The Cost-Effectiveness of Screening Programs Using Single and Multiple Birth Cohort Simulations: A Comparison Using a Model of Cervical Cancer

Despite early recognition of the theoretical advantages of simulations that include different population subgroups/ strata and different birth cohorts, manymodeling-based economic evaluations of cervical screening have been based on unrealistic single birth cohort simulations. The authors examined the effect of amultiple birth cohort simulation on the incremental cost-effectiveness estimates of cervical screening programs, compared to a conventional single cohort simulation. The choice of hypothetical cohort that starts the simulation had a major impact on the cost-effectiveness estimates: Compared with a single birth cohort simulation, the incremental cost-effectiveness of a shift from biennial to triennial screening was 30% higher when using the multiple cohort simulation. Multiple cohort simulations using the different age structures of 4 countries had little impact on the costeffectiveness ratios (variation <5%). Future modeling-based evaluations of screening policies should better reflect the age range of the population that is targeted by carefully specifying the nature of the starting cohort(s).

[1]  H. Adami,et al.  International incidence rates of invasive cervical cancer before cytological screening , 1997 .

[2]  Rob Boer,et al.  The MISCAN-COLON Simulation Model for the Evaluation of Colorectal Cancer Screening , 1999, Comput. Biomed. Res..

[3]  S. Datta,et al.  Setting the target for a better cervical screening test: characteristics of a cost-effective test for cervical neoplasia screening. , 2001, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[4]  J D Habbema,et al.  Modelling issues in cancer screening , 1995, Statistical methods in medical research.

[5]  Adalsteinn D. Brown,et al.  Cost-effectiveness of 3 methods to enhance the sensitivity of Papanicolaou testing. , 1999, JAMA.

[6]  L. Goldman,et al.  The recent decline in mortality from coronary heart disease, 1980-1990. The effect of secular trends in risk factors and treatment. , 1997, JAMA.

[7]  J. Habbema,et al.  Present evidence on the value of HPV testing for cervical cancer screening: a model-based exploration of the (cost-)effectiveness. , 1997, British Journal of Cancer.

[8]  K. Kuntz,et al.  Assessing the Sensitivity of Decision-Analytic Results to Unobserved Markers of Risk: Defining the Effects of Heterogeneity Bias , 2002, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[9]  D C McCrory,et al.  Mathematical model for the natural history of human papillomavirus infection and cervical carcinogenesis. , 2000, American journal of epidemiology.

[10]  D. Eddy.  Screening for cervical cancer. , 1990, Annals of internal medicine.

[11]  J. D. F. Habbema,et al.  A simulation approach to cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit calculations of screening for the early detection of disease , 1987 .

[12]  Milton C Weinstein,et al.  Principles of good practice for decision analytic modeling in health-care evaluation: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practices--Modeling Studies. , 2003, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[13]  T. Wright,et al.  Policy analysis of cervical cancer screening strategies in low-resource settings: clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness. , 2001, JAMA.

[14]  M. Fahs,et al.  Cost Effectiveness of Cervical Cancer Screening for the Elderly , 1992, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[15]  T J Ulahannan,et al.  Decision Making in Health and Medicine: Integrating Evidence and Values , 2002 .

[16]  M. Weinstein,et al.  The Costs, Clinical Benefits, and Cost-Effectiveness of Screening for Cervical Cancer in HIV-Infected Women , 1999, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[17]  J D Habbema,et al.  The MISCAN simulation program for the evaluation of screening for disease. , 1985, Computer methods and programs in biomedicine.

[18]  Shinji Sato,et al.  Determining the Cost-Effectiveness of Mass Screening for Cervical Cancer Using Common Analytic Models , 1999, Acta Cytologica.

[19]  I. Tsuji,et al.  Cost-effective analysis of mass screening for cervical cancer in Japan. , 1997, Journal of epidemiology.

[20]  J D Habbema,et al.  Cervical‐cancer screening: Attendance and cost‐effectiveness , 1990, International journal of cancer.

[21]  H. Mitchell,et al.  Age and time trends in the prevalence of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia on Papanicolaou smear tests, 1970‐1988 , 1990, The Medical journal of Australia.