[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]

Estimated Quality of Life and Economic Outcomes Associated With 12 Cervical Cancer Screening StrategiesA Cost-effectiveness Analysis

Educational Objective
To review what are the estimated quality of life and economic outcomes associated with cervical cancer screening strategies currently recommended in the United States.
1 Credit CME
Key Points

Question  After incorporating women’s preferences into a cost-effectiveness analysis, what are the estimated quality of life and economic outcomes associated with cervical cancer screening strategies currently recommended in the United States?

Findings  Of 12 strategies evaluated in a cost-effectiveness model, cytologic testing every 3 years for women aged 21 to 29 years with either continued triennial cytologic testing or switching to a low-cost high-risk human papillomavirus test every 5 years from age 30 to 65 years conferred a reasonable balance of benefits, harms, and costs from both a societal and health care sector perspective.

Meaning  Cytologic testing every 3 years and low-cost high-risk human papillomavirus testing every 5 years both may be considered reasonable cervical cancer screening options for women aged 30 to 65 years.

Abstract

Importance  Many cervical cancer screening strategies are now recommended in the United States, but the benefits, harms, and costs of each option are unclear.

Objective  To estimate the cost-effectiveness of 12 cervical cancer screening strategies.

Design, Setting, and Participants  The cross-sectional portion of this study enrolled a convenience sample of 451 English-speaking or Spanish-speaking women aged 21 to 65 years from September 22, 2014, to June 16, 2016, identified at women's health clinics in San Francisco. In this group, utilities (preferences) were measured for 23 cervical cancer screening–associated health states and were applied to a decision model of type-specific high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV)–induced cervical carcinogenesis. Test accuracy estimates were abstracted from systematic reviews. The evaluated strategies were cytologic testing every 3 years for women aged 21 to 65 years with either repeat cytologic testing in 1 year or immediate hrHPV triage for atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASC-US), cytologic testing every 3 years for women age 21 to 29 years followed by cytologic testing plus hrHPV testing (cotesting), or primary hrHPV testing alone for women aged 30 to 65 years. Screening frequency, abnormal test result management, and the age to switch from cytologic testing to hrHPV testing (25 or 30 years) were varied. Analyses were conducted from both the societal and health care sector perspectives.

Main Outcomes and Measures  Utilities for 23 cervical cancer screening–associated health states (cross-sectional study) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and total costs for each strategy.

Results  Utilities were measured in a sociodemographically diverse group of 451 women (mean [SD] age, 38.2 [10.7] years; 258 nonwhite [57.2%]). Cytologic testing every 3 years with repeat cytologic testing for ASC-US yielded the most lifetime QALYs and conferred more QALYs at higher costs ($2166 per QALY) than the lowest-cost strategy (cytologic testing every 3 years with hrHPV triage of ASC-US). All cytologic testing plus hrHPV testing (cotesting) and primary hrHPV testing strategies provided fewer QALYs at higher costs. Adding indirect costs did not change the conclusions. In sensitivity analyses, hrHPV testing every 5 years with genotyping triage beginning at age 30 years was the lowest-cost strategy when hrHPV test sensitivity was markedly higher than cytologic test sensitivity or when hrHPV test cost was equated to the lowest reported cytologic test cost ($14).

Conclusions and Relevance  Cytologic testing every 3 years for women aged 21 to 29 years with either continued cytologic testing every 3 years or switching to a low-cost hrHPV test every 5 years confers a reasonable balance of benefits, harms, and costs. Comparative modeling is needed to confirm the association of these novel utilities with cost-effectiveness.

Sign in to take quiz and track your certificates

Buy This Activity

JN Learning™ is the home for CME and MOC from the JAMA Network. Search by specialty or US state and earn AMA PRA Category 1 CME Credit™ from articles, audio, Clinical Challenges and more. Learn more about CME/MOC

Article Information

Accepted for Publication: March 11, 2019.

Published Online: May 13, 2019. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.0299

Correction: This article was corrected on June 17, 2019, to fix an error in Table 2.

Corresponding Author: George F. Sawaya, MD, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, 550 16th St, Floor 7, San Francisco, CA 94143 (george.sawaya@ucsf.edu).

Author Contributions: Drs Sawaya and Kulasingam had full access to all the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Concept and design: Sawaya, Smith-McCune, Gregorich, Silverberg, Kuppermann, Kulasingam.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.

Drafting of the manuscript: Sawaya, Alarid-Escudero, Kuppermann, Kulasingam.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.

Statistical analysis: Alarid-Escudero, Leyden.

Obtained funding: Sawaya, Smith-McCune, Gregorich, Kuppermann.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Sawaya, Smith-McCune, Leyden, Kulasingam.

Supervision: Sawaya, Kuppermann.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Sawaya reported receiving grants from the National Cancer Institute during the conduct of the study. Dr Smith-McCune reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health during the conduct of the study. Dr Gregorich reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute during the conduct of the study. Dr Leyden reported receiving grants from the National Cancer Institute during the conduct of the study. Dr. Huchko reported receiving grants from the University of California, San Francisco, Department of Obstetrics/Gynecology during the conduct of the study. Dr Kulasingam reported receiving grants from the National Cancer Institute during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported.

Funding/Support: This work was funded by grant 1R01CA169093 from the US National Cancer Institute.

Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funding source had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Additional Contributions: Allison O’Leary, MPH, and Melissa Duncanson, BA, University of California, San Francisco, provided research administration assistance. Allison O’Leary, MPH, Mayra Carrillo, BS, Xochilt Borja, BS, and Rachel Freyre, BS, University of California, San Francisco, conducted participant interviews. Michelle Moghadassi, MPH, and Cinthia Blat, PhD, University of California, San Francisco, provided statistical support. Hilary Whitham, PhD, and Ran Zhao, MPH, University of Minnesota, provided modeling assistance. All individuals except Ms Duncanson were compensated for their contributions.

References
2.
Saslow  D, Solomon  D, Lawson  HW,  et al; ACS-ASCCP-ASCP Cervical Cancer Guideline Committee.  American Cancer Society, American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, and American Society for Clinical Pathology screening guidelines for the prevention and early detection of cervical cancer.  CA Cancer J Clin. 2012;62(3):147-172. doi:10.3322/caac.21139PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Moyer  VA; US Preventive Services Task Force.  Screening for cervical cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement  [published correction appears in Ann Intern Med. 2013;158(11):852].  Ann Intern Med. 2012;156(12):880-891, W312. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-156-12-201206190-00424PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Committee on Practice Bulletins—Gynecology.  ACOG practice bulletin number 131: screening for cervical cancer.  Obstet Gynecol. 2012;120(5):1222-1238.PubMedGoogle Scholar
5.
Practice Bulletin No.  Practice bulletin no. 168 summary: cervical cancer screening and prevention.  Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128(4):923-925. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000001699PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Huh  WK, Ault  KA, Chelmow  D,  et al.  Use of primary high-risk human papillomavirus testing for cervical cancer screening: interim clinical guidance.  Obstet Gynecol. 2015;125(2):330-337. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000000669PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Curry  SJ, Krist  AH, Owens  DK,  et al; US Preventive Services Task Force.  Screening for Cervical Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.  JAMA. 2018;320(7):674-686. doi:10.1001/jama.2018.10897PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Brennan  VK, Dixon  S.  Incorporating process utility into quality adjusted life years: a systematic review of empirical studies.  Pharmacoeconomics. 2013;31(8):677-691. doi:10.1007/s40273-013-0066-1PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
O’Connor  M, Gallagher  P, Waller  J, Martin  CM, O’Leary  JJ, Sharp  L; Irish Cervical Screening Research Consortium (CERVIVA).  Adverse psychological outcomes following colposcopy and related procedures: a systematic review.  BJOG. 2016;123(1):24-38. doi:10.1111/1471-0528.13462PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Torrance  GW.  Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal.  J Health Econ. 1986;5(1):1-30. doi:10.1016/0167-6296(86)90020-2PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Torrance  GW, Thomas  WH, Sackett  DL.  A utility maximization model for evaluation of health care programs.  Health Serv Res. 1972;7(2):118-133.PubMedGoogle Scholar
12.
Jalal  H, Pechlivanoglou  P, Krijkamp  E, Alarid-Escudero  F, Enns  E, Hunink  MGM.  An overview of R in health decision sciences.  Med Decis Making. 2017;37(7):735-746. doi:10.1177/0272989X16686559PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Massad  LS, Einstein  MH, Huh  WK,  et al; 2012 ASCCP Consensus Guidelines Conference.  2012 Updated consensus guidelines for the management of abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and cancer precursors.  Obstet Gynecol. 2013;121(4):829-846. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e3182883a34PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Ogilvie  GS, Krajden  M, van Niekerk  D,  et al.  HPV for cervical cancer screening (HPV FOCAL): complete round 1 results of a randomized trial comparing HPV-based primary screening to liquid-based cytology for cervical cancer.  Int J Cancer. 2017;140(2):440-448. doi:10.1002/ijc.30454PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program. SEER*Stat database: mortality—all COD, aggregated with state, total U.S. (1969-2015) <Katrina/Rita population adjustment>, National Cancer Institute, DCCPS, Surveillance Research Program, released December 2017. Underlying mortality data provided by NCHS.
16.
Cooper  CP, Saraiya  M.  Cervical cancer screening intervals preferred by US women.  Am J Prev Med. 2018;55(3):389-394. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2018.04.028PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Silver  MI, Rositch  AF, Burke  AE, Chang  K, Viscidi  R, Gravitt  PE.  Patient concerns about human papillomavirus testing and 5-year intervals in routine cervical cancer screening.  Obstet Gynecol. 2015;125(2):317-329. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000000638PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Koliopoulos  G, Nyaga  VN, Santesso  N,  et al.  Cytology versus HPV testing for cervical cancer screening in the general population.  Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;8(8):CD008587. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD008587.pub2PubMedGoogle Scholar
19.
Li  T, Li  Y, Yang  GX,  et al.  Diagnostic value of combination of HPV testing and cytology as compared to isolated cytology in screening cervical cancer: a meta-analysis.  J Cancer Res Ther. 2016;12(1):283-289. doi:10.4103/0973-1482.154032PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
Arbyn  M, Buntinx  F, Van Ranst  M, Paraskevaidis  E, Martin-Hirsch  P, Dillner  J.  Virologic versus cytologic triage of women with equivocal Pap smears: a meta-analysis of the accuracy to detect high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia.  J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004;96(4):280-293. doi:10.1093/jnci/djh037PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
Arbyn  M, Haelens  A, Desomer  A,  et al. Cervical cancer screening program and human papillomavirus (HPV) testing, part II: update on HPV primary screening. https://kce.fgov.be/en/cervical-cancer-screening-program-and-human-papillomavirus-hpv-testing-part-ii-update-on-hpv-primary. Published January 19, 2015. Accessed September 10, 2018.
23.
Kocken  M, Uijterwaal  MH, de Vries  AL,  et al.  High-risk human papillomavirus testing versus cytology in predicting post-treatment disease in women treated for high-grade cervical disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.  Gynecol Oncol. 2012;125(2):500-507. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.01.015PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
24.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. 2017 Clinical diagnostic laboratory fee schedule and physician fee schedule national payment amount. https://www.cms.gov/apps/physician-fee-schedule/overview.aspx. Accessed April 6, 2019.
25.
Mariotto  AB, Yabroff  KR, Shao  Y, Feuer  EJ, Brown  ML.  Projections of the cost of cancer care in the United States: 2010-2020.  J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103(2):117-128. doi:10.1093/jnci/djq495PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
26.
Wright  TC  Jr, Stoler  MH, Behrens  CM, Apple  R, Derion  T, Wright  TL.  The ATHENA human papillomavirus study: design, methods, and baseline results.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;206(1):46.e1-46.e11. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2011.07.024PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.
Shireman  TI, Tsevat  J, Goldie  SJ.  Time costs associated with cervical cancer screening.  Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2001;17(1):146-152. doi:10.1017/S0266462301104137PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
28.
Yabroff  KR, Davis  WW, Lamont  EB,  et al.  Patient time costs associated with cancer care.  J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;99(1):14-23. doi:10.1093/jnci/djk001PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
29.
Sanders  GD, Neumann  PJ, Basu  A,  et al.  Recommendations for conduct, methodological practices, and reporting of cost-effectiveness analyses: second panel on cost-effectiveness in health and medicine.  JAMA. 2016;316(10):1093-1103. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.12195PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
Stoler  MH, Austin  RM, Zhao  C.  Point-counterpoint: cervical cancer screening should be done by primary human papillomavirus testing with genotyping and reflex cytology for women over the age of 25 years.  J Clin Microbiol. 2015;53(9):2798-2804. doi:10.1128/JCM.01087-15PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
31.
Husereau  D, Drummond  M, Petrou  S,  et al; CHEERS Task Force.  Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement.  BMJ. 2013;346:f1049. doi:10.1136/bmj.f1049PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
32.
Neumann  PJ, Cohen  JT.  QALYs in 2018—advantages and concerns.  JAMA. 2018;319(24):2473-2474. doi:10.1001/jama.2018.6072PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
33.
Jin  XW, Lipold  L, Foucher  J,  et al.  Cost-effectiveness of primary HPV testing, cytology and co-testing as cervical cancer screening for women above age 30 years.  J Gen Intern Med. 2016;31(11):1338-1344. doi:10.1007/s11606-016-3772-5PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
34.
Wright  T, Huang  J, Baker  E, Garfield  S, Hertz  D, Cox  JT.  The budget impact of cervical cancer screening using HPV primary screening.  Am J Manag Care. 2016;22(3):e95-e105.PubMedGoogle Scholar
35.
Huh  WK, Williams  E, Huang  J, Bramley  T, Poulios  N.  Cost effectiveness of human papillomavirus-16/18 genotyping in cervical cancer screening.  Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2015;13(1):95-107. doi:10.1007/s40258-014-0135-4PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
36.
Vijayaraghavan  A, Efrusy  MB, Goodman  KA, Santas  CC, Huh  WK.  Cost-effectiveness of using human papillomavirus 16/18 genotype triage in cervical cancer screening.  Gynecol Oncol. 2010;119(2):237-242. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2010.07.004PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
37.
Ogilvie  GS, van Niekerk  D, Krajden  M,  et al.  Effect of screening with primary cervical HPV testing vs cytology testing on high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia at 48 months: the HPV FOCAL randomized clinical trial.  JAMA. 2018;320(1):43-52. doi:10.1001/jama.2018.7464PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
38.
Kim  JJ, Burger  EA, Regan  C, Sy  S.  Screening for cervical cancer in primary care: a decision analysis for the US Preventive Services Task Force.  JAMA. 2018;320(7):706-714. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.19872PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
If you are not a JN Learning subscriber, you can either:
Subscribe to JN Learning for one year
Buy this activity
jn-learning_Modal_LoginSubscribe_Purchase
If you are not a JN Learning subscriber, you can either:
Subscribe to JN Learning for one year
Buy this activity
jn-learning_Modal_LoginSubscribe_Purchase
With a personal account, you can:
  • Access free activities and track your credits
  • Personalize content alerts
  • Customize your interests
  • Fully personalize your learning experience
Education Center Collection Sign In Modal Right

Name Your Search

Save Search
With a personal account, you can:
  • Track your credits
  • Personalize content alerts
  • Customize your interests
  • Fully personalize your learning experience
jn-learning_Modal_SaveSearch_NoAccess_Purchase

Lookup An Activity

or

My Saved Searches

You currently have no searches saved.

With a personal account, you can:
  • Access free activities and track your credits
  • Personalize content alerts
  • Customize your interests
  • Fully personalize your learning experience
Education Center Collection Sign In Modal Right
Topics
State Requirements