Time filter

Source Type

Shi J.-F.,Peking Union Medical College | Shi J.-F.,Cancer Epidemiology Research Unit | Shi J.-F.,University of Sydney | Canfell K.,Cancer Epidemiology Research Unit | And 15 more authors.
BMC Cancer | Year: 2011

Background: A new lower-cost rapid-throughput human papillomavirus (HPV) test (careHPV, Qiagen, Gaithersburg, USA) has been shown to have high sensitivity for the detection of high grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia.Methods: We assessed the outcomes and cost-effectiveness of careHPV screening in rural China, compared to visual inspection with acetic acid, when used alone (VIA) or in combination with Lugol's iodine (VIA/VILI). Using data on sexual behaviour, test accuracy, diagnostic practices and costs from studies performed in rural China, we estimated the cost-effectiveness ratio (CER) and associated lifetime outcomes for once-lifetime and twice-lifetime screening strategies, and for routine screening at 5-yearly, 10-yearly and IARC-recommended intervals. The optimal age range for once-lifetime screening was also assessed.Results: For all strategies, the relative ordering of test technologies in reducing cervical cancer incidence and mortality was VIA (least effective); VIA/VILI; careHPV@1.0 pg/ml and careHPV@0.5 pg/ml (most effective). For once-lifetime strategies, maximum effectiveness was achieved if screening occurred between 35-50 years. Assuming a participation rate of ~70%, once-lifetime screening at age 35 years would reduce cancer mortality by 8% (for VIA) to 12% (for careHPV@0.5) over the long term, with a CER of US$557 (for VIA) to $959 (for careHPV@1.0) per life year saved (LYS) compared to no intervention; referenced to a 2008 GDP per capita in Shanxi Province of $2,975. Correspondingly, regular screening with an age-standardised participation rate of 62% (which has been shown to be achievable in this setting) would reduce cervical cancer mortality by 19-28% (for 10-yearly screening) to 43-54% (using IARC-recommended intervals), with corresponding CERs ranging from $665 (for 10-yearly VIA) to $2,269 (for IARC-recommended intervals using careHPV@1.0) per LYS.Conclusions: This modelled analysis suggests that primary careHPV screening compares favourably to visual inspection screening methodologies in rural China, particularly if used as part of a regular screening program. © 2011 Shi et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

Shi J.-F.,Chinese Academy of Sciences | Shi J.-F.,Cancer Research Division | Shi J.-F.,University of Sydney | Chen J.-F.,Dalian Medical University | And 13 more authors.
BMC Health Services Research | Year: 2012

Background: Cost estimation is a central feature of health economic analyses. The aim of this study was to use a micro-costing approach and a societal perspective to estimate aggregated costs associated with cervical cancer screening, diagnosis and treatment in rural China. Methods: We assumed that future screening programs will be organized at a county level (population ~250,000), and related treatments will be performed at county or prefecture hospitals; therefore, this study was conducted in a county and a prefecture hospital in Shanxi during 20089. Direct medical costs were estimated by gathering information on quantities and prices of drugs, supplies, equipment and labour. Direct non-medical costs were estimated via structured patient interviews and expert opinion. Results: Under the base case assumption of a high-volume screening initiative (11,475 women screened annually per county), the aggregated direct medical costs of visual inspection, self-sampled careHPV (Qiagen USA) screening, clinician-sampled careHPV, colposcopy and biopsy were estimated as US$2.64,$7.49,$7.95,$3.90 and $5.76, respectively. Screening costs were robust to screening volume (<5% variation if 2,000 women screened annually), but costs of colposcopy/biopsy tripled at the lower volume. Direct medical costs of Loop Excision, Cold-Knife Conization and Simple and Radical Hysterectomy varied from $61544, depending on the procedure and whether conducted at county or prefecture level. Direct non-medical expenditure varied from $0.68$3.09 for screening/ diagnosis and $83$494 for pre-cancer/cancer treatment. Conclusions: Diagnostic costs were comparable to screening costs for high-volume screening but were greatly increased in lower-volume situations, which is a key consideration for the scale-up phase of new programs. The studys findings will facilitate cost-effectiveness evaluation and budget planning for cervical cancer prevention initiatives in China. © 2012 Shi et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

Discover hidden collaborations