Skip Navigation

JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2002 94(19):1469-1483; doi:10.1093/jnci/94.19.1469
© 2002 by Oxford University Press
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Mandelblatt, J. S.
Right arrow Articles by Blumenthal, P. D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Mandelblatt, J. S.
Right arrow Articles by Blumenthal, P. D.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 94, No. 19, 1469-1483, October 2, 2002
© 2002 Oxford University Press


ARTICLE

Costs and Benefits of Different Strategies to Screen for Cervical Cancer in Less-Developed Countries

Jeanne S. Mandelblatt, William F. Lawrence, Lynne Gaffikin, Khunying Kobchitt Limpahayom, Pisake Lumbiganon, Suwanna Warakamin, Jason King, Bin Yi, Patricia Ringers, Paul D. Blumenthal

Affiliations of authors: J. S. Mandelblatt, W. F. Lawrence, J. King, B. Yi, Departments of Oncology and Medicine, Georgetown University Medical Center, and the Outcomes Core and Cancer Control Program, Lombardi Cancer Center, Washington, DC; L. Gaffikin, P. Ringers, Johns Hopkins Program for International Education in Gynecology and Obstetrics (JHPIEGO) Corporation, Baltimore, MD; K. K. Limpahayom, Royal Thai College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Bangkok, Thailand; P. Lumbiganon, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand; S. Warakamin, JHPIEGO Corporation and Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore; P. D. Blumenthal, Family Planning and Population Division, Department of Health, Ministry of Public Health, Thailand.

Correspondence to: Jeanne Mandelblatt, M.D., M.P.H., Georgetown University School of Medicine, Lombardi Cancer Center, 2233 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Suite 317, Washington, DC 20007 (e-mail: mandelbj{at}gunet.georgetown.edu).

Background: About 80% of cervical cancers occur in less-developed countries. This disproportionate burden of cervical cancer in such countries is due mainly to the lack of well-organized screening programs. Several cervical cancer screening strategies have been proposed as more cost-effective than cytology screening. We compared the costs and benefits of different strategies and their effectiveness in saving lives in a less-developed country. Methods: We used a population-based simulation model to evaluate the incremental societal costs and benefits in Thailand of seven screening techniques, including visual inspection of the cervix after applying acetic acid (VIA), human papillomavirus (HPV) testing, Pap smear, and combinations of screening tests, and examined the discounted costs per year of life saved (LYS). Results: Compared with no (i.e., not well-organized) screening, all strategies saved lives, at costs ranging from $121 to $6720 per LYS, and reduced mortality, by up to 58%. Comparing each strategy with the next least expensive alternative, VIA performed at 5-year intervals in women of ages 35–55 with immediate treatment if abnormalities are found was the least expensive option and saved the greatest number of lives, with a cost of $517 per LYS. HPV screening resulted in similar costs and benefits, if the test cost is $5 and if 90% of women undergo follow-up after an abnormal screen. Cytology (Pap smear) was a reasonable alternative if sensitivity exceeds 80% and if 90% of women undergo follow-up. Compared with no screening, use of a combination of Pap smear and HPV testing at 5-year intervals in women of ages 20–70 could achieve greater than 90% reduction in cervical cancer mortality at a cost of $1683 per LYS, and VIA could achieve 83% reduction at $524 per LYS. Conclusions: Well-organized screening programs can reduce cervical cancer mortality in less-developed countries at low costs. These cost-effectiveness data can enhance decision-making about optimal policies for a given setting.



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev.Home page
J. H. Wang, V. B. Sheppard, M. D. Schwartz, W. Liang, and J. S. Mandelblatt
Disparities in Cervical Cancer Screening between Asian American and Non-Hispanic White Women
Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., August 1, 2008; 17(8): 1968 - 1973.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Int J STD AIDSHome page
S. Mangclaviraj, S. J Kerr, S. Chaithongwongwatthana, J. Ananworanich, B. Hirschel, S. Emery, D. A Cooper, P. Chotnopparatpattara, K. Ruxrungtham, and P. Phanuphak
Nadir CD4 count and monthly income predict cervical squamous cell abnormalities in HIV-positive women in a resource-limited setting
Int J STD AIDS, August 1, 2008; 19(8): 529 - 532.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Int J EpidemiolHome page
C. A Reyes-Ortiz, L. F Velez, M. E Camacho, K. J Ottenbacher, and K. S Markides
Health insurance and cervical cancer screening among older women in Latin American and Caribbean cities
Int. J. Epidemiol., August 1, 2008; 37(4): 870 - 878.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
CMAJHome page
J. P. Marasinghe and A.A.W. Amarasinghe
Controlling cervical cancer
Can. Med. Assoc. J., February 27, 2007; 176(5): 658 - 659.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Jpn J Clin OncolHome page
K. Aklimunnessa, M. Mori, M. M. H. Khan, F. Sakauchi, T. Kubo, Y. Fujino, S. Suzuki, S. Tokudome, A. Tamakoshi, and for the JACC Study Group
Effectiveness of Cervical Cancer Screening Over Cervical Cancer Mortality Among Japanese Women
Jpn. J. Clin. Oncol., August 1, 2006; 36(8): 511 - 518.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
NEJMHome page
S. J. Goldie, L. Gaffikin, J. D. Goldhaber-Fiebert, A. Gordillo-Tobar, C. Levin, C. Mahe, T. C. Wright, and the Alliance for Cervical Cancer Prevention Cost W
Cost-Effectiveness of Cervical-Cancer Screening in Five Developing Countries
N. Engl. J. Med., November 17, 2005; 353(20): 2158 - 2168.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JAMAHome page
L. Denny, L. Kuhn, M. De Souza, A. E. Pollack, W. Dupree, and T. C. Wright Jr
Screen-and-Treat Approaches for Cervical Cancer Prevention in Low-Resource Settings: A Randomized Controlled Trial
JAMA, November 2, 2005; 294(17): 2173 - 2181.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Stat Methods Med ResHome page
R. Boer, S. Plevritis, and L. Clarke
Diversity of model approaches for breast cancer screening: a review of model assumptions by The Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Network (CISNET) Breast Cancer Groups
Statistical Methods in Medical Research, December 1, 2004; 13(6): 525 - 538.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
JNMHome page
T.-C. Yen, L.-C. See, T.-C. Chang, K.-G. Huang, K.-K. Ng, S. G. Tang, Y.-C. Chang, S. Hsueh, C.-S. Tsai, J.-H. Hong, et al.
Defining the Priority of Using 18F-FDG PET for Recurrent Cervical Cancer
J. Nucl. Med., October 1, 2004; 45(10): 1632 - 1639.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J Natl Cancer Inst MonogrHome page
T. C. Wright Jr.
Chapter 10: Cervical Cancer Screening Using Visualization Techniques
J Natl Cancer Inst Monographs, June 1, 2003; 2003(31): 66 - 71.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J Natl Cancer Inst MonogrHome page
S. J. Goldie
Chapter 15: Public Health Policy and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
J Natl Cancer Inst Monographs, June 1, 2003; 2003(31): 102 - 110.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.