4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Cost-utility and budget impact analyses of cervical cancer screening using self-collected samples for HPV DNA testing in Thailand

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          Cervical cancer ranks as the third most prevalent cancer among women in Thailand. However, the effectiveness of cervical cancer screening programs is limited by several factors that impede the screening rate. The utilization of self-collected samples for screening purposes has the potential to alleviate barriers to screening in Thai women. This study assessed the cost-utility and budget impact of implementing cervical cancer screening using self-collected samples for human papillomavirus (HPV) deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing in Thailand.

          Materials and methods

          We employed a decision tree integrated with a Markov model to estimate the lifetime costs and health benefits associated with the cervical cancer screening program for women aged 25–65. The analysis was conducted from a societal perspective. Four screening policy options were compared: (1) additional self-collected samples for HPV DNA testing, (2) clinician-collected samples for HPV DNA testing only, (3) clinician-collected samples for cytology test (i.e., status quo), and (4) no screening. The model inputs were based on unvaccinated women. The screening strategies and management in those with positive results were assumed followed to the Thai clinical practice guideline. Costs were reported in 2022 Thai baht. Sensitivity analyses were conducted. The ten-year budget impacts of the additional self-collected samples for HPV DNA testing were calculated from a payer perspective.

          Results

          All screening policies were cost-saving compared to no screening. When comparing the additional self-collected samples for HPV DNA testing with the clinician-collected samples policy, it emerged as the dominant strategy. The incremental benefit in cervical cancer prevention achieved by incorporating self-collected samples for screening was observed at any additional screening rate that could be achieved through their use. Sensitivity analyses yielded consistently favorable results for the screening policies. The average annual budget impact of the additional self-collected samples for screening policy amounted to 681 million Thai baht. This budget allocation could facilitate cervical cancer screening for over 10 million women.

          Conclusions

          An addition of self-collected samples for HPV DNA testing into the cervical cancer screening program is cost-saving. The benefits of this screening policy outweigh the associated incremental costs. Policymakers should consider this evidence during the policy optimization process.

          Supplementary Information

          The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-023-17358-0.

          Related collections

          Most cited references31

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries

          This article provides an update on the global cancer burden using the GLOBOCAN 2020 estimates of cancer incidence and mortality produced by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Worldwide, an estimated 19.3 million new cancer cases (18.1 million excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer) and almost 10.0 million cancer deaths (9.9 million excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer) occurred in 2020. Female breast cancer has surpassed lung cancer as the most commonly diagnosed cancer, with an estimated 2.3 million new cases (11.7%), followed by lung (11.4%), colorectal (10.0 %), prostate (7.3%), and stomach (5.6%) cancers. Lung cancer remained the leading cause of cancer death, with an estimated 1.8 million deaths (18%), followed by colorectal (9.4%), liver (8.3%), stomach (7.7%), and female breast (6.9%) cancers. Overall incidence was from 2-fold to 3-fold higher in transitioned versus transitioning countries for both sexes, whereas mortality varied <2-fold for men and little for women. Death rates for female breast and cervical cancers, however, were considerably higher in transitioning versus transitioned countries (15.0 vs 12.8 per 100,000 and 12.4 vs 5.2 per 100,000, respectively). The global cancer burden is expected to be 28.4 million cases in 2040, a 47% rise from 2020, with a larger increase in transitioning (64% to 95%) versus transitioned (32% to 56%) countries due to demographic changes, although this may be further exacerbated by increasing risk factors associated with globalization and a growing economy. Efforts to build a sustainable infrastructure for the dissemination of cancer prevention measures and provision of cancer care in transitioning countries is critical for global cancer control.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Book: not found

            Decision Modelling for Health Economic Evaluation

            In financially constrained health systems across the world, increasing emphasis is being placed on the ability to demonstrate that health care interventions are not only effective, but also cost-effective. This book deals with decision modelling techniques that can be used to estimate the value for money of various interventions including medical devices, surgical procedures, diagnostic technologies, and pharmaceuticals. Particular emphasis is placed on the importance of the appropriate representation of uncertainty in the evaluative process and the implication this uncertainty has for decision making and the need for future research. This highly practical guide takes the reader through the key principles and approaches of modelling techniques. It begins with the basics of constructing different forms of the model, the population of the model with input parameter estimates, analysis of the results, and progression to the holistic view of models as a valuable tool for informing future research exercises. Case studies and exercises are supported with online templates and solutions. This book will help analysts understand the contribution of decision-analytic modelling to the evaluation of health care programmes. [Ed.]
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Cervical cancer screening for individuals at average risk: 2020 guideline update from the American Cancer Society

              The American Cancer Society (ACS) recommends that individuals with a cervix initiate cervical cancer screening at age 25 years and undergo primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing every 5 years through age 65 years (preferred); if primary HPV testing is not available, then individuals aged 25 to 65 years should be screened with cotesting (HPV testing in combination with cytology) every 5 years or cytology alone every 3 years (acceptable) (strong recommendation). The ACS recommends that individuals aged >65 years who have no history of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or more severe disease within the past 25 years, and who have documented adequate negative prior screening in the prior 10 years, discontinue all cervical cancer screening (qualified recommendation). These new screening recommendations differ in 4 important respects compared with the 2012 recommendations: 1) The preferred screening strategy is primary HPV testing every 5 years, with cotesting and cytology alone acceptable where access to US Food and Drug Administration-approved primary HPV testing is not yet available; 2) the recommended age to start screening is 25 years rather than 21 years; 3) primary HPV testing, as well as cotesting or cytology alone when primary testing is not available, is recommended starting at age 25 years rather than age 30 years; and 4) the guideline is transitional, ie, options for screening with cotesting or cytology alone are provided but should be phased out once full access to primary HPV testing for cervical cancer screening is available without barriers. Evidence related to other relevant issues was reviewed, and no changes were made to recommendations for screening intervals, age or criteria for screening cessation, screening based on vaccination status, or screening after hysterectomy. Follow-up for individuals who screen positive for HPV and/or cytology should be in accordance with the 2019 American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology risk-based management consensus guidelines for abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and cancer precursors.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                surasak.sa@up.ac.th
                coco_a105@hotmail.com
                Journal
                BMC Public Health
                BMC Public Health
                BMC Public Health
                BioMed Central (London )
                1471-2458
                4 December 2023
                4 December 2023
                2023
                : 23
                : 2413
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Division of Ambulatory Medicine, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, ( https://ror.org/01znkr924) Bangkok, Thailand
                [2 ]Division of Pharmacy Practice, Department of Pharmaceutical Care, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Phayao, ( https://ror.org/00a5mh069) Phayao, Thailand
                [3 ]Division of Pharmaceutical Care, Department of Pharmacy, Phrae Hospital, Phrae, Thailand
                [4 ]Center of Health Outcomes Research and Therapeutic Safety (Cohorts), School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Phayao, ( https://ror.org/00a5mh069) Phayao, Thailand
                [5 ]Unit of Excellence on Clinical Outcomes Research and IntegratioN (UNICORN), School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Phayao, ( https://ror.org/00a5mh069) Phayao, Thailand
                [6 ]Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, ( https://ror.org/01znkr924) Bangkok, Thailand
                Article
                17358
                10.1186/s12889-023-17358-0
                10696797
                38049773
                330f4d7c-b2c3-4506-beaa-5bc74d3688a6
                © The Author(s) 2023

                Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

                History
                : 30 August 2023
                : 28 November 2023
                Funding
                Funded by: Health Systems Research Institute, Thailand
                Award ID: HSRI 65-051 / R016541048
                Award ID: HSRI 65-051 / R016541048
                Award ID: HSRI 65-051 / R016541048
                Award ID: HSRI 65-051 / R016541048
                Award ID: HSRI 65-051 / R016541048
                Award ID: HSRI 65-051 / R016541048
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2023

                Public health
                budget impact,cervical cancer,cost-utility,hpv,human papillomavirus,policy,screening
                Public health
                budget impact, cervical cancer, cost-utility, hpv, human papillomavirus, policy, screening

                Comments

                Comment on this article