Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT ON CERVICAL CANCER SCREENING, 2000–2014

  • Betsy J. Lahue (a1), Eva Baginska (a1), Sophia S. Li (a1) and Monika Parisi (a2)

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to conduct a review of health technology assessments (HTAs) in cervical cancer screening to highlight the most common metrics HTA agencies use to evaluate and recommend cervical cancer screening technologies.

Methods: The Center for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD), MedLine, and national HTA agency databases were searched using keywords (“cervical cancer screening” OR “cervical cancer” OR “cervical screening”) and “HTA” from January 2000 to October 2014. Non-English language reports without English summaries, non-HTA reports, HTAs unrelated to a screening intervention and HTAs without sufficient summaries available online were excluded. We used various National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) methods to extract key assessment criteria and to determine whether a change in screening practice was recommended.

Results: One hundred and ten unique HTA reports were identified; forty-four HTAs from seventeen countries met inclusion criteria. All reports evaluated technologies for use among women. Ten cervical screening technologies were identified either as an intervention or a comparator. The most common outcome metric evaluated was diagnostic accuracy, followed by economic effectiveness. Additional outcome metrics such as the use of adjunct testing, screening intervals, and age-specific testing were commonly evaluated. Nearly one-third (fifteen of forty-four) of HTAs recommended a change in practice.

Conclusions: This review highlights popular metrics used in HTAs for cervical cancer screening. Clinical and economic effectiveness metrics have been consistently assessed in HTAs, while the use of adjunct testing, screening intervals, and age-specific screening became increasingly prevalent from after 2007. Moreover, we observed an increase in optimized recommendations after 2007.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT ON CERVICAL CANCER SCREENING, 2000–2014
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT ON CERVICAL CANCER SCREENING, 2000–2014
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT ON CERVICAL CANCER SCREENING, 2000–2014
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

References

Hide All
1. World Health Organization (WHO). Comprehensive cervical cancer prevention and control:a healthier future for girls and women. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2013.
2. Chesson, HW, Blandford, JM, Gift, TL, Tao, G, Irwin, KL. The estimated direct medical costs of sexually transmitted diseases among American youth, 2000. Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2004;36:1119.
3. Ferrandina, G. Hospital costs incurred by the Italian National Health Service for invasive cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol. 2010;119:243249.
4. Subramanian, S. Cost of cervical cancer treatment: Implications for providing coverage to low-income women under Medicaid Expansion for Cancer Care. Womens Health Issues. 2010;20:400405.
5. National Institute of Health (NIH). Fact sheet cervical cancer. http://report.nih.gov/nihfactsheets/Pdfs/CervicalCancer(NCI).pdf. 2010 (accessed December 2014).
6. Kulasingam, SL, Havrilesky, L, Ghebre, R, Myers, ER. Screening for cervical cancer: A decision analysis for the U.S. preventive services task force. AHRQ Publication No. 11–05157-EF-1, 2011.
7. Walboomers, JM, Jacobs, MV, Manos, MM, et al. Human papillomavirus is a necessary cause of invasive cervical cancer worldwide. J Pathol. 1999;189:1219.
8. Hulstaert, F, Arbyn, M, Huybrechts, M, et al. Cervical cancer screening and human papillomavirus (HPV) testing. Health Technology Assessment (HTA). Brussels: Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE); 2006. KCE reports 38C.
9. Varela Lema, L, Queiro Verdes, T. Detection of high risk human papillomavirus E6 and E7 oncogenes for cervical cancer screening. Santiago de Compostela, Spain: Galician Agency for Health Technology Assessment (AVALIA-T); 2010.
10. Nocon, M, Mittendorf, T, Roll, S, et al. Review on the medical and health economic evidence for an inclusion of colposcopy in primary screening programs for cervical cancer. Cologne: German Agency for Health Technology Assessment at the German Institute for Medical Documentation and Information (DAHTA@DIMDI). 2007; DAHTA055.
11. Wade, R, Spackman, E, Corbett, M, et al. Adjunctive colposcopy technologies for examination of the uterine cervix–DySIS, LuViva Advanced Cervical Scan and Niris Imaging System: A systematic review and economic evaluation. NIHR Health Technol Assess. 2013;17:1240.
12. Kisser, A, Zechmeister-Koss, I. P16/Ki-67 dual stain in the triage of PAPIII/IIID cytology in cervical cancer screening. Vienna: Ludwig Boltzmann Institut fuer Health Technology Assessment (LBIHTA); 2013. HTA-Projektbericht 72.
13. Adelaide Health Technology Assessment (AHTA). Zilico hand-held device for rapid cervical cancer detection. Christchurch, New Zealand: Australia and New Zealand Horizon Scanning Network (ANZHSN); 2010.
14. International Health Policy Program, Thailand and Health Intervention and Technology Assessment Program Ministry of Public Health, Thailand. Research for development of an optimal policy strategy for prevention and control of cervical cancer in Thailand. Bangkock, Thailand: Ministry of Public Health; 2008.
15. Della Palma, P, Moresco, L, Giorgi Rossi, P. Health technology assessment report: Computer-assisted Pap test for cervical cancer screening. Epidemiol Prev. 2012; 36.
16. Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC). Human papillomavirus testing in women with cytological prediction of low-grade abnormality. MSAC Reference 12b Assessment Report. Canberra: MSAC; 2002.
17. Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC). Computer-assisted image analysis for cervical screening. MSAC Reference 12c Assessment Report. Canberra: MSAC; 2003.
18. Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC). Human papillomavirus testing for cervical screening. MSAC Reference 12d Assessment Report. Canberra: MSAC; 2003.
19. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Guidance on the use of liquid-based cytology for cervical screening. NICE Technology Appraisal. Guidance 69. London: NICE; 2003.
20. Karnon, J, Peters, J, Platt, J, et al. Liquid-based cytology in cervical screening: An updated rapid and systematic review and economic analysis. NHS R&D HTA Programme. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8:178.
21. Stephenson, M, Doughty, C. Performance of commercially available HPV tests. NZHTA technical brief. Christchurch, New Zealand: NZHTA; 2007.
22. Krahn, M, McLachlin, M, Pham, B, et al. Liquid-based techniques for cervical cancer screening: Systematicreview and cost-effectiveness analysis. Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2008.
23. Regional HTA Centre of Region Västra Götaland, Sweden. Liquid-based cytology for screening of precursors of cervical cancer. Sweden: Sahlgrenska Universitetssjukhuset HTA-centrum; 2008.
24. Kitchener, HC, Almonte, M, Gilham, C, et al. ARTISTIC: A randomised trial of human papillomavirus (HPV) testing in primary cervical screening. NIHR HTA Program. Health Technol Assess. 2009;13:1150.
25. Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC). Automation assisted and liquid based cytology for cervical cancer screening. MSAC Application 1122. Canberra: MSAC; 2009.
26. Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC). Human papillomavirus triage test for women with possible or definite low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions. MSAC Reference 39 Assessment Report. Canberra: MSAC; 2009.
27. Adelaide Health Technology Assessment (AHTA). Cervista™ HPV 16/18 for the identification of strains of the human papillomavirus associated with cervical cancer. Christchurch, New Zealand: Australia and New Zealand Horizon Scanning Network (ANZHSN); 2009.
28. Sroczynski, G, Schnell-Inderst, P, Mühlberger, N, et al. Decision-analytic modeling to evaluate the long-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of HPV DNA testing in primary cervical cancer screening in Germany. Cologne: German Agency for Health Technology Assessment at the German Institute for Medical Documentation and Information (DAHTA@DIMDI). 2010.
29. Kitchener, HC, Blanks, R, Cubie, H, et al. MAVARIC - A comparison of automation-assisted and manual cervical screening: A randomised controlled trial . Health Technol Assess. 2011;15:iii-iv, ix-xi, 1170.
30. Vesco, KK, Whitlock, EP, Eder, M, et al. Screening for cervical cancer: A systematic evidence review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Evidence Synthesis No. 86. AHRQ Publication No. 11–05156-EF-1. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2011
31. Health Council of the Netherlands. Population screening for cervical cancer. The Hague: Health Council of the Netherlands; 2011.
32. Ronco, G, Biggeri, A, Confortini, M, et al. Health technology assessment report. Use of liquid-based cytology for cervical cancer precursors screening. Epidemiol Prev. 2012;36 (Suppl 2):e1e33.
33. Ronco, G, Biggeri, A, Confortini, M, et al. Health technology assessment report: HPV DNA based primary screening for cervical cancer precursors. Epidemiol Prev. 2012. 36.
34. Health Improvement Scotland. What is the clinical and cost effectiveness of human papillomavirus (HPV) testing, followed by liquid-based cytology triage of positive results, in primary screening for cervical cancer? Number 41. Edinburgh: Health Improvement Scotland; 2012.
35. Kitchener, HC, Canfell, K, Gilham, C, et al. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of primary human papillomavirus cervical screening in England: Extended follow-up of the ARTISTIC randomised trial cohort through three screening rounds. Health Technol Assess. 2014;18:1196.
36. Queiro Verdes, T, Puñal Riobóo, J. Automated reading methods of uterine cervical cytology. Avalia-t 2013/01. Santiago de Compostela: Galician Agency for Health Technology Assessment (AVALIA-T); 2013.
37. Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG). Benefit assessment of HPV testing in primary screening for cervical cancer. Cologne, Germany: Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care; 2011.
38. Broadstock, M. Effectiveness and cost effectiveness of automated and semi-automated cervical screening devices: A systematic review of the literature. N Z Med J. 2001;13:311313.
39. Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC). Liquid based cytology for cervical screening MSAC. Reference 12a Assessment Report. Canberra: MSAC; 2002.
40. Noorani, HZ, Brown, A, Skidmore, B, Stuart, GCE. Liquid-based cytology and human papillomavirus testing in cervical cancer screening. Canada Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment (CCOHTA). 2003;85.
41. Swedish Council on Health Technology Assessment. Human papillomavirus testing in primary care cervical cancer screening. Stockholm: SBU; 2000.
42. Payne, N, Chilcott, J, McGoogan, E. Liquid-based cytology in cervical screening:a rapid and systematic review. Health Technol Assess. 2000;4:173.
43. Health Technology Assessment Committee (HTAC). Screening for cervical cancer: Recent advances. Minnesota: Health Technology Advisory Committee; 2002.
44. Muth, C, Sroczynski, G, Velasco-Garrido, M, et al. Health technology assessment. Cologne: German Agency for Health Technology Assessment at the German Institute for Medical Documentation and Information (DAHTA@DIMDI); 2003.
45. Danish Centre for Evaluation and Health Technology Assessment (DACEHTA). The use of liquid based cytology (LBC) and conventional pap smear (CPS) for cervical screening in Denmark: A health technology assessment. Copenhagen: Danish Health Technology Assessment; 2005.
46. Lapointe, A, Erickson, L, Brophy, J. Adoption of liquid-based cytology: Technological evaluation. Montreal: Technology Assessment Unit of the McGill University Health Centre (MUHC); 2008.
47. Ruiz-Aragón, J, Márquez-Peláez, S, Carlos-Gil, AM, Romero-Tabares, A, Beltrán-Calvo, C. Efficacy, effectivity and efficiency of liquid cytology for cervical cancer screening and HPV infection diagnosis. Seville: Andalusian Agency for Health Technology Assessment (AETSA); 2013. AETSA 2009/9.
48. Willis, BH, Barton, P, Pearmain, P, Bryan, S, Hyde, C. Cervical screening programmes: Can automation help? Evidence from systematic reviews, an economic analysis and a simulation modelling exercise applied to the UK. Health Technol Assess. 2005;9:1207.
49. Ko, MJ, Kim, Y, Hong, SR, et al. Cost-effectiveness of conventional cytology and HPV DNA testing for cervical cancer screening in South Korea. Seoul: National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency (NECA); 2014. NECA-C-13–009.
50. Latapy, C, Barre, S, Midy, F. Assessment of human papilloma virus (HPV) testing in primary screening for cervical cancer in France. Anaes (French National Agency for Accreditation and Evaluation in Healthcare). 2004.
51. Mittendorf, T, Nocon, M, Roll, S, et al. Assessment of effectiveness and costeffectiveness of HPV testing in primary screening for cervical cancer. Cologne: German Agency for Health Technology Assessment at the German Institute for Medical Documentation and Information (DAHTA@DIMDI); 2007.
52. Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi). About HTAi: Mission. HTAi Website. http://www.htai.org/about-htai/mission.html (accessed November 2013).
53. European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA). Collaborations. EUnetHTA Website. http://www.eunethta.eu/collaborations (accessed November 2013).

Keywords

Type Description Title
WORD
Supplementary materials

Lahue supplementary material
Table S1

 Word (17 KB)
17 KB

HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT ON CERVICAL CANCER SCREENING, 2000–2014

  • Betsy J. Lahue (a1), Eva Baginska (a1), Sophia S. Li (a1) and Monika Parisi (a2)

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed