Cost-Effectiveness and Cost-Benefit of Cervical Cancer Screening with Liquid Based Cytology Compared with Conventional Cytology in Germany

References

• Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68(6):394–424. doi:10.3322/caac.21492
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klug SJ, Neis KJ, Harlfinger W, et al. A randomized trial comparing conventional cytology to liquid-based cytology and computer assistance. Int J Cancer. 2013;132(12):2849–2857. doi:10.1002/ijc.27955
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bruni LAG, Serrano B, Mena M, et al. Human Papillomavirus and related diseases in Germany. Summary report 10 December 2018. ICO/IARC Information Centre on HPV and Cancer (HPV Information Centre).
   Google Scholar
• Robert Koch Institut. HPV-Prävalenzstudie 2017/18; 2018. Available from: https://www.rki.de/DE/Content/Infekt/Impfen/Forschungsprojekte/HPV-Praevalenzstudie/HPV_node.html. Accessed January 24, 2020. 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Sroczynski G, Schnell-Inderst P, Muhlberger N, et al. Cost-effectiveness of primary HPV screening for cervical cancer in Germany–a decision analysis. Eur J Cancer. 2011;47(11):1633–1646. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2011.03.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chesson HW, Dunne EF, Hariri S, Markowitz LE. The estimated lifetime probability of acquiring human papillomavirus in the United States. Sex Transm Dis. 2014;41(11):660–664. doi:10.1097/OLQ.0000000000000193
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• England NHS. Overviw of cervical cancer. 2018. Available from: https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/cervical-cancer/. Accessed January 24, 2020. 2019.
   Google Scholar
• NHS England. Cervical Cancer, Causes. 2018. Available from: https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/cervical-cancer/causes/. Accessed January 24, 2020. 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Macmillan Cancer Support. Colposcopy and CIN. 2018. Available from: https://www.macmillan.org.uk/information-and-support/diagnosing/how-cancers-are-diagnosed/cervical-screening/cin.html. Accessed January 24, 2020. 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Bhatla N, Berek JS, Cuello Fredes M, et al. Revised FIGO staging for carcinoma of the cervix uteri. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2019;145(1):129–135. doi:10.1002/ijgo.12749
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siebers AG, Klinkhamer PJ, Grefte JM, et al. Comparison of liquid-based cytology with conventional cytology for detection of cervical cancer precursors: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2009;302(16):1757–1764. doi:10.1001/jama.2009.1569
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rimiene J, Petronyte J, Gudleviciene Z, Smailyte G, Krasauskaite I, Laurinavicius A. A Shandon PapSpin liquid-based gynecologicl test: a split-sample and direct-to-vial test with histology follow-up study. Cytojournal. 2010;7(2). doi:10.4103/1742-6413.61200
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rozemeijer K, Penning C, Siebers AG, et al. Comparing SurePath, ThinPrep, and conventional cytology as primary test method: SurePath is associated with increased CIN II+ detection rates. Cancer Causes Control. 2016;27(1):15–25. doi:10.1007/s10552-015-0678-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Institute of Health and Care Excellence. Guidance on the use of liquid-based cytology for cervical screening. 2003. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ta69/chapter/1-Guidance. Accessed January 24, 2020. 2019.
   Google Scholar
• National Screening Unit. HPV primary screening. 2017. Available from: https://www.nsu.govt.nz/health-professionals/national-cervical-screening-programme/hpv-primary-screening. Accessed January 24, 2020. 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Hing E, Saraiya M, Roland K. Liquid-based cytology test use by office-based physicians: United States, 2006–2007. National Health Statistics Reports. 2011. Vol. 40.
   Google Scholar
• Castle PE, Bulten J, Confortini M, et al. Age-specific patterns of unsatisfactory results for conventional Pap smears and liquid-based cytology: data from two randomised clinical trials. BJOG. 2010;117(9):1067–1073. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2010.02650.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zentrum Fur Krebsregisterdaten. Cervical cancer. 2017. Available from: https://www.krebsdaten.de/Krebs/DE/Content/Krebsarten/Gebaermutterhalskrebs/gebaermutterhalskrebs_node.html;jsessionid=0D20C7CBCF9B6114207230D754414EBE.2_cid298. Accessed January 24, 2020. 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Bundesausschuss G. Early detection of cervical cancer in the future as an organized program. Available from: https://www.g-ba.de/institution/presse/pressemitteilungen/774/. Accessed January 24, 2020. 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Iftner T, Becker S, Neis KJ, et al. Head-to-head comparison of the RNA-based aptima human papillomavirus (HPV) assay and the DNA-based hybrid capture 2 HPV test in a routine screening population of women aged 30 to 60 years in Germany. J Clin Microbiol. 2015;53(8):2509–2516. doi:10.1128/JCM.01013-15
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petry KU, Menton S, Menton M, et al. Inclusion of HPV testing in routine cervical cancer screening for women above 29 years in Germany: results for 8466 patients. Br J Cancer. 2003;88(10):1570–1577. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6600918
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scheider AH, Lotz,B H. Screening for high-grade cervical intra-epithelial, neoplasia and cancer by testing for high-risk, routine cytology or colposcopy. Int J Cancer. 2000;89(6):529–534. [ doi:89(6):529-34]. doi:10.1002/1097-0215(20001120)89:6<529::AID-IJC11>3.0.CO;2-G
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Destatis Statistisches Bundesamt. Population projection. 2018. Available from: https://www.destatis.de/EN/FactsFigures/SocietyState/Population/PopulationProjection/PopulationProjection.html. Accessed January 24, 2020. 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Destatis Statistisches Bundesamt. Deaths, life expectancy. 2018. Available from: https://www.destatis.de/EN/FactsFigures/SocietyState/Population/Deaths/Deaths.html. Accessed January 24, 2020. 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Attema AE, Brouwer WBF, Claxton K. Discounting in economic evaluations. Pharmacoeconomics. 2018;36(7):745–758. doi:10.1007/s40273-018-0672-z
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen (IQWiG). General methods for the assessment of the relation of benefits to costs. 2009. Available from: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=2ahUKEwiL4_SFjfLmAhXSTBUIHUy0C50QFjABegQIBhAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.iqwig.de%2Fdownload%2FGeneral_Methods_for_the_Assessment_of_the_Relation_of_Benefits_to_Costs.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1Muo_-bYcWW-Dug3fRKlcR. Accessed January 24, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Damm O, Horn J, Mikolajczyk RT, et al. Cost-effectiveness of human papillomavirus vaccination in Germany. Cost Eff Resour Alloc. 2017;15:18. doi:10.1186/s12962-017-0080-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petry KU, Wormann B, Schneider A. Benefits and risks of cervical cancer screening. Oncol Res Treat. 2014;37(Suppl 3):48–57. doi:10.1159/000365059
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tomao F, Corrado G, Peccatori FA, et al. Fertility-sparing options in young women with cervical cancer. Curr Treat Options Oncol. 2016;17(1):5. doi:10.1007/s11864-015-0386-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brucker SY, Ulrich UA. Surgical treatment of early-stage cervical cancer. Oncol Res Treat. 2016;39(9):508–514. doi:10.1159/000448794
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neville AM, Quinn MA. An alternative cost effectiveness analysis of ThinPrep in the Australian setting. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2005;45(4):289–294. doi:10.1111/j.1479-828X.2005.00413.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karnon J, Peters J, Platt J, Chilcott J, McGoogan E, Brewer N. Liquid-based cytology in cervical screening: an updated rapid and systematic review and economic analysis. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8(20):iii,1–78. doi:10.3310/hta8200
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Bekker-grob EW, de Kok IM, Bulten J, et al. Liquid-based cervical cytology using ThinPrep technology: weighing the pros and cons in a cost-effectiveness analysis. Cancer Causes Control. 2012;23(8):1323–1331. doi:10.1007/s10552-012-0011-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cochand-Priollet M, Cartier I, de Cremoux P, et al. Cost-effectiveness of liquid-based cytology with or without hybrid-capture II HPV test compared with conventional Pap Smears: a study by the french society of clinical cytology. Diagn Cytopathol. 2004;33(5):338–343. doi:10.1002/dc.20283
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• French DP, Maissi E, Marteau TM. Psychological costs of inadequate cervical smear test results. Br J Cancer. 2004;91(11):1887–1892. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6602224
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beerman H, van Dorst EB, Kuenen-Boumeester V, Hogendoorn PC. Superior performance of liquid-based versus conventional cytology in a population-based cervical cancer screening program. Gynecol Oncol. 2009;112(3):572–576. doi:10.1016/j.ygyno.2008.12.012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rahimi S, Carnovale-Scalzo C, Marani C, Renzi C, Malvasi A, Votano S. Comparison of conventional Papanicolaou smears and fluid-based, thin-layer cytology with colposcopic biopsy control in central Italy: a consecutive sampling study of 461 cases. Diagn Cytopathol. 2009;37(1):1–3. doi:10.1002/dc.20947
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sigurdsson K. Is a liquid-based cytology more sensitive than a conventional Pap smear? Cytopathology. 2013;24(4):254–263. doi:10.1111/cyt.12037
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yanoh K, Norimatsu Y, Munakata S, et al. Evaluation of endometrial cytology prepared with the Becton Dickinson SurePath method: a pilot study by the Osaki study group. Acta Cytol. 2014;58(2):153–161. doi:10.1159/000357769
   Google Scholar
• Del Mistro A, Matteucci M, Insacco EA, et al. Long-term clinical outcome after treatment for high-grade cervical lesions: a retrospective monoinstitutional cohort study. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:984528. doi:10.1155/2015/984528
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cancer Research UK. 2019. Available from: https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/cervical-cancer/survival?_ga=2.51202347.346490256.1559984656-841381996.1559984656. Accessed March 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Kassenarztliche Bundesvereininung (KBV). Kassenarztliche Bundesvereininung (KBV). 2019. Available from: Available from: https://www.kbv.de/html/index.php. Accessed January 24, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Schobert D, Remy V, Schoeffski O. Cost-effectiveness of vaccination with a quadrivalent HPV vaccine in Germany using a dynamic transmission model. Health Econ Rev. 2012;2:19. doi:10.1186/2191-1991-2-19
   PubMedGoogle Scholar