Kim Jane J, Burger Emily A, Sy Stephen, Campos Nicole G
Center for Health Decision Science, Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.
Department of Health Management and Health Economics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2016 Oct 18;109(2). doi: 10.1093/jnci/djw216. Print 2017 Feb.
Current US cervical cancer screening guidelines do not differentiate recommendations based on a woman's human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination status. Changes to cervical cancer screening policies in HPV-vaccinated women should be evaluated.
We utilized an individual-based mathematical model of HPV and cervical cancer in US women to project the health benefits, costs, and harms associated with screening strategies in women vaccinated with the bivalent, quadrivalent, or nonavalent vaccine. Strategies varied by the primary screening test, including cytology, HPV, and combined cytology and HPV "cotesting"; age of screening initiation and/or switching to a new test; and interval between routine screens. Cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from the societal perspective to identify screening strategies that would be considered good value for money according to thresholds of $50 000 to $200 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.
Among women fully vaccinated with the bivalent or quadrivalent vaccine, optimal screening strategies involved either cytology or HPV testing alone every five years starting at age 25 or 30 years, with cost-effectiveness ratios ranging from $34 680 to $138 560 per QALY gained. Screening earlier or more frequently was either not cost-effective or associated with exceedingly high cost-effectiveness ratios. In women vaccinated with the nonavalent vaccine, only primary HPV testing was efficient, involving decreased frequency (ie, every 10 years) starting at either age 35 years ($40 210 per QALY) or age 30 years ($127 010 per QALY); with lower nonavalent vaccine efficacy, 10-year HPV testing starting at earlier ages of 25 or 30 years was optimal. Importantly, current US guidelines for screening were inefficient in HPV-vaccinated women.
This model-based analysis suggests screening can be modified to start at later ages, occur at decreased frequency, and involve primary HPV testing in HPV-vaccinated women, providing more health benefit at lower harms and costs than current screening guidelines.
美国现行的宫颈癌筛查指南并未根据女性的人乳头瘤病毒(HPV)疫苗接种状况区分筛查建议。应对接种HPV疫苗女性的宫颈癌筛查政策变化进行评估。
我们利用美国女性HPV和宫颈癌的个体数学模型,预测与二价、四价或九价疫苗接种女性筛查策略相关的健康益处、成本和危害。筛查策略因主要筛查检测方法而异,包括细胞学检查、HPV检测以及细胞学和HPV联合“共检测”;筛查起始年龄和/或更换新检测方法的年龄;以及常规筛查之间的间隔时间。从社会角度进行成本效益分析,以确定根据每获得一个质量调整生命年(QALY)50000美元至200000美元的阈值被认为性价比高的筛查策略。
在完全接种二价或四价疫苗的女性中,最佳筛查策略包括从25岁或30岁开始每五年单独进行一次细胞学检查或HPV检测,每获得一个QALY的成本效益比在34680美元至138560美元之间。更早或更频繁地进行筛查要么不具有成本效益,要么与极高的成本效益比相关。在接种九价疫苗的女性中,只有初次HPV检测是有效的,包括从35岁(每QALY 40210美元)或从30岁(每QALY 127010美元)开始检测频率降低(即每10年一次);九价疫苗效力较低时,从25岁或30岁更早年龄开始的10年一次HPV检测是最佳的。重要的是,美国现行的筛查指南对接种HPV疫苗的女性效率不高。
这项基于模型的分析表明,对于接种HPV疫苗的女性,筛查可以修改为在较晚年龄开始,以较低频率进行,并采用初次HPV检测,与现行筛查指南相比,能以更低的危害和成本提供更多健康益处。