Limits...
Cost-effectiveness analysis of human papillomavirus DNA testing and Pap smear for cervical cancer screening in a publicly financed health-care system.

Chow IH, Tang CH, You SL, Liao CH, Chu TY, Chen CJ, Chen CA, Pwu RF - Br. J. Cancer (2010)

Bottom Line: Outcomes are life expectancy, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).Probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSAs) were conducted to assess parameter uncertainty. when three times gross domestic product per capita is used as the decision threshold, all nine screening strategies were cost-effective compared with the no-screening strategy.Results of PSA also indicated that a HPV DNA testing followed by Pap smear triage every 5 or every 3 years achieved the highest expected net benefits. possible economic advantages are associated with extending the cervical cancer screening interval from one Pap smear annually to HPV DNA testing followed by Pap smear triage every 5 years with an ICER $1 247 000 per QALY gained, especially in a country with a publicly financed health-care system.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: School of Health Care Administration, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan.

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

Cost-effectiveness acceptability frontier curves.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3008604&req=5

fig4: Cost-effectiveness acceptability frontier curves.

Mentions: The PSA results are presented in a CEAF. The CEAF was plotted by presenting the optimal strategy under different WTP thresholds (Figure 4). When three times GDP per capita is used as the decision threshold, the annual Pap strategy (<NT$207 000), the annual HPV-Pap strategy (NT$207 000–351 000), the Pap strategy every 5 years (NT$351 000–594 000), the HPV-Pap strategy every 5 years (NT$594 000–1 413 000), and the HPV-Pap strategy every 3 years (⩾NT$1 413 000) achieved the highest expected net benefits.


Cost-effectiveness analysis of human papillomavirus DNA testing and Pap smear for cervical cancer screening in a publicly financed health-care system.

Chow IH, Tang CH, You SL, Liao CH, Chu TY, Chen CJ, Chen CA, Pwu RF - Br. J. Cancer (2010)

Cost-effectiveness acceptability frontier curves.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3008604&req=5

fig4: Cost-effectiveness acceptability frontier curves.
Mentions: The PSA results are presented in a CEAF. The CEAF was plotted by presenting the optimal strategy under different WTP thresholds (Figure 4). When three times GDP per capita is used as the decision threshold, the annual Pap strategy (<NT$207 000), the annual HPV-Pap strategy (NT$207 000–351 000), the Pap strategy every 5 years (NT$351 000–594 000), the HPV-Pap strategy every 5 years (NT$594 000–1 413 000), and the HPV-Pap strategy every 3 years (⩾NT$1 413 000) achieved the highest expected net benefits.

Bottom Line: Outcomes are life expectancy, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).Probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSAs) were conducted to assess parameter uncertainty. when three times gross domestic product per capita is used as the decision threshold, all nine screening strategies were cost-effective compared with the no-screening strategy.Results of PSA also indicated that a HPV DNA testing followed by Pap smear triage every 5 or every 3 years achieved the highest expected net benefits. possible economic advantages are associated with extending the cervical cancer screening interval from one Pap smear annually to HPV DNA testing followed by Pap smear triage every 5 years with an ICER $1 247 000 per QALY gained, especially in a country with a publicly financed health-care system.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: School of Health Care Administration, Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan.

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus