Volume 127, Issue 9 pp. 2147-2158
Epidemiology

The health and economic effects of HPV DNA screening in The Netherlands

Johannes Berkhof

Corresponding Author

Johannes Berkhof

Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Tel.: +31-(0)20-444 4909, Fax: +31-(0)20-444 4475

Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, VU University Medical Centre, PO Box 7057, 1007 MB, Amsterdam, The NetherlandsSearch for more papers by this author
Veerle M. Coupé

Veerle M. Coupé

Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Search for more papers by this author
Johannes A. Bogaards

Johannes A. Bogaards

Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Search for more papers by this author
Folkert J. van Kemenade

Folkert J. van Kemenade

Department of Pathology, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Search for more papers by this author
Theo J. Helmerhorst

Theo J. Helmerhorst

Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Search for more papers by this author
Peter J. Snijders

Peter J. Snijders

Department of Pathology, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Search for more papers by this author
Chris J. Meijer

Chris J. Meijer

Department of Pathology, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 26 August 2010
Citations: 50

Conflict of interest: C.J.M. is a member of the advisory board of Qiagen. P.J.S. has provided occasional consultation to Roche and Gen-Probe.

Abstract

We studied the health and economic effects of human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing in cervical screening using a simulation model. The key data source was a Dutch longitudinal screening trial. We compared cytological testing with repeat cytology (for borderline/mildly abnormal smears) to HPV testing with cytology triage (for HPV-positive smears), combination testing (combined HPV and cytology) and cytological testing with HPV triage (for borderline/mildly abnormal smears). We varied the screening interval from 5 to 10 years. The main outcome measures were the number of cervical cancer cases, the number of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The base-case estimates were accompanied with ranges across 118 calibrated parameter settings (calibration criteria: cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2/3, cancer and mortality rates). In comparison to 5-yearly cytology, 5-yearly HPV testing with cytology triage gave a reduction in the number of cancer cases of 23% (range, 9–27%). The reduction was 26% (range, 10–29%) for combination testing and 3% (range, −1 to 8%) for cytology with HPV triage. For strategies with primary HPV testing, the model also estimated a reduction in cancer cases when the screening interval was extended to 7.5 years. Five-yearly cytology with HPV triage and 5 to 7.5-yearly HPV testing with cytology triage were cost effective for the base-case settings and the majority of calibrated parameter settings (ICER below Dutch willingness-to-pay threshold of €20,000/QALY). Our model indicates that HPV testing with cytology triage is likely to be cost effective. An extension of the screening interval may be considered to control costs.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.