4.3 Article

Cost-Effectiveness of Primary HPV Screening Strategies and Triage With Cytology or Dual Stain for Cervical Cancer

期刊

CANCER CONTROL
卷 27, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/1073274820922540

关键词

cervical cancer; cost-effectiveness analysis; biomarkers; cancer screening; human papillomavirus DNA tests

类别

资金

  1. Roche Diagnostics (Thailand)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To identify the optimal cost-effective strategy for cervical cancer screening program in Thailand by comparing the different algorithms which based on the use of primary human papilloma virus (HPV) assay. We use a Microsoft Excel-based spreadsheet to calculate the accumulated cases of preinvasive and invasive cervical cancer and the budget impact of each screening program. The model was developed to determine the cost-effectiveness of 3 screening strategies: pooled HPV test with reflex liquid-based cytology triage, HPV genotyping with reflex p16/ki67 dual stain cytology, and pooled HPV test with dual stain. The main outcomes were the total cost, incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Strategy entailing primary HPV genotyping and reflex dual stain cytology is the least costly strategy (total cost US$37 893 407) and provides the similar QALY gained compared to pooled high-risk HPV testing with reflex dual stain (Average QALY 24.03). Pooled HPV test with reflex dual staining is more costly compared to strategy without reflex dual staining. The ICER was US$353.40 per QALY gained. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that the model is sensitive to the cost of dual stain and the cost of cancer treatment. Decreasing the incidence of cervical cancer case and increasing the QALYs can be successful by using dual stain cytology as the triage test for pooled HPV test or HPV genotyping. The result of our analysis favors the use of HPV genotyping with the reflex dual stain as it offers the most QALY at the lowest cost.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据