became more cost-effective than a 3-yearly interval. Including HPV self-collection for under-screened women made all strategies more cost-effective. Interpretation: At current cervical screening participation (43.7%) and low vaccination coverage (<1.0%), HPV testing distinguishing HPV16/18 with reflex LBC (3-yearly) would be the most cost-effective screening strategy compared to conventional cytology (2-yearly). Funding: Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (17H03589) and Grants of the National Cancer Center Japan (Gan Kenkyu Kaihatsuhi 31-A-20 and 2023-A-23).

Indexed as

Cervical cancerCervical screeningHPVJapanVaccination

Identifiers

PMID38404421
PMCPMC10885559
OpenAlexW4391938810

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.