0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Research Letters |

Optimal Interval for Routine Cytologic Screening in the United States FREE

Jane J. Kim, PhD; Monisha Sharma, MS; Jesse Ortendahl, MS
[+] Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Harvard School of Public Health, Department of Health Policy and Management, Center for Health Decision Science, Boston, Massachusetts.


JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(3):241-242. doi:10.1001/2013.jamainternmed.1034.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Despite the success of cytology-based (Papanicolaou) screening in the United States, over 12 000 women develop and 4000 women die from cervical cancer each year,1 signaling important flaws in current practice. Paradoxically, a large proportion of women are overscreened,2 while at least 50% of cases occur among women who are infrequently or never screened.3 Guidelines have historically recommended screening early and frequently (eg, annually) to offset the poor sensitivity of a single Papanicolaou test. However, a better understanding of the slow natural course of disease, the availability of highly sensitive tests to detect oncogenic human papillomavirus, the causal agent of cervical cancer, and evidence of adverse pregnancy outcomes associated with precancer treatment have triggered momentum toward less aggressive screening in the general population. Consensus guidelines issued this year now recommend screening no earlier than age 21 years and no more frequently than every 3 years for routine cytologic screening to minimize overuse and patient harms while maintaining high levels of cancer prevention.4,5 Because the impact of changing guidelines on cervical cancer will not be observed for several years, we used a mathematical simulation model to project the cost-effectiveness of routine cytologic screening at different intervals.

The mathematical model simulates the natural history of cervical cancer in US females based on data from epidemiological studies and cancer registries (eMethods, eTable 1, eTable 2, and eFigure). Individuals enter the model and transition between clinically relevant health states in monthly time steps. The model simulates detailed cervical cancer control strategies and tracks each woman's health status and resource use to generate estimates of quality-adjusted life expectancy and lifetime costs of interventions. Strategies included routine cytologic screening at 1- to 5-year intervals and a baseline scenario reflecting current US screening rates.6 Costs included screening, diagnosis, and treatment of disease, patient time, and patient transportation (eTable 3). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated (additional cost divided by the additional health benefit of a strategy compared with the next-less-costly strategy) and discussed in the context of $50 000 to $100 000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained, commonly cited thresholds indicating good value for money in the United States.7

The Figure displays the projected outcomes for each screening scenario. As expected, both lifetime costs and health benefits increased as routine screening was administered more frequently. It is important to note that screening all eligible women every 2 or 3 years was associated with similar or greater QALYs and lower costs than screening at current US rates. For example, cytologic testing every 3 years yielded a cost savings of $1210 per woman and slightly higher QALYs compared with current screening.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Graphic Jump Location

Figure. Efficiency frontier. Lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ($ per QALY gained) are displayed for routine cytologic screening at intervals ranging from every 1 to 5 years (circles) and current screening at variable rates (square).

Annual and biennial screening had cost-effectiveness ratios that exceeded $150 000 per QALY gained. Screening every 3 years cost less than the upper threshold of $100 000 per QALY gained (ie, $75 600 per QALY gained). Screening every 4 years cost less than the lower threshold of $50 000 per QALY gained ($36 000 per QALY gained), although this strategy resulted in lower health benefits than current screening.

Our analysis has 2 main findings: (1) compared with current practice, screening all eligible women every 2 or 3 years can yield equal or greater health benefits at a significant cost savings, and (2) routine screening more often than every 3 years exceeds conventional thresholds for cost-effectiveness in the United States. Together, these findings support recent guidelines recommending routine cytologic screening at 3-year intervals.4,5

Investments in programs to achieve high coverage of 3-year screening can be considerable, up to $1200 per screen-eligible woman, before spending on cervical cancer screening reaches current levels. Programs, such as call/recall systems and community-based outreach—likely to be less than $1200 per woman—can focus not only on removing barriers for underscreened women but also on decreasing use in women who unnecessarily get annual routine screening. Attaining high coverage across all eligible women has the added advantage of promoting equity in health gains across subgroup populations, such as minorities and the uninsured, known to have high rates of cervical cancer incidence and mortality.

Our analysis has limitations. Because we did not explicitly model heterogeneous subgroups, our estimates may be conservative if improved access to screening leads to the reduction of cases that otherwise would have differentially worse outcomes and/or higher costs than average. We also did not assess the impact of improving compliance to diagnostic visits and access to timely treatment among women who are screened appropriately, efforts that are paramount to reducing cervical cancer burden in the United States.

We conclude that improving cervical cancer screening does not necessitate increased expenditures in the United States. Indeed, shifting away from the status quo, with at least half of women getting screened too frequently and over a quarter not frequently enough, can likely reduce current expenditures without compromising the tremendous health gains already achieved in cervical cancer prevention. This cost savings can be invested in more prudent ways to improve health, whether through cervical cancer prevention or other health interventions.

Correspondence: Dr Kim, Harvard School of Public Health, Department of Health Policy and Management, Center for Health Decision Science, 718 Huntington Ave, Second Floor, Boston, MA 02115 (jkim@hsph.harvard.edu).

Published Online: December 17, 2012. doi:10.1001/2013.jamainternmed.1034

Author Contributions:Study concept and design: Kim, Acquisition of data: Kim and Sharma. Analysis and interpretation of data: Kim, Sharma, and Ortendahl. Drafting of the manuscript: Kim, Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Sharma and Ortendahl. Statistical analysis: Sharma and Ortendahl. Obtained funding: Kim. Administrative, technical, and material support: Sharma and Ortendahl. Study supervision: Kim.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.

Funding/Support: The authors are supported in part by grants from the National Cancer Institute (U54 CA164336-01) and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (No. 30505) for related work in developing countries.

Role of the Sponsor: The funding sources had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; and preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript.

American Cancer Society.  Cancer facts and figures 2011. http://www.cancer.org/Research/CancerFactsFigures/CancerFactsFigures/cancer-facts-figures-2011. Accessed October 4, 2012
Roland KB, Soman A, Benard VB, Saraiya M. Human papillomavirus and Papanicolaou tests screening interval recommendations in the United States.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;205(5):447, e1-e8
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Spence AR, Goggin P, Franco EL. Process of care failures in invasive cervical cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis.  Prev Med. 2007;45(2-3):93-106
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Saslow D, Solomon D, Lawson HW,  et al; ACS-ASCCP-ASCP Cervical Cancer Guideline Committee.  American Cancer Society, American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, and American Society for Clinical Pathology screening guidelines for the prevention and early detection of cervical cancer.  CA Cancer J Clin. 2012;62(3):147-172
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Moyer VA.US Preventive Services Task Force.  Screening for cervical cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.  Ann Intern Med. 2012;156(12):880-891, W312
PubMed
National Center for Health Statistics.  National Health Interview Survey, 2010: Sample Adult Cancer File. Hyattsville, MD: US Department Of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2011
Eichler HG, Kong SX, Gerth WC, Mavros P, Jönsson B. Use of cost-effectiveness analysis in health-care resource allocation decision-making: how are cost-effectiveness thresholds expected to emerge?  Value Health. 2004;7(5):518-528
PubMed   |  Link to Article

Figures

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Graphic Jump Location

Figure. Efficiency frontier. Lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ($ per QALY gained) are displayed for routine cytologic screening at intervals ranging from every 1 to 5 years (circles) and current screening at variable rates (square).

Tables

References

American Cancer Society.  Cancer facts and figures 2011. http://www.cancer.org/Research/CancerFactsFigures/CancerFactsFigures/cancer-facts-figures-2011. Accessed October 4, 2012
Roland KB, Soman A, Benard VB, Saraiya M. Human papillomavirus and Papanicolaou tests screening interval recommendations in the United States.  Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;205(5):447, e1-e8
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Spence AR, Goggin P, Franco EL. Process of care failures in invasive cervical cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis.  Prev Med. 2007;45(2-3):93-106
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Saslow D, Solomon D, Lawson HW,  et al; ACS-ASCCP-ASCP Cervical Cancer Guideline Committee.  American Cancer Society, American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, and American Society for Clinical Pathology screening guidelines for the prevention and early detection of cervical cancer.  CA Cancer J Clin. 2012;62(3):147-172
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Moyer VA.US Preventive Services Task Force.  Screening for cervical cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.  Ann Intern Med. 2012;156(12):880-891, W312
PubMed
National Center for Health Statistics.  National Health Interview Survey, 2010: Sample Adult Cancer File. Hyattsville, MD: US Department Of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2011
Eichler HG, Kong SX, Gerth WC, Mavros P, Jönsson B. Use of cost-effectiveness analysis in health-care resource allocation decision-making: how are cost-effectiveness thresholds expected to emerge?  Value Health. 2004;7(5):518-528
PubMed   |  Link to Article

Correspondence

CME
Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Supplemental Content

Kim JJ, Sharma M, Ortendahl J. Optimal interval for routine cytologic screening in the United States. Published online December 17, 2012. JAMA Internal Med. doi:10.1001/2013.jamainternmed.1034.

eMethods. Model parameter estimation and assumptions

eReferences

eTable 1. Parameter baseline values, search range, and calibrated values

eTable 2. Calibration target data

eTable 3. Cervical cancer screening and cost parameters

eFigure. Schematic of mathematical simulation model of cervical cancer

Supplemental Content

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Web of Science® Times Cited: 1

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

See Also...
Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles