1. Cost‐Effectiveness of Computer‐Assisted Cytology in a Primary hrHPV‐Based Cervical Cancer Screening Programme.
- Author
-
Olthof, Ellen M. G., Kaljouw, S., van Kemenade, Folkert J., Uyterlinde, Anne M., and de Kok, Inge M. C. M.
- Subjects
CERVICAL intraepithelial neoplasia ,COST control ,MEDICAL screening ,EARLY detection of cancer ,CERVICAL cancer - Abstract
Background: Computer‐assisted screening (CAS) shows equal performance compared to manual screening, although results are heterogeneous. Furthermore, using CAS may save costs through a potentially increased screening productivity of technicians, therefore also offering a solution for temporary and structural capacity shortage. We evaluated the circumstances under which CAS will be cost‐effective compared to manual cytology triage in a primary HPV‐based cervical screening programme. Methods: Microsimulation model MISCAN‐Cervix was used to evaluate 198 different CAS scenarios with varying probabilities to detect cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1 (CIN1) and CIN3 and cost reductions per test, compared to manual cytology triage. Cost‐effectiveness was evaluated by costs per (quality‐adjusted) life year ((QA)LY) gained. Results: CAS will be cost‐effective in all scenarios, except for the following combinations: (1) no cost reduction and an increased probability of detecting CIN1, (2) a cost reduction of €2 per test and an increased probability of detecting CIN1 from 4% onwards or (3) a cost reduction of €4 per test and an increased probability of detecting CIN1 from 6% onwards, compared to manual cytology triage. All CAS scenarios with any reduction in the probability of detecting CIN1 (i.e., increased CIN2+ specificity), or a reduction in costs from €6 per test onwards suggested a more cost‐effective strategy compared to manual cytology triage. Conclusion: As we based our analysis on a realistic range in costs and test performance, the implementation of CAS is likely to be cost‐effective. Our results can be used as a guideline to advise when to choose CAS instead of manual cytology triage. Computer‐assisted screening (CAS) is an evident substitute for manual cytology screening as a triage test in a primary HPV‐based setting. This is the first study investigating under which circumstances CAS is cost‐effective in a primary HPV‐based screening programme. We showed that in case of increased CIN2+ specificity and cost reduction from €6 per test, CAS was more cost‐effective than manual cytology triage. So, implementing CAS is likely to be cost‐effective in primary HPV‐based screening, which can guide decision‐making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2024
- Full Text
- View/download PDF