Impact of the Current US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendations for Cervical Cancer Screening in Young Women 21 to 29 Years Old

Is the HPV-test more cost-effective than cytology in cervical cancer screening? An economic analysis from a middle-income country

OBJECTIVE

To report a modelling study using local health care costs and epidemiological inputs from a population-based program to access the cost-effectiveness of adopting hrHPV test.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness analysis based on a microsimulation dynamic Markov model. Data and costs were based on data from the local setting and literature review. The setting was Indaiatuba, Brazil, that has adopted the hrHPV test in place of cytology since 2017. After calibrating the model, one million women were simulated in hypothetical cohorts. Three strategies were tested: cytology to women aged 25 to 64 every three years; hrHPV test to women 25-64 every five years; cytology to women 25-29 years every three years and hrHPV test to women 30-64 every five years (hybrid strategy). Outcomes were Quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) and Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER).

RESULTS

The hrHPV testing and the hybrid strategy were the dominant strategies. Costs were lower and provided a more effective option at a negative incremental ratio of US$ 37.87 for the hybrid strategy, and negative US$ 6.16 for the HPV strategy per QALY gained. Reduction on treatment costs would influence a decrease in ICER, and an increase in the costs of the hrHPV test would increase ICER.

CONCLUSIONS

Using population-based data, the switch from cytology to hrHPV testing in the cervical cancer screening program of Indaiatuba is less costly and cost-effective than the old cytology program.

Cervical Screening Practices and Outcomes for Young Women in Response to Changed Guidelines in Calgary, Canada, 2007-2016

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to describe temporal trends in screening and outcomes for women, after changes in guidelines in Alberta, Canada, that raised starting age to 21 years, then to 25 years of age, and reduced frequency to 3 yearly.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Calgary Laboratory Information System data were used to examine screening rates, follow-up procedures, and cancer among women 10-29 years from 2007 to 2016 in the whole population of Calgary. Interrupted time-series analyses were used to assess changes in screening and subsequent diagnostic procedures over the 10-year period.

RESULTS

Annual screening rates dropped by approximately 10% at all ages older than 15 years after the 2009 Alberta cervical cancer screening guidelines, followed by a steady decrease. Further change continued subsequent to minimal apparent effect of the 2013 Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care guidelines. The rates of abnormal test results decreased in concert with decreased screening. No increases in cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 1, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2/3, or invasive cervical cancer rates were observed after reduced testing.

CONCLUSIONS

The largest decrease in screening and follow-up procedures occurred in the period immediately after implementation of 2009 Alberta screening guidelines. The number of consequent procedures also decreased in proportion to decreased screening, but there was no increase in cancer rates. Starting screening at the age of 25 years and reducing intervals seem to be safe.

Cost-effectiveness and accuracy of cervical cancer screening with a high-risk HPV genotyping assay vs a nongenotyping assay in China: an observational cohort study

Background

New screening techniques may affect the optimal approaches for the prevention of cervical cancer. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness and accuracy of alternative screening strategies to provide evidence for cervical cancer screening guidelines in China.

Methods

In total, 32,306 women were enrolled. The current screening with Cervista^® high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) nongenotyping and cytology cotesting (Cervista^® cotesting) was compared with PCR-reverse dot blot HR-HPV genotyping and cytology cotesting (PCR-RDB cotesting). All eligible participants were divided into Arm 1, in which both HR-HPV assays were performed, and Arms 2 and 3, in which the PCR-RDB HPV or Cervista^® HR-HPV assay, respectively, was performed. Outcome indicators included the cases, sensitivity, negative predictive value (NPV), colposcopy referral rate and cost of identifying cervical intraepithelial neoplasia of grade 2/3 or worse (CIN2+/CIN3+).

Results

Among the eligible participants, 18.4% were PCR-RDB HR-HPV-positive, while 16.9% were Cervista^® HR-HPV-positive, which reflects good agreement (k = 0.73). PCR-RDB cotesting identified more CIN3+ cases than Cervista^® cotesting in the first round of screening in Arm 1 (37 vs 32) and Arms 2/3 (252 vs 165). The sensitivity and NPV of PCR-RDB cotesting for identifying CIN3+ in Arm 1 (sensitivity: 94.9% vs 86.5%; NPV: 99.9% vs 99.7%) and Arms 2/3 (sensitivity: 95.1% vs 80.9%; NPV: 99.9% vs 99.6%) were higher than those of Cervista^® cotesting, but the cost was similar.

Conclusions

The PCR-RDB HR-HPV genotyping and Cervista^® HR-HPV assay results were consistent. PCR-RDB cotesting possesses optimal cost-effectiveness for cervical cancer screening in China, which has the highest number of cases globally but low screening coverage.

Health disparities in cervical cancer: Prevalence of high-risk HPV and cytologic diagnoses according to race

BACKGROUND

In the United States, the rate of cervical cancer is disproportionally higher in Hispanic and Black women compared with White women. In the current study, the authors compared human papillomavirus (HPV) testing and cytology results among Black and White women over a 24-month period. They then assessed the rates in young women in 2011 compared with 2017 according to race.

METHODS

The authors searched the gynecologic cytology case files for Black and White women treated at Johns Hopkins Hospital across all ages for a period of 24 months (2017-2019) and compared HPV results and cytologic interpretations. They then compared results among Black and White cohorts of young women (aged 21-29 years) in 2011 versus 2017.

RESULTS

A total of 26,302 specimens from January 2017 to January 2019, including 11,676 Black women and 14,626 White women, were reviewed. The most common HPV genotype(s) detected were non-HPV-16 and/or HPV-18 (non-16/18) high-risk HPV (hrHPV) (84% of positive results). Non-16/18 hrHPV was more common in Black women (1309 women; 15%) compared with White women (1075 women; 9%). Non-16/18 hrHPV was more commonly observed in association with atypical squamous cells, cannot rule out high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion and/or high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (ASC-H/HSIL) in HPV-positive Black women compared with White women (P = .007). Black women were found to have higher rates of HPV-positive Papanicolaou results and high-grade lesions, including carcinoma (P < .01). In the 2011 cohort, young Black women were found to have a higher rate of ASC-H/HSIL (P = .003) compared with White women. However, the difference was not noted in the 2017 cohort. There was a decrease in ASC-H/HSIL in 2017 compared with 2011, with a lower incidence of ASC-H/HSIL noted among Black women in 2017.

CONCLUSIONS

Black women appear to have a higher incidence of higher grade lesions, but the difference between Black and White cohorts was not found to be significant in young women in more recent years.