Surveillance After Treatment for Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia: Outcomes, Costs, and Cost-Effectiveness

OBJECTIVE: To estimate outcomes and costs of surveillance strategies after treatment for high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). METHODS: A hypothetical cohort of women was evaluated after treatment for CIN 2 or 3 using a Markov model incorporating data from a large study of women treated for CIN, systematic reviews of test accuracy, and individual preferences. Surveillance strategies included initial conventional or liquid-based cytology, human papillomavirus testing, or colposcopy 6 months after treatment, followed by annual or triennial cytology. Estimated outcomes included CIN, cervical cancer, cervical cancer deaths, life expectancy, costs, cost per life-year, and cost per quality-adjusted life-year. RESULTS: Conventional cytology at 6 and 12 months, followed by triennial cytology, was least costly. Compared with triennial cytology, annual cytology follow-up reduced expected cervical cancer deaths by 73% to 77% and had an average incremental cost per life-year gained of $69,000 to $81,000. For colposcopy followed by annual cytology, the incremental cost per life-year gained ranged from $70,000 to more than $1 million, depending on risk. Between-strategy differences in mean additional life expectancy per woman were less than 4 days; differences in mean incremental costs per woman were as high as $822. In the cost-utility analysis, colposcopy at 6 months followed by annual cytology had an incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year of less than $5,500. Human papillomavirus testing or liquid-based cytology added little to no improvement to life-expectancy with higher costs. CONCLUSION: Annual conventional cytology surveillance reduced cervical cancers and cancer deaths compared with triennial cytology. For high risk of recurrence, a strategy of colposcopy at 6 months increased life expectancy and quality-adjusted life expectancy. Human papillomavirus testing and liquid-based cytology increased costs, but not effectiveness, compared with traditional approaches.

[1]  R. Adams,et al.  The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists , 2018, Obstetrics & Gynecology.

[2]  M. Gold Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine , 2016 .

[3]  S. Kulasingam,et al.  Preferences for surveillance strategies for women treated for high-grade precancerous cervical lesions. , 2010, Gynecologic oncology.

[4]  Marc Arbyn,et al.  Comparison of liquid-based cytology with conventional cytology for detection of cervical cancer precursors: a randomized controlled trial. , 2009, JAMA.

[5]  B. Jones,et al.  Quality management in gynecologic cytology using interlaboratory comparison. , 2009, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[6]  Henry C Kitchener,et al.  HPV testing in combination with liquid-based cytology in primary cervical screening (ARTISTIC): a randomised controlled trial. , 2009, The Lancet. Oncology.

[7]  G Caleb Alexander,et al.  Does comparative effectiveness have a comparative edge? , 2009, JAMA.

[8]  C. McGahan,et al.  Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia outcomes after treatment: long-term follow-up from the British Columbia Cohort Study. , 2009, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[9]  B. Chan,et al.  Posttreatment human papillomavirus testing for recurrent cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a systematic review. , 2009, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[10]  Michele Follen,et al.  Accuracy of Colposcopy in the Diagnostic Setting Compared With the Screening Setting , 2008, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[11]  Marc Arbyn,et al.  Liquid Compared With Conventional Cervical Cytology: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis , 2008, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[12]  I. Milsom,et al.  Long term risk of invasive cancer after treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3: population based cohort study , 2007, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[13]  T. Wright,et al.  2006 Consensus Guidelines for the Management of Women With Abnormal Cervical Screening Tests , 2007, Journal of lower genital tract disease.

[14]  Diane Solomon,et al.  2006 consensus guidelines for the management of women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia or adenocarcinoma in situ. , 2007, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[15]  S. L. Murphy,et al.  Deaths: final data for 2004. , 2007, National vital statistics reports : from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, National Vital Statistics System.

[16]  J. Cuzick,et al.  Accuracy of liquid based versus conventional cytology: overall results of new technologies for cervical cancer screening: randomised controlled trial , 2007, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[17]  A. Coker,et al.  Understanding barriers for adherence to follow-up care for abnormal pap tests. , 2007, Journal of women's health.

[18]  J. Cuzick,et al.  Overview of the European and North American studies on HPV testing in primary cervical cancer screening , 2006, International journal of cancer.

[19]  J. Dillner,et al.  Chapter 9: Clinical applications of HPV testing: a summary of meta-analyses. , 2006, Vaccine.

[20]  Evan R. Myers,et al.  Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Liquid-Based Cytology and Human Papillomavirus Testing in Cervical Cancer Screening , 2006, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[21]  M. Tipples,et al.  Gynaecological oncology: The role of colposcopy in the follow up of women treated for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia , 2006 .

[22]  M. Ziol,et al.  Cost‐effectiveness of liquid‐based cytology with or without hybrid‐capture II HPV test compared with conventional Pap smears: A study by the French society of clinical cytology , 2005, Diagnostic cytopathology.

[23]  V Beral,et al.  The predicted effect of changes in cervical screening practice in the UK: results from a modelling study , 2004, British Journal of Cancer.

[24]  A. Glass,et al.  The health care costs of cervical human papillomavirus--related disease. , 2004, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[25]  H. Welch,et al.  The frequency of Pap smear screening in the United States , 2004, Journal of General Internal Medicine.

[26]  S. Crystal,et al.  Medical expenditures during the last year of life: findings from the 1992-1996 Medicare current beneficiary survey. , 2002, Health services research.

[27]  A. Moscicki,et al.  American Cancer Society Guideline for the Early Detection of Cervical Neoplasia and Cancer , 2002, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[28]  Keiji Fukuda,et al.  Guidelines for preventing opportunistic infections among HIV-infected persons - 2002 , 2002 .

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

[30]  B. Chan,et al.  Do follow-up recommendations for abnormal Papanicolaou smears influence patient adherence? , 1999, Archives of family medicine.

[31]  J. Melnikow,et al.  Determining costs of health care services for cost-effectiveness analyses: the case of cervical cancer prevention and treatment. , 1999, Medical care.

[32]  Sabrina T. Wong,et al.  Ending cervical cancer screening: attitudes and beliefs from ethnically diverse older women. , 2009, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[33]  T. Wright,et al.  2006 Consensus Guidelines for the Management of Women with Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia or Adenocarcinoma in Situ , 2008 .

[34]  J. Butler,et al.  The role of colposcopy in the follow up of women treated for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. , 2006, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[35]  Homa Keshavarz,et al.  Hysterectomy surveillance -- United States 1994-1999. , 2002 .

[36]  R. Lawrence,et al.  Preventing disease : beyond the rhetoric , 1990 .

[37]  G W Torrance,et al.  A utility maximization model for evaluation of health care programs. , 1972, Health services research.