Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2010 Jul;14(3):185-95.
doi: 10.1097/LGT.0b013e3181cd6d36.

Accuracy and cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening by high-risk human papillomavirus DNA testing of self-collected vaginal samples

Akhila Balasubramanian  1 , Shalini L Kulasingam, Atar Baer, James P Hughes, Evan R Myers, Constance Mao, Nancy B Kiviat, Laura A Koutsky
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Accuracy and cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening by high-risk human papillomavirus DNA testing of self-collected vaginal samples

Akhila Balasubramanian et al. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2010 Jul.

Abstract

Objective: Estimate the accuracy and cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening strategies based on high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing of self-collected vaginal samples.

Materials and methods: A subset of 1,665 women (age range, 18-50 y) participating in a cervical cancer screening study were screened by liquid-based cytology and by high-risk HPV DNA testing of both self-collected vaginal swab samples and clinician-collected cervical samples. Women with positive/abnormal screening test results and a subset of women with negative screening test results were triaged to colposcopy. On the basis of individual and combined test results, 5 screening strategies were defined. Estimates of sensitivity and specificity for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse were calculated, and a Markov model was used to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for each strategy.

Results: Compared with cytology-based screening, high-risk HPV DNA testing of self-collected vaginal samples was more sensitive (68%, 95% CI = 58%-78% vs 85%, 95% CI = 76%-94%) but less specific (89%, 95% CI = 86%-91% vs 73%, 95% CI = 67%-79%). A strategy of high-risk HPV DNA testing of self-collected vaginal samples followed by cytology triage of HPV-positive women was comparably sensitive (75%, 95% CI = 64%-86%) and specific (88%, 95% CI = 85%-92%) to cytology-based screening. In-home self-collection for high-risk HPV DNA detection followed by in-clinic cytology triage had a slightly lower lifetime cost and a slightly higher quality-adjusted life year (QALY) expectancy than did cytology-based screening (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of triennial screening compared with no screening was $9,871/QALY and $12,878/QALY, respectively).

Conclusions: Triennial screening by high-risk HPV DNA testing of in-home, self-collected vaginal samples followed by in-clinic cytology triage was cost-effective.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Attendance at colposcopy-biopsy and detection of histologically-confirmed CIN2 and ≥CIN3 among women stratified by screening test results
aISCC = invasive squamous cell carcinoma; HSIL = high grade squamous intraepithelial lesions; AGUS = atypical glandular cells of unknown significance; LSIL = low grade squamous intraepithelial lesions; ASC-US = atypical squamous cells of unknown significance; CIN = cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2; ≥CIN3 = cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or higher
Figure 2
Figure 2. Cost-effectiveness of different screening strategies: results of base case analysis
Note: Collection of vaginal samples is assumed to be performed by women in their homes; collection of cytology samples is assumed to be performed in a clinic setting
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Stoler MH, Schiffman M. Interobserver reproducibility of cervical cytologic and histologic interpretations: realistic estimates from the ASCUS-LSIL Triage Study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001;285:1500–5. - PubMed
    1. Cuzick J. Screening for cervical cancer. In: Rohan TE, Shah KV, editors. Cervical Cancer: From Etiology to Prevention. Norwell: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2004. pp. 261–93.
    1. Nanda K, McCrory DC, Myers ER, Bastian LA, Hasselblad V, Hickey JD, et al. Accuracy of the Papanicolaou test in screening for and follow-up of cervical cytologic abnormalities: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2000;132:810–19. - PubMed
    1. McCrory DC, Matchar DB, Bastian L, Datta S, Hasselblad V, Hickey J, et al. Evaluation of cervical cytology: Evidence report/technology assessment no. 5. Rockville, MD: Agency for Health Care Policy and Research; 1999. AHCPR Publication No. 99-E010. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Wright TC, Jr, Massad LS, Dunton CJ, Spitzer M, Wilkinson EJ, Solomon D. 2006 consensus guidelines for the management of women with abnormal cervical cancer screening tests. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;197:346–55. - PubMed

Publication types