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
. 1999 Jan 27;281(4):347-53.
doi: 10.1001/jama.281.4.347.

Cost-effectiveness of 3 methods to enhance the sensitivity of Papanicolaou testing

Affiliations

Cost-effectiveness of 3 methods to enhance the sensitivity of Papanicolaou testing

A D Brown et al. JAMA. .

Abstract

Context: ThinPrep, AutoPap, and Papnet are 3 new technologies that increase the sensitivity and cost of cervical cancer screening.

Objective: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of these technological enhancements to Papanicolaou (Pap) tests.

Design: We estimated the increase in sensitivity from using these technologies by combining results of 8 studies meeting defined criteria. We used published literature and additional sources for cost estimates. To estimate overall cost-effectiveness, we applied a 9-state time-varying transition state model to these data and information about specific populations.

Setting: A hypothetical program serving a cohort of 20- to 65-year-old women who begin screening at the same age and are representative of the US population.

Results: The new technologies increased life expectancy by 5 hours to 1.6 days, varying with the technology and the frequency of screening. All 3 technologies also increased the cost per woman screened by $30 to $257 (1996 US dollars). AutoPap dominated ThinPrep in the base case. At each screening interval, AutoPap increased survival at the lowest cost. The cost per year of life saved rose from $7777 with quadrennial screening to $166000 with annual screening. Papnet produced more life-years at a higher cost per year of life saved. However, when used with triennial screening, each of them produced more life-years at lower cost than conventional Pap testing every 2 years. The cost-effectiveness ratio of each technology improved with increases in the prevalence of disease, decreases in the sensitivity of conventional Pap testing, and increases in the improvement in sensitivity produced by the technology.

Conclusions: Technologies to increase the sensitivity of Pap testing are more cost-effective when incorporated into infrequent screening. Increases in sensitivity and decreases in cost may eventually make each technology more cost-effective.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

Publication types