Cervical Cancer Screening in Partly HPV Vaccinated Cohorts – A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Open Access
- 29 January 2016
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Public Library of Science (PLoS) in PLOS ONE
- Vol. 11 (1), e0145548
- https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0145548
Abstract
Vaccination against the oncogenic human papillomavirus (HPV) types 16 and 18 will reduce the prevalence of these types, thereby also reducing cervical cancer risk in unvaccinated women. This (measurable) herd effect will be limited at first, but is expected to increase over time. At a certain herd immunity level, tailoring screening to vaccination status may no longer be worth the additional effort. Moreover, uniform screening may be the only viable option. We therefore investigated at what level of herd immunity it is cost-effective to also reduce screening intensity in unvaccinated women. We used the MISCAN-Cervix model to determine the optimal screening strategy for a pre-vaccination population and for vaccinated women (~80% decreased risk), assuming a willingness-to-pay of €50,000 per quality-adjusted life year gained. We considered HPV testing, cytology testing and co-testing and varied the start age of screening, the screening interval and the number of lifetime screens. We then calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of screening unvaccinated women with the strategy optimized to the pre-vaccination population as compared to with the strategy optimized to vaccinated women, assuming different herd immunity levels. Primary HPV screening with cytology triage was the optimal strategy, with 8 lifetime screens for the pre-vaccination population and 3 for vaccinated women. The ICER of screening unvaccinated women 8 times instead of 3 was €28,085 in the absence of herd immunity. At around 50% herd immunity, the ICER reached €50,000. From a herd immunity level of 50% onwards, screening intensity based on the pre-vaccination risk level becomes cost-ineffective for unvaccinated women. Reducing the screening intensity of uniform screening may then be considered.Keywords
This publication has 43 references indexed in Scilit:
- Population-level impact and herd effects following human papillomavirus vaccination programmes: a systematic review and meta-analysisThe Lancet Infectious Diseases, 2015
- Potential impact of a nine-valent vaccine in human papillomavirus related cervical diseaseInfectious Agents and Cancer, 2012
- Cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening with primary human papillomavirus testing in NorwayBritish Journal of Cancer, 2012
- Impact of vaccine protection against multiple HPV types on the cost-effectiveness of cervical screeningVaccine, 2012
- Human papillomavirus types in 115,789 HPV‐positive women: A meta‐analysis from cervical infection to cancerInternational Journal of Cancer, 2012
- Overall efficacy of HPV-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine against grade 3 or greater cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: 4-year end-of-study analysis of the randomised, double-blind PATRICIA trialThe Lancet Oncology, 2011
- Cost-effectiveness of human papillomavirus vaccination and screening in SpainEuropean Journal of Cancer, 2010
- Four year efficacy of prophylactic human papillomavirus quadrivalent vaccine against low grade cervical, vulvar, and vaginal intraepithelial neoplasia and anogenital warts: randomised controlled trialBMJ, 2010
- Cost-Effectiveness of Cervical Cancer Screening With Human Papillomavirus DNA Testing and HPV-16,18 VaccinationJNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2008
- Human papillomavirus is a necessary cause of invasive cervical cancer worldwideThe Journal of Pathology, 1999