Two self-sampling strategies for HPV primary cervical cancer screening compared with clinician-collected sampling: an economic evaluation

被引:6
|
作者
Huntington, Susie [1 ]
Sudhir, Krishnan Puri [1 ]
Schneider, Verena [1 ]
Sargent, Alex [2 ]
Turner, Katy [1 ]
Crosbie, Emma J. [3 ,4 ]
Adams, Elisabeth J. [1 ]
机构
[1] Aquarius Populat Hlth, London, England
[2] Manchester Univ NHS Fdn Trust, Cytol Dept, Ctr Clin Sci, Manchester, England
[3] Univ Manchester, Fac Biol Med & Hlth, Div Canc Sci, Manchester, England
[4] Manchester Acad Hlth Sci Ctr, Manchester Univ NHS Fdn Trust, St Marys Hosp, Dept Obstet & Gynaecol, Manchester, England
来源
BMJ OPEN | 2023年 / 13卷 / 06期
关键词
health economics; oncology; health policy; HUMAN-PAPILLOMAVIRUS; 1ST-VOID URINE; NONATTENDERS; ATTENDANCE; VALHUDES; DEVICES;
D O I
10.1136/bmjopen-2022-068940
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
ObjectiveTo compare the costs and effects of three sampling strategies for human papillomavirus (HPV) primary screening.DesignCost-consequence analysis from a health system perspective using a deterministic decision tree model.SettingEngland.ParticipantsA cohort of 10000women aged 25-65 years eligible for the National Health Service Cervical Screening Programme (NHSCSP).MethodsThe model was based on the NHSCSP HPV primary screening pathway and adapted for self-sampling. It used a 3-year cycle: routine screening (year 1) and recall screening (years 2/3). Parameter inputs were informed using published studies, NHSCSP reports and input from experts and manufacturers. Costs were from 2020/2021, British pound sterling ().InterventionsThree sampling strategies were implemented: (1) routine clinician-collected cervical sample, (2) self-collected first-void (FV) urine, (3) self-collected vaginal swab. The hypothetical self-sampling strategies involved mailing women a sampling kit.Main outcome measuresPrimary outcomes: overall costs (for all screening steps to colposcopy), number of complete screens and cost per complete screen. Secondary outcomes: number of women screened, number of women lost to follow-up, cost per colposcopy and total screening costs for a plausible range of uptake scenarios.ResultsIn the base case, the average cost per complete screen was 56.81 pound for clinician-collected cervical sampling, 38.57 pound for FV urine self-sampling and 40.37 pound for vaginal self-sampling. In deterministic sensitivity analysis, the variables most affecting the average cost per screen were the cost of sample collection for clinician-collected sampling and the cost of laboratory HPV testing for the self-sampling strategies. Scaled to consider routine screening in England, if uptake in non-attenders increased by 15% and 50% of current screeners converted to self-sampling, the NHSCSP would save 19.2million pound (FV urine) or 16.5million pound (vaginal) per year.ConclusionSelf-sampling could provide a less costly alternative to clinician-collected sampling for routine HPV primary screening and offers opportunities to expand the reach of cervical screening to under-screened women.
引用
收藏
页数:13
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Self-sampling HPV DNA test for cervical cancer screening in Singapore: A prospective study
    Lim, Li Min
    Chan, Ming Fen Grace
    Win, Pa Pa Thu
    Shen, Liang
    Arunachalam, Ilancheran
    Ng, Soon Yau Joseph
    Low, Jen Hui Jeffrey
    [J]. ANNALS ACADEMY OF MEDICINE SINGAPORE, 2022, 51 (11) : 733 - 735
  • [22] HPV Self-Sampling Test - A Promising Tool to Increase Participation in Cervical Cancer Screening
    Rugina, V. G.
    Sarbu, I
    Himiniuc, L.
    Murarasu, M.
    Rugina, A.
    [J]. PROCEEDINGS OF THE 4TH CONGRESS OF THE ROMANIAN SOCIETY FOR MINIMAL INVASIVE SURGERY IN GINECOLOGY / ANNUAL DAYS OF THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR MOTHER AND CHILD HEALTH ALESSANDRESCU-RUSESCU, 2019, : 524 - 529
  • [23] HPV self-sampling among cervical cancer screening nonattenders: a feasibility study in Estonia
    Hallik, R.
    Innos, K.
    Janes, J.
    Veerus, P.
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, 2021, 31
  • [24] HPV prevalence and acceptability of HPV self-sampling for cervical cancer screening in the community of Santiago Atitlan, Guatemala
    Gottschlich, Anna
    Meza, Rafael
    -Andrade, Alvaro Rivera
    Grajeda, Edwin
    Alvarez, Christian
    Montano, Carlos Mendoza
    [J]. CANCER RESEARCH, 2016, 76
  • [25] Equal prevalence of severe cervical dysplasia by HPV self-sampling and by midwife-collected samples for primary HPV screening: a randomised controlled trial
    Hellsten, Caroline
    Ernstson, Avalon
    Bodelsson, Gunilla
    Forslund, Ola
    Borgfeldt, Christer
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER PREVENTION, 2021, 30 (04) : 334 - 340
  • [26] Validation of a new HPV self-sampling device for cervical cancer screening: The Cervical and Self-Sample In Screening (CASSIS) study
    El-Zein, Mariam
    Bouten, Sheila
    Louvanto, Karolina
    Gilbert, Lucy
    Gotlieb, Walter
    Hemmings, Robert
    Behr, Marcel A.
    Franco, Eduardo L.
    [J]. GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY, 2018, 149 (03) : 491 - 497
  • [27] Time and temperature dependent analytical stability of dry-collected Evalyn HPV self-sampling brush for cervical cancer screening
    Ejegod, Ditte Moller
    Pedersen, Helle
    Alzua, Garazi Pena
    Pedersen, Camilla
    Bonde, Jesper
    [J]. PAPILLOMAVIRUS RESEARCH, 2018, 5 : 192 - 200
  • [28] Evaluation of the Allplex HPV assay's adherence to international guidelines for cervical cancer screening in clinician-collected samples
    Chung, Pui Yan Jenny
    Dhillon, Sharonjit K.
    Cortoos, Selina
    Hamerlinck, Hannelore
    Pereira, Rita
    Padalko, Elizaveta
    Vanden Broeck, Davy
    Arbyn, Marc
    [J]. MICROBIOLOGY SPECTRUM, 2024, 12 (08):
  • [29] HPV-based cervical cancer screening, including self-sampling, versus screening with cytology in Argentina
    Arbyn, Marc
    de Sanjose, Silvia
    Weiderpass, Elisabete
    [J]. LANCET GLOBAL HEALTH, 2019, 7 (06): : E688 - E689
  • [30] Comparison between professional sampling and self-sampling for HPV-based cervical cancer screening among postmenopausal women
    Bergengren, Lovisa
    Kaliff, Malin
    Larsson, Gabriella L.
    Karlsson, Mats G.
    Helenius, Gisela
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGY & OBSTETRICS, 2018, 142 (03) : 359 - 364