Cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening: cytology versus human papillomavirus DNA testing
- PMID: 22251259
- PMCID: PMC3489039
- DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2011.03228.x
Cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening: cytology versus human papillomavirus DNA testing
Abstract
Objective: To determine the most cost-effective screening programme for cervical cancer.
Design: Cost-effectiveness analysis from a societal perspective.
Setting: The Netherlands.
Population: Dutch women who have not been invited for human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination.
Methods: We calibrated the microsimulation screening analysis (MISCAN) model to Dutch epidemiological data. We used this model to consider nine screening strategies that use: (i) cytological testing with cytology triage for borderline/mildly abnormal smears; (ii) HPV testing with cytology triage for HPV-positive smears; or (iii) cytological testing with HPV triage for borderline/mildly abnormal smears. For each strategy, we varied the number of screening rounds, the time interval, the age of the first screening, and the type of cytological testing (conventional or liquid-based cytology).
Main outcome measures: Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained and costs from a societal perspective.
Results: Under the base-case assumptions, primary HPV testing with cytology triage is the most cost-effective strategy. Using cost-effectiveness thresholds of € 20,000 and € 50,000 per QALY gained yields optimal screening programmes with three and seven screening rounds, respectively. The results are sensitive to several uncertain model inputs, most importantly the costs of the HPV test. For women aged 32 years or younger, primary cytology screening is more cost-effective than primary HPV testing.
Conclusions: Increasing the interval between screening rounds and changing the primary test from cytology to HPV testing can improve the effectiveness and decrease the costs of cervical cancer screening in the Netherlands.
© 2012 The Authors BJOG An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology © 2012 RCOG.
Figures

Comment in
-
Cervical screening: primary human papillomavirus testing.BJOG. 2012 May;119(6):650-2. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2012.03318.x. BJOG. 2012. PMID: 22489759 No abstract available.
-
Re: Cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening: cytology versus human papillomavirus DNA testing.BJOG. 2016 Jul;123(8):1400-1. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.13878. BJOG. 2016. PMID: 27272298 No abstract available.
Similar articles
-
The health and economic effects of HPV DNA screening in The Netherlands.Int J Cancer. 2010 Nov 1;127(9):2147-58. doi: 10.1002/ijc.25211. Int J Cancer. 2010. PMID: 20112339
-
Cost-effectiveness of alternative triage strategies for atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance.JAMA. 2002 May 8;287(18):2382-90. doi: 10.1001/jama.287.18.2382. JAMA. 2002. PMID: 11988059
-
Optimal Cervical Cancer Screening in Women Vaccinated Against Human Papillomavirus.J Natl Cancer Inst. 2016 Oct 18;109(2):djw216. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djw216. Print 2017 Feb. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2016. PMID: 27754955 Free PMC article.
-
Overview of human papillomavirus-based and other novel options for cervical cancer screening in developed and developing countries.Vaccine. 2008 Aug 19;26 Suppl 10:K29-41. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2008.06.019. Vaccine. 2008. PMID: 18847555 Review.
-
The cost-effectiveness of human papillomavirus screening for cervical cancer. A review of recent modelling studies.Eur J Health Econ. 2005 Mar;6(1):30-7. doi: 10.1007/s10198-004-0254-1. Eur J Health Econ. 2005. PMID: 15682286 Review.
Cited by
-
Cost-Effectiveness of Primary HPV Testing, Cytology and Co-testing as Cervical Cancer Screening for Women Above Age 30 Years.J Gen Intern Med. 2016 Nov;31(11):1338-1344. doi: 10.1007/s11606-016-3772-5. Epub 2016 Jul 14. J Gen Intern Med. 2016. PMID: 27418345 Free PMC article.
-
Rapid elimination of cervical cancer while maintaining the harms and benefits ratio of cervical cancer screening: a modelling study.BMC Med. 2022 Nov 9;20(1):433. doi: 10.1186/s12916-022-02631-7. BMC Med. 2022. PMID: 36352410 Free PMC article.
-
Primary screening for human papillomavirus compared with cytology screening for cervical cancer in European settings: cost effectiveness analysis based on a Dutch microsimulation model.BMJ. 2012 Mar 5;344:e670. doi: 10.1136/bmj.e670. BMJ. 2012. PMID: 22391612 Free PMC article.
-
Disutility associated with cancer screening programs: A systematic review.PLoS One. 2019 Jul 24;14(7):e0220148. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0220148. eCollection 2019. PLoS One. 2019. PMID: 31339958 Free PMC article.
-
Should the age range of the Dutch hrHPV-based cervical cancer screening program be broadened? A modelling study using cohort effects.Int J Cancer. 2025 Aug 15;157(4):627-633. doi: 10.1002/ijc.35435. Epub 2025 Apr 28. Int J Cancer. 2025. PMID: 40293409 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Rebolj M, Van Ballegooijen M, Berkers LM, Habbema D. Monitoring a national cancer prevention program: successful changes in cervical cancer screening in the Netherlands. Int J Cancer. 2007;120:806–12. - PubMed
-
- Schiffman M, Castle PE, Jeronimo J, Rodriguez AC, Wacholder S. Human papillomavirus and cervical cancer. Lancet. 2007;370:890–907. - PubMed
-
- Ronco G, Segnan N, Giorgi-Rossi P, Zappa M, Casadei GP, Carozzi F, et al. Human papillomavirus testing and liquid-based cytology: results at recruitment from the new technologies for cervical cancer randomized controlled trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98:765–74. - PubMed
-
- Bulkmans NW, Berkhof J, Rozendaal L, Van Kemenade FJ, Boeke AJ, Bulk S, et al. Human papillomavirus DNA testing for the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 and cancer: 5-year follow-up of a randomised controlled implementation trial. Lancet. 2007;370:1764–72. - PubMed
-
- Ronco G, Giorgi-Rossi P, Carozzi F, Confortini M, Dalla Palma P, Del Mistro A, et al. Efficacy of human papillomavirus testing for the detection of invasive cervical cancers and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11:249–57. - PubMed