TY - JOUR
T1 - Liquid-based cervical cytology using ThinPrep technology: weighing the pros and cons in a cost-effectiveness analysis
AU - de Bekker - Grob, Esther
AU - Driesprong - de Kok, Inge
AU - Bulten, J
AU - van Rosmalen, Joost
AU - Vedder, JEM
AU - Arbyn, M
AU - Klinkhamer, PJJM
AU - Siebers, AG
AU - Ballegooijen, Marjolein
PY - 2012
Y1 - 2012
N2 - Cervical cancer screening with liquid-based cytology (LBC) has been developed as an alternative to the conventional Papanicolaou (CP) smear. Cost-effectiveness is one of the issues when evaluating LBC. Based on the results of a Dutch randomised controlled trial, we conducted cost-effectiveness threshold analyses to investigate under what circumstances manually screened ThinPrep LBC is cost-effective for screening. The MISCAN-Cervix microsimulation model and data from the Dutch NETHCON trial (including 89,784 women) were used to estimate the costs and (quality-adjusted) life years ((QA)LYs) gained for EU screening schedules, varying cost-effectiveness threshold values. Screening strategies were primary cytological screening with LBC or CP, and triage with human papillomavirus (HPV) testing. Threshold analyses showed that screening with LBC as a primary test can be cost-effective if LBC is less than a,not sign3.2 more costly per test than CP, if the sensitivity of LBC is at least 3-5 % points higher than CP, if the quality of life for women in triage follow-up is only 0.39, or if the rate of inadequate CP smears is at least 16.2 %. Regarding test characteristics and costs of LBC and CP, only under certain conditions will a change from CP to manually screened ThinPrep LBC be cost-effective. If none of these conditions are met, implementation of manually screened ThinPrep LBC seems warranted only if there are advantages other than cost-effectiveness. Further research is needed to establish whether other LBC systems will be more favorable with regard to cost-effectiveness.
AB - Cervical cancer screening with liquid-based cytology (LBC) has been developed as an alternative to the conventional Papanicolaou (CP) smear. Cost-effectiveness is one of the issues when evaluating LBC. Based on the results of a Dutch randomised controlled trial, we conducted cost-effectiveness threshold analyses to investigate under what circumstances manually screened ThinPrep LBC is cost-effective for screening. The MISCAN-Cervix microsimulation model and data from the Dutch NETHCON trial (including 89,784 women) were used to estimate the costs and (quality-adjusted) life years ((QA)LYs) gained for EU screening schedules, varying cost-effectiveness threshold values. Screening strategies were primary cytological screening with LBC or CP, and triage with human papillomavirus (HPV) testing. Threshold analyses showed that screening with LBC as a primary test can be cost-effective if LBC is less than a,not sign3.2 more costly per test than CP, if the sensitivity of LBC is at least 3-5 % points higher than CP, if the quality of life for women in triage follow-up is only 0.39, or if the rate of inadequate CP smears is at least 16.2 %. Regarding test characteristics and costs of LBC and CP, only under certain conditions will a change from CP to manually screened ThinPrep LBC be cost-effective. If none of these conditions are met, implementation of manually screened ThinPrep LBC seems warranted only if there are advantages other than cost-effectiveness. Further research is needed to establish whether other LBC systems will be more favorable with regard to cost-effectiveness.
U2 - 10.1007/s10552-012-0011-1
DO - 10.1007/s10552-012-0011-1
M3 - Article
C2 - 22706692
SN - 0957-5243
VL - 23
SP - 1323
EP - 1331
JO - Cancer Causes & Control
JF - Cancer Causes & Control
IS - 8
ER -
