© 2002 by Oxford University Press
Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 94, No. 3, 193-204,
February 6, 2002
© 2002 Oxford University Press
ARTICLE |
Cost-Effectiveness of Cervical Cancer Screening: Comparison of Screening Policies
Affiliations of authors: M. E. van den Akker-van Marle, M. van Ballegooijen, G. J. van Oortmarssen, J. D. F. Habbema, Department of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands; R. Boer, Department of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Erasmus University Rotterdam, and RAND Health, Santa Monica, CA.
Correspondence to: M. E. van den Akker-van Marle, MSc, Department of Public Health, Erasmus University Rotterdam, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR Rotterdam, The Netherlands (e-mail: vanmarle{at}mgz.fgg.eur.nl).
Background: Recommended screening policies for cervical cancer differ widely among countries with respect to targeted age range, screening interval, and total number of scheduled screening examinations (i.e., Pap smears). We compared the efficiency of cervical cancer-screening programs by performing a cost-effectiveness analysis of cervical cancer-screening policies from high-income countries. Methods: We used the microsimulation screening analysis (MISCAN) program to model and determine the costs and effects of almost 500 screening policies, some fictitious and some actual (i.e., recommended by national guidelines). The costs (in U.S. dollars) and effects (in years of life gained) were compared for each policy to identify the most efficient policies. Results: There were 15 efficient screening policies (i.e., no alternative policy exists that results in more life-years gained for lower costs). For these policies, which considered two to 40 total scheduled examinations, the age range expanded gradually from 40–52 years to 20–80 years as the screening interval decreased from 12 to 1.5 years. For the efficient policies, the predicted gain in life expectancy ranged from 11.6 to 32.4 days, compared with a gain of 46 days if cervical cancer mortality were eliminated entirely. The average cost-effectiveness ratios increased from $6700 (for the longest screening interval) to $23 900 per life-year gained. For some countries, the recommended screening policies were close to efficient, but the cost-effectiveness could be improved by reducing the number of scheduled examinations, starting them at later ages, or lengthening the screening interval. Conclusions: The basis for the diversity in the screening policies among high-income countries does not appear to relate to the screening policies' cost-effectiveness ratios, which are highly sensitive to the number of Pap smears offered during a lifetime.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  I. M. C. M. de Kok, M. van Ballegooijen, and J. D. F. Habbema Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Human Papillomavirus Vaccination in the Netherlands J Natl Cancer Inst, August 5, 2009; 101(15): 1083 - 1092. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Q. L. Okonkwo, G. Draisma, A. der Kinderen, M. L. Brown, and H. J. de Koning Breast Cancer Screening Policies in Developing Countries: A Cost-effectiveness Analysis for India J Natl Cancer Inst, September 17, 2008; 100(18): 1290 - 1300. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. Gimlin Accounting for Cosmetic Surgery in the USA and Great Britain: A Cross-cultural Analysis of Women's Narratives Body Society, March 1, 2007; 13(1): 41 - 60. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. Y. G. L. Tan, G. J. van Oortmarssen, H. J. de Koning, R. Boer, and J. D. F. Habbema Chapter 9: The MISCAN-Fadia Continuous Tumor Growth Model for Breast Cancer J Natl Cancer Inst Monographs, October 1, 2006; 2006(36): 56 - 65. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. J. Kim, T. C. Wright, and S. J. Goldie Cost-effectiveness of Human Papillomavirus DNA Testing in the United Kingdom, The Netherlands, France, and Italy J Natl Cancer Inst, June 15, 2005; 97(12): 888 - 895. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. J. Goldie, M. Kohli, D. Grima, M. C. Weinstein, T. C. Wright, F. X. Bosch, and E. Franco Projected Clinical Benefits and Cost-effectiveness of a Human Papillomavirus 16/18 Vaccine J Natl Cancer Inst, April 21, 2004; 96(8): 604 - 615. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. P. Insinga, A. G. Glass, and B. B. Rush Pap Screening in a U.S. Health Plan Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., March 1, 2004; 13(3): 355 - 360. [Abstract] [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|