## Abstract

### Base Case Data

Selected input parameters used for the base case are presented in Table 2 ( 7 , 1320 , 22 , 25 , 2931 , 4372 ) . Input parameters for the natural history of HPV and cervical cancer were based on population studies primarily in the United States ( 62 ) , although age-specific HPV incidence rates were derived for each country by calibrating the models to country-specific cancer data, as described above.

Table 2.

Model parameters: country-specific baseline values *

Model parameter United Kingdom The Netherlands France Italy
Natural history ( 22 , 4361 )
Normal to HPV DNA  0.00028–0.00948 0.00028–0.01896 0.00028–0.00948 0.00028–0.00948
HPV DNA to CIN 1 0.0046 0.0046 0.0046 0.0046
CIN 1 to CIN 2,3 0.0011–0.0039 0.0011–0.0039 0.0011–0.0039 0.0011–0.0039
CIN 2,3 to local invasive cancer 0.0040 0.0040 0.0040 0.0040
Local cancer to regional cancer 0.0200 0.0200 0.0200 0.0200
Regional cancer to distant cancer 0.0250 0.0250 0.0250 0.0250
HPV DNA to normal 0.0028–0.0397 0.0028–0.0397 0.0028–0.0397 0.0028–0.0397
CIN 1 to normal 0.0068–0.0128 0.0068–0.0128 0.0068–0.0128 0.0068–0.0128
CIN 2,3 to normal 0.0029 0.0029 0.0029 0.0029
5-y cancer survival rate ( 62 )
Local invasive cancer 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86
Regional invasive cancer 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43
Distant invasive cancer 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11
Annual symptom detection rate ( 30 , 62 )
Local invasive cancer 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19
Regional invasive cancer 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60
Distant invasive cancer 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Test characteristics, % ( 7 , 19 , 20 , 22 , 25 , 31 , 63 , 64 , 72 )
Sensitivity of conventional cytology 58.0 80.0 72.0 61.1
Specificity of conventional cytology 98.0 96.0 94.0 93.0
Sensitivity of HPV DNA test 88.4 88.4 88.4 88.4
Specificity of HPV DNA test 94.7 94.7 94.7 94.7
Sensitivity of cytology + HPV DNA test 95.0 96.0 95.0 95.0
Specificity of cytology + HPV DNA test 92.9 92.9 92.9 92.9
Direct medical costs, 2004 USD ( 19 , 20 , 25 , 28 , 29 , 6771 ) §
Conventional cytology 40 49 14 29
HPV DNA test  42 45 31 32
Cytology + HPV DNA test 82 94 45 61
Colposcopy 136 106 111 101
Colposcopy and biopsy 248 170 202 185
CIN 2,3 678 2168 908  908
Local invasive cervical cancer 18 616 6642 3726  3726
Regional invasive cervical cancer 30 564 13 740 14 451  14 451
Distant invasive cervical cancer 32 423 21 466 34 122  34 122
Model parameter United Kingdom The Netherlands France Italy
Natural history ( 22 , 4361 )
Normal to HPV DNA  0.00028–0.00948 0.00028–0.01896 0.00028–0.00948 0.00028–0.00948
HPV DNA to CIN 1 0.0046 0.0046 0.0046 0.0046
CIN 1 to CIN 2,3 0.0011–0.0039 0.0011–0.0039 0.0011–0.0039 0.0011–0.0039
CIN 2,3 to local invasive cancer 0.0040 0.0040 0.0040 0.0040
Local cancer to regional cancer 0.0200 0.0200 0.0200 0.0200
Regional cancer to distant cancer 0.0250 0.0250 0.0250 0.0250
HPV DNA to normal 0.0028–0.0397 0.0028–0.0397 0.0028–0.0397 0.0028–0.0397
CIN 1 to normal 0.0068–0.0128 0.0068–0.0128 0.0068–0.0128 0.0068–0.0128
CIN 2,3 to normal 0.0029 0.0029 0.0029 0.0029
5-y cancer survival rate ( 62 )
Local invasive cancer 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86
Regional invasive cancer 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43
Distant invasive cancer 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11
Annual symptom detection rate ( 30 , 62 )
Local invasive cancer 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19
Regional invasive cancer 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60
Distant invasive cancer 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90
Test characteristics, % ( 7 , 19 , 20 , 22 , 25 , 31 , 63 , 64 , 72 )
Sensitivity of conventional cytology 58.0 80.0 72.0 61.1
Specificity of conventional cytology 98.0 96.0 94.0 93.0
Sensitivity of HPV DNA test 88.4 88.4 88.4 88.4
Specificity of HPV DNA test 94.7 94.7 94.7 94.7
Sensitivity of cytology + HPV DNA test 95.0 96.0 95.0 95.0
Specificity of cytology + HPV DNA test 92.9 92.9 92.9 92.9
Direct medical costs, 2004 USD ( 19 , 20 , 25 , 28 , 29 , 6771 ) §
Conventional cytology 40 49 14 29
HPV DNA test  42 45 31 32
Cytology + HPV DNA test 82 94 45 61
Colposcopy 136 106 111 101
Colposcopy and biopsy 248 170 202 185
CIN 2,3 678 2168 908  908
Local invasive cervical cancer 18 616 6642 3726  3726
Regional invasive cervical cancer 30 564 13 740 14 451  14 451
Distant invasive cervical cancer 32 423 21 466 34 122  34 122
*

HPV = human papillomavirus; DNA = deoxyribonucleic acid; CIN = cervical intraepithelial neoplasia, grade 1 (CIN 1) and grade 2,3 (CIN 2,3). Estimates are reported as monthly probabilities unless otherwise noted; ranges represent age-specific values and are available from the authors upon request. Parameters for which country-specific data were either unavailable or were very uncertain were varied widely in sensitivity analysis.

The age-specific incidence of HPV infection was varied within the plausible range of the reported literature to calibrate the model to country-specific cervical cancer incidence and mortality. Please see “Methods” for details.

Sensitivity is the probability of a positive test given the presence of CIN 1 or higher; specificity is defined as the probability of a negative test given the absence of CIN 1 or higher. Hybrid Capture (HC) II (Digene Corp., Gaithersburg, MD) was used as the HPV DNA test and assumed to perform similarly in all four countries; country-specific estimates were used in sensitivity analysis.

§

Estimates include the office visit and patient time.

HPV DNA test includes only cost of test and lab (i.e., HPV DNA test is a “reflex” test).

Published estimates for the treatment costs of CIN 2,3 and cancer in Italy were not available; costs from France were used as a proxy in the base case.

Cost data, which were estimated from published cost-effectiveness analyses or costing studies in each of the countries ( 19 , 20 , 25 , 28 , 29 , 6771 ) , included direct medical costs (e.g., cost of screening test, treatment, staff time, and office visits) and patient time costs. In the absence of country-specific data (particularly for France and Italy), we inferred missing costs by leveraging the relationship between known costs in all four countries. For example, published colposcopy costs were not available for France. Based on the relative cost of cytology in France compared with the United Kingdom, we inferred these costs by proportionally scaling down published U.K. estimates. To reflect the uncertainty of colposcopy costs, we then varied these costs from 25% to 200% for all countries in sensitivity analysis. Treatment costs were obtained from the literature and included costs of loop cone, knife cone, laser biopsies, and hysterectomy for CIN 2,3 ( 19 , 25 , 28 ) , and surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and hysterectomy for cancer ( 25 , 29 , 68 , 70 ) . Costs from the United Kingdom were first updated to 2004 British pounds using the U.K. consumer price index ( 73 ) and then converted to 2004 U.S. dollars (USD) ( 74 ) ; costs from the other three countries were updated to 1999 ( 73 ) , converted to 2004 Euros ( 75 ) , and then converted to 2004 USD ( 74 ) .

### Cost-effectiveness Analysis

We adopted a societal perspective for the cost-effectiveness analysis and followed the recommendations of the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine ( 39 ) . Costs were expressed in 2004 USD to facilitate comparisons across countries. Because there are uncertainties with respect to quality of life associated with HPV positivity, cervical cancer precursors, and invasive cancer, we conducted the base case analysis using reduction in the risk of cancer and increase in life expectancy as the primary outcomes. Future costs and life-years were discounted at an annual rate of 3%.

The performances of the two alternative screening strategies were measured using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, which is defined as the additional cost of a specific screening strategy, divided by its additional clinical benefit compared with the next-most-expensive strategy. Strategies that were defined as dominated (those with higher costs and lower benefits than other options) or weakly dominated (those with higher incremental cost-effectiveness ratios than more effective options) were excluded from the incremental cost-effectiveness calculations.

Although multiple criteria exist for categorizing the cost effectiveness of interventions, most of these criteria have been proposed within the context of a single country ( 39 ) . Because of the comparative nature of our four-country analysis, we chose to use guidelines that are specifically intended for international comparisons. According to these guidelines, which are from the Commission on Macroeconomics and Health, interventions with cost-effectiveness ratios that are less than the gross domestic product per capita are considered very cost-effective and those with ratios that are less than three times the gross domestic product per capita are considered cost-effective ( 40 ) .

We performed extensive sensitivity analyses because of the considerable amount of uncertainty and variation in country-specific estimates of screening test performance and costs. Additional analyses were conducted to assess how the results might differ if we: 1) allowed for more frequent screening intervals with cytology alone; 2) assumed different follow-up strategies for HPV DNA–positive women with normal cytology; 3) replaced conventional cytology with liquid-based cytology, which is more costly ($7 additional) per test and has higher sensitivity (68%) and lower specificity (93%) than conventional cytology ( 20 ) ; or 4) included quality-adjusted life expectancy as an outcome. For this last analysis, we applied stage-specific quality weights for time spent with invasive cancer (ranging from 0.48 with distant cancer to 0.68 with local cancer), and age-specific quality weights (ranging from 0.79 to 0.90) for noncancer states to reflect average quality of life decrements in women who were over 40 years of age ( 76 ) . Quality weights were varied ±50% in sensitivity analysis. ## R ESULTS ### Model Calibration and Corroboration To evaluate our model calibration, we used number of cases and population size of women in 5-year age intervals from the IARC data ( 3538 ) to calculate the standard error and 95% confidence intervals for the age-specific incidence rates. We found that our model predictions for age-specific cancer incidence fell within or very close to the 95% confidence interval of the IARC data for all age groups. Model projections of intermediate outcomes were then compared with those from other published models of cervical cancer screening in European countries. Rates of colposcopy referral among women without CIN or cancer for combination testing were approximately 31% greater for 3-year screening compared with 5-year screening in the United Kingdom using our model, compared with 29% that was projected by an independent U.K. model ( 19 ) . When we used this model to simulate a population of U.S. women, the projected reduction in the lifetime cancer risk was 74% with the 3-year combination strategy, similar to the 78% that was projected from an analysis exploring HPV DNA testing options in the U.S. ( 77 ) . ### Base Case The total lifetime discounted costs, life expectancy (discounted and undiscounted), and reduction in lifetime risk of cancer associated with alternative cervical cancer screening strategies for all four countries are shown in Table 3 . In all countries, strategies that incorporated HPV DNA testing were preferable to the status quo strategy. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for HPV triage were less than$13 000 per year of life saved, whereas those for combination testing ranged from $9800 to$75 000 per year of life saved, depending on screening interval. In the United Kingdom, both strategies of HPV triage or combination testing every 5 years cost less than $15 000 per year of life saved. At more frequent screening intervals, combination testing ranged from$33 200 (3-, 5-year) to $75 900 (3-year) per year of life saved. All other strategies, including the status quo, were more costly and either less effective (i.e., strongly dominated) or less cost-effective (i.e., weakly dominated). In The Netherlands, France, and Italy, the results were similar to those in the United Kingdom. In The Netherlands, all nondominated strategies cost less than$40 000 per year of life saved, and in France and Italy, all nondominated strategies cost less than $30 000 per year of life saved. Table 3. Total lifetime costs, life expectancy, and incremental cost-effectiveness of HPV DNA testing strategies * Screening strategy Total avg lifetime cost,$ Total discounted life expectancy, y Total undiscounted life expectancy, y Reduction in lifetime risk of cancer, %  Cost-effectiveness ratio, $/YLS United Kingdom No screening 102 28.6850 66.6940 — — HPV triage, 5-y 250 28.7119 66.8291 49.3 5500 HPV triage, 3-, 5-y 306 28.7149 66.8405 50.7 Dominated Status quo, 3-, 5-y 313 28.7132 66.8319 47.7 Dominated § HPV triage, 3-y 345 28.7183 66.8593 59.5 Dominated Combination testing, 5-y 397 28.7226 66.8829 72.8 13 800 Combination testing, 3-, 5-y 498 28.7256 66.8938 73.8 33 200 Combination testing, 3-y 601 28.7270 66.9016 78.4 75 900 The Netherlands No screening 54 28.7850 67.3701 — — HPV triage, 5-y 228 28.8322 67.6110 58.7 3700 Status quo, 5-y 236 28.8318 67.6093 58.2 Dominated § HPV triage, 3-y 302 28.8381 67.6400 65.3 12 500 Combination testing, 5-y 372 28.8402 67.6497 69.7 32 700 Combination testing, 3-y 526 28.8443 67.6685 73.9 37 400 France No screening 30 29.0913 69.7455 — — HPV triage, 5-y 102 29.1196 69.8930 46.3 2600 HPV triage, 3-y 136 29.1254 69.9231 55.8 5900 Status quo, 3-y 146 29.1255 69.9234 56.0 Dominated Combination testing, 5-y 192 29.1270 69.9326 62.0 Dominated Combination testing, 3-y 303 29.1317 69.9555 69.3 26 300 Italy No screening 98 29.0505 68.9557 — — HPV triage, 5-y 132 29.0738 69.0763 40.6 1500 HPV triage, 3-y 190 29.0802 69.1100 53.7 9000 Status quo, 3-y 202 29.0804 69.1110 54.0 Dominated Combination testing, 5-y 223 29.0836 69.1281 61.9 9800 Combination testing, 3-y 359 29.0889 69.1544 72.7 25 600 Screening strategy Total avg lifetime cost,$ Total discounted life expectancy, y Total undiscounted life expectancy, y Reduction in lifetime risk of cancer, %  Cost-effectiveness ratio, $/YLS United Kingdom No screening 102 28.6850 66.6940 — — HPV triage, 5-y 250 28.7119 66.8291 49.3 5500 HPV triage, 3-, 5-y 306 28.7149 66.8405 50.7 Dominated Status quo, 3-, 5-y 313 28.7132 66.8319 47.7 Dominated § HPV triage, 3-y 345 28.7183 66.8593 59.5 Dominated Combination testing, 5-y 397 28.7226 66.8829 72.8 13 800 Combination testing, 3-, 5-y 498 28.7256 66.8938 73.8 33 200 Combination testing, 3-y 601 28.7270 66.9016 78.4 75 900 The Netherlands No screening 54 28.7850 67.3701 — — HPV triage, 5-y 228 28.8322 67.6110 58.7 3700 Status quo, 5-y 236 28.8318 67.6093 58.2 Dominated § HPV triage, 3-y 302 28.8381 67.6400 65.3 12 500 Combination testing, 5-y 372 28.8402 67.6497 69.7 32 700 Combination testing, 3-y 526 28.8443 67.6685 73.9 37 400 France No screening 30 29.0913 69.7455 — — HPV triage, 5-y 102 29.1196 69.8930 46.3 2600 HPV triage, 3-y 136 29.1254 69.9231 55.8 5900 Status quo, 3-y 146 29.1255 69.9234 56.0 Dominated Combination testing, 5-y 192 29.1270 69.9326 62.0 Dominated Combination testing, 3-y 303 29.1317 69.9555 69.3 26 300 Italy No screening 98 29.0505 68.9557 — — HPV triage, 5-y 132 29.0738 69.0763 40.6 1500 HPV triage, 3-y 190 29.0802 69.1100 53.7 9000 Status quo, 3-y 202 29.0804 69.1110 54.0 Dominated Combination testing, 5-y 223 29.0836 69.1281 61.9 9800 Combination testing, 3-y 359 29.0889 69.1544 72.7 25 600 * HPV = human papillomavirus, DNA = deoxyribonucleic acid; HPV triage refers to primary screening with cervical cytology, reserving HPV DNA testing for women with equivocal cytology results—HPV DNA–positive women are then triaged to colposcopy and more frequent follow-up. Combination testing refers to primary screening with cervical cytology alone prior to age 30, and cervical cytology combined with HPV DNA testing in women over the age of 30. All costs expressed in 2004 U.S. dollars. 3-y refers to a 3-year screening interval; 5-y refers to a 5-year screening interval; 3-, 5-y refers to a 3-year screening interval for women 20–39 years of age and a 5-year screening interval for women 40–65 years of age. No screening is the referral group; therefore, reduction in lifetime risk of cancer and cost-effectiveness ratio cannot be computed and is denoted by a dash (—). Cost-effectiveness ratio calculated as the difference in cost divided by the difference in life expectancy for each strategy compared with the next best strategy; YLS = year of life saved. Strategy cost more but was less cost-effective than next most expensive strategy and was therefore weakly dominated. § Strategy cost more but was less effective than the next most expensive strategy and was therefore strongly dominated. The preferred screening strategies using thresholds of cost-effectiveness based on each country's gross domestic product per capita ( 78 ) are shown in Table 4 . In the context of the four European countries analyzed in this study, a very cost-effective intervention would fall between$25 600 (Italy) and $31 700 (The Netherlands) per year of life saved. A cost-effective intervention would cost$90 600 (UK), $95 100 (The Netherlands),$87 300 (France), and $76 800 (Italy) per year of life saved. Table 4. Preferred screening strategies with different willingness-to-pay thresholds * Country GDP per capita ( 78 ) , 2004 USD Most effective strategy less than 1× GDP per capita Most effective strategy less than 3× GDP per capita United Kingdom 30 200 Combination test (5-y) Combination test (3-y) The Netherlands 31 700 HPV triage (3-y) Combination test (3-y) France 29 100 Combination test (3-y) Combination test (3-y) Italy 25 600 Combination test (3-y) Combination test (3-y) Country GDP per capita ( 78 ) , 2004 USD Most effective strategy less than 1× GDP per capita Most effective strategy less than 3× GDP per capita United Kingdom 30 200 Combination test (5-y) Combination test (3-y) The Netherlands 31 700 HPV triage (3-y) Combination test (3-y) France 29 100 Combination test (3-y) Combination test (3-y) Italy 25 600 Combination test (3-y) Combination test (3-y) * Combination test refers to primary screening with cervical cytology alone prior to age 30, and cervical cytology combined with HPV DNA testing in women over the age of 30. HPV triage refers to primary screening with cervical cytology, reserving HPV DNA testing for women with equivocal cytology results—HPV DNA–positive women are then triaged to colposcopy and more frequent follow-up. 3-y refers to a 3-year screening interval; 5-y refers to a 5-year screening interval; 3-, 5-y refers to a 3-year screening interval for women 20–39 years of age and a 5-year screening interval for women 40–65 years of age. GDP = gross domestic product; USD = United States dollars. The Commission on Macroeconomics and Health has defined interventions that have a cost-effectiveness ratio less than the gross domestic product per capita as very cost-effective, and less than three times the gross domestic product per capita as cost-effective ( 40 ) . ### Sensitivity Analyses Results were most sensitive to changes in the relative performance and costs of the different screening tests. Results were less sensitive to changes within the plausible range of natural history parameters and to changes in costs of diagnostic workup and treatment for CIN and cancer. Screening with the combination strategy every 5 years was very cost-effective (i.e., less than the country-specific gross domestic product), provided that its sensitivity exceeded 85% in the United Kingdom and Italy, and 90% in The Netherlands and France; HPV triage strategies at these thresholds consistently cost less than$15 000 per year of life saved with either 3- or 5-year screening. If the sensitivity fell below 65%, combination testing cost more than three times the gross domestic product per capita in all four countries. Using the most optimistic estimates for combined cytology and HPV DNA testing in the literature (sensitivity 100%, specificity 94%) ( 65 ) , the cost per year of life saved for 5-year combination testing was reduced by approximately 9% in all four countries, compared with the base case results.

Varying the cost of screening changed the cost-effectiveness outcome. When the cost of both HPV DNA testing and cytology in women more than 30 years of age was reduced by 25%, the combination strategy every 3 years cost less than the per capita gross domestic product per year of life saved in all countries. When these costs were doubled, ratios for every 3-year combination strategies exceeded the gross domestic product per capita, and HPV triage became the preferred strategy; however, when using the threshold of three times the gross domestic product per capita, the combination strategy was still preferred.

Because of the variation in colposcopy and biopsy costs and management protocols for CIN in European countries, we varied these costs in our model from 25% to 200% of their base case values; however, the rank ordering of strategies did not change and the cost-effectiveness ratios varied minimally. For example, in Italy and France, the cost of the HPV triage strategy every 5 years ranged from $1100 per year of life saved and$1700, respectively, when colposcopy costs decreased by 75%, to $2400 per year of life saved and$3800, respectively, when colposcopy costs were doubled.

We evaluated how more frequent screening with cytology alone (i.e., status quo strategies every 1 or 2 years for all four countries, as well as 3 years for the United Kingdom and The Netherlands) compared with strategies that incorporated HPV DNA testing. In most analyses, frequent screening with cytology alone was either strongly or weakly dominated; in Italy, annual screening with cytology alone was not dominated but cost more than $3 million per year of life saved. Moreover, unless the sensitivity of the cytology test was greater than 95% in the United Kingdom, The Netherlands, and France, the status quo strategies were always strongly dominated by HPV triage. In Italy, when sensitivity of cytology exceeded 90%, the status quo strategy every 3 years cost$67 200 per year of life saved.

We explored the impact of the following alternative protocols for the management of women who are cytologically normal and HPV DNA positive: 1) colposcopy and more frequent follow-up screening (yearly or biennially); 2) HPV DNA test at 6 and/or 12 months, followed by more frequent screening for 5 years; and 3) combination of cytology and HPV DNA testing at 6 and/or 12 months, followed by more frequent screening for 5 years. Under all of these assumptions, combination testing in women more than 30 years of age was the most cost-effective strategy compared with HPV triage testing.

When conventional cytology was replaced with liquid-based cytology in the model, the cost-effectiveness ratios associated with combined HPV DNA testing and cytology in women more than 30 years of age were reduced by approximately 20% compared with the base case. Analyses in which health states were adjusted for quality of life resulted in cost-effectiveness ratios that were approximately 15% lower than in the base case.

## D ISCUSSION

Using a computer-based model of cervical cancer and country-specific data on screening practices and costs and cancer risk in the United Kingdom, The Netherlands, Italy, and France, we found that incorporating HPV DNA testing, either for triage of women of any age with equivocal cytology results or for primary screening in conjunction with cytology in women more than 30 years of age, would provide greater benefit than the status quo screening strategy in all four countries. Although the average per-woman lifetime costs and cost-effectiveness ratios varied across countries, the rank ordering of strategies was similar. In addition, these results were stable over a wide range of sensitivity analyses in which we varied the natural history parameters, treatment patterns for CIN, and cancer costs. Provided that the sensitivity of cytology alone was lower than 90%, both HPV DNA testing strategies were more cost-effective than cytology alone; this finding held true even when we directly compared more frequent cytology to less frequent HPV DNA testing.

In all four countries, the choice between using HPV DNA testing as triage or in combination with cytology was most sensitive to changes in the relative performance and costs of the different screening tests. In particular, using the threshold of gross domestic product per capita for defining cost-effectiveness, we found that, if the sensitivity of the combination test decreased by 5%–10% or the cost of combination test doubled, HPV triage became the most attractive strategy. If we used both cost-effectiveness and the rate of colposcopy referrals as independent criteria that influence the choice between HPV triage and combination testing, HPV triage had a substantially lower referral rate. The enhanced sensitivity of combination testing was associated with decreased specificity compared with HPV triage, resulting in more than a twofold increase in colposcopy referral rate. If this increase in referral rate is associated with quality of life decrements and/or if the capacity to manage the increased referrals is lacking, these factors will need to be weighed against the added benefits of the more sensitive test.

No universal criterion exists that defines a threshold “cost-effectiveness” ratio (i.e., above which an intervention would not be cost-effective and below which it would be cost-effective). Because of the comparative nature of our four-country analysis, we chose to use guidelines specifically intended for international comparisons that were proposed by the Commission on Macroeconomics and Health ( 40 ) . Individual countries may have a different willingness to pay for a year of life saved. For example, in the United States, a threshold of \$50 000 per year of life saved is often cited. Interestingly, even using this more generous criterion would not change the results of our analysis. For a variety of reasons, European countries might elect to use stricter thresholds than those implied by the Commission definition; in such a situation, the choice between HPV triage and combination testing could change. We emphasize that our analysis is not intended to provide the correct choice for any particular country; rather, our objective is to provide transparent information about the relationship between the relative costs and effects for each screening strategy so that decision makers from specific countries might use this information in their deliberations about the adoption of HPV DNA technology.

Our analysis has several limitations. Country-specific data were not available for all of the input parameters required for the model, and unknown factors that contribute to population heterogeneity could not be modeled. Similarly, there are no empiric country-specific data suitable for inclusion in this model on the cost and quality of life decrements associated with women being informed that they have high-risk types of HPV. Therefore, we purposefully did not conduct a detailed analysis of every potential strategy that would be of interest within each country—such analyses require detailed country-specific data and careful consideration of regional practice patterns. With ongoing prospective studies in country-specific settings, we anticipate that better data will be available in the future, and it will be an important priority to assimilate these data and refine analyses.

The long-term outcomes associated with different strategies for managing HPV DNA–positive women are not known. Consequently, we focused our analysis on relatively few strategies and also omitted strategies that are largely untested, such as screening at intervals double and triple the length of the status quo (e.g., every 10–15 years). Strategies with lengthened screening intervals will be relevant to women with several consecutive negative cytology and HPV DNA testing results, but better data are needed on their long-term safety to merit serious consideration in countries with established cytology screening programs.

With respect to European countries in particular, a cost-effectiveness analysis in the United Kingdom ( 19 ) and exploratory work assessing the potential value of HPV testing ( 2123 , 25 ) have been published, as have an overview of cervical cancer screening policies and identification of influential parameters on cost-effectiveness ( 27 ) , and cost-effectiveness analyses of different cervical cancer screening strategies using cytology throughout Europe ( 20 , 24 , 26 , 28 , 29 ) . Our results, which suggest that improved outcomes and cost-effectiveness are associated with HPV DNA testing, are consistent with these other published analyses. By including the United Kingdom and The Netherlands, in which previous cervical cancer screening analyses have been conducted, we were able to ensure model corroboration prior to adapting them to France and Italy, which have rarely been the focus of published cost-effectiveness analyses. The unique contribution of this four-country analysis that extends the prior work of others is the provision of a broad comparative overview of the potential value of HPV DNA testing across countries with different epidemiologic profiles and budgets.

The development of sound clinical guidelines and public health policy requires careful consideration of the incremental benefits, harms, and costs that are associated with new technology and its adoption into existing screening strategies, compared with the status quo. As a result of the rapid infusion of new technologies for cervical cancer screening, there is an increased need for policy evaluation to guide such investments. Even before definitive long-term data are available for different HPV DNA testing strategies, cost-effectiveness analyses can be used to explore the implications of changes in broad national screening policies. We found that HPV DNA testing not only has the potential to improve the effectiveness of cervical cancer prevention programs but may also be more cost-effective than current status quo policies that rely solely on conventional cytology.

Supported by the National Cancer Institute (R01-CA93435).

## References

(1)
Peto J, Gilham C, Fletcher O, Matthews FE. The cervical cancer epidemic that screening has prevented in the UK.
Lancet

2004
;
364
:
249
–56.
(2)
Gustafsson L, Ponten J, Zack M, Adami HO. International incidence rates of invasive cervical cancer after introduction of cytological screening.
Cancer Causes Control

1997
;
8
:
755
–63.
(3)
Sasieni P, Adams J. Effect of screening on cervical cancer mortality in England and Wales: analysis of trends with an age period cohort model.
BMJ

1999
;
318
:
1244
–5.
(4)
Herbert A. Cervical screening in England and Wales: its effect has been underestimated.
Cytopathology

2000
;
11
:
471
–9.
(5)
International Agency for Research and Cancer (IARC) Working Group. Human papillomaviruses. Vol 64. Lyon (France): World Health Organization, IARC;
1995
.
(6)
Walboomers JM, Jacobs MV, Manos MM, Bosch FX, Kummer JA, Shah KV, et al. Human papillomavirus is a necessary cause of invasive cervical cancer worldwide.
J Pathol

1999
;
189
:
12
–9.
(7)
Wright TC Jr, Schiffman M, Solomon D, Cox JT, Garcia F, Goldie S, et al. Interim guidance for the use of human papillomavirus DNA testing as an adjunct to cervical cytology for screening.
Obstet Gynecol

2004
;
103
:
304
–9.
(8)
U.S. Food and Drug Administration—FDA news. FDA approves expanded use of HPV test. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2003/NEW00890.html [Last accessed: June 1,
2004
].
(9)
U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Guide to Clinical Preventive Services, 3rd ed. Washington (DC): U.S. Department of Health and Human Services;
2003
.
(10)
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG practice bulletin. Cervical Cytology screening. Number 45, August 2003.
Int J Gynaecol Obstet

2003
;
83
:
237
–47.
(11)
Saslow D, Runowicz CD, Solomon D, Moscicki AB, Smith RA, Eyre HJ, et al. American Cancer Society guideline for the early detection of cervical neoplasia and cancer.
CA Cancer J Clin

2002
;
52
:
342
–62.
(12)
Wright TC Jr, Cox JT, Massad LS, Twiggs LB, Wilkinson EJ. 2001 Consensus guidelines for the management of women with cervical cytological abnormalities.
JAMA

2002
;
287
:
2120
–9.
(13)
Linos A, Riza E. Comparisons of cervical cancer screening programmes in the European Union.
Eur J Cancer

2000
;
36
:
2260
–5.
(14)
Patnick J. Cervical cancer screening in England.
Eur J Cancer

2000
;
36
:
2205
–8.
(15)
McGahan CE, Blanks RG, Moss SM. Reasons for variation in coverage in the NHS cervical screening programme.
Cytopathology

2001
;
12
:
354
–66.
(16)
van Ballegooijen M, Hermens R. Cervical cancer screening in the Netherlands.
Eur J Cancer

2000
;
36
:
2244
–6.
(17)
Schaffer P, Sancho-Garnier H, Fender M, Dellenbach P, Carbillet JP, Monnet E, et al. Cervical cancer screening in France.
Eur J Cancer

2000
;
36
:
2215
–20.
(18)
Segnan N, Ronco G, Ciatto S. Cervical cancer screening in Italy.
Eur J Cancer

2000
;
36
:
2235
–9.
(19)
Sherlaw-Johnson C, Philips Z. An evaluation of liquid-based cytology and human papillomavirus testing within the UK cervical cancer screening programme.
Br J Cancer

2004
;
91
:
84
–91.
(20)
Payne N, Chilcott J, McGoogan E. Liquid-based cytology in cervical screening: a rapid and systematic review.
Health Technol Assess

2000
;
4
:
1
–73.
(21)
Sherlaw-Johnson C, Gallivan S. The planning of cervical cancer screening programmes in eastern Europe: is viral testing a suitable alternative to smear testing?
Health Care Manag Sci

2000
;
3
:
323
–9.
(22)
Cuzick J, Sasieni P, Davies P, Adams J, Normand C, Frater A, et al. A systematic review of the role of human papillomavirus testing within a cervical screening programme.
Health Technol Assess

1999
;
3
:i–iv,
1
–196.
(23)
Jenkins D, Sherlaw-Johnson C, Gallivan S. Can papilloma virus testing be used to improve cervical cancer screening?
Int J Cancer

1996
;
65
:
768
–73.
(24)
Parkin DM, Moss SM. An evaluation of screening policies for cervical cancer in England and Wales using a computer simulation model.
J Epidemiol Comm Health

1986
;
40
:
143
–53.
(25)
van Ballegooijen M, van den Akker-van Marle ME, Warmerdam PG, Meijer CJ, Walboomers JM, Habbema JD. Present evidence on the value of HPV testing for cervical cancer screening: a model-based exploration of the (cost-) effectiveness.
Br J Cancer

1997
;
76
:
651
–7.
(26)
van den Akker-van Marle ME, van Ballegooijen M, van Oortmarssen GJ, Boer R, Habbema JD. Cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening: comparison of screening policies.
J Natl Cancer Inst

2002
;
94
:
193
–204.
(27)
van Ballegooijen M, van den Akker-van Marle E, Patnick J, Lynge E, Arbyn M, Anttila A, et al. Overview of important cervical cancer screening process values in European Union (EU) countries, and tentative predictions of the corresponding effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.
Eur J Cancer

2000
;
36
:
2177
–88.
(28)
van Ballegooijen M, Koopmanschap MA, Habbema JD. The management of cervical intra-epithelial neoplasia (CIN): extensiveness and costs in The Netherlands.
Eur J Cancer

1995
;
31A
:
1672
–6.
(29)
van Ballegooijen M, Habbema JD, van Oortmarssen GJ, Koopmanschap MA, Lubbe JT, van Agt HM. Preventive Pap-smears: balancing costs, risks and benefits.
Br J Cancer

1992
;
65
:
930
–3.
(30)
Kim JJ, Wright TC, Goldie SJ. Cost-effectiveness of alternative triage strategies for atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance.
JAMA

2002
;
287
:
2382
–90.
(31)
Goldie SJ, Kim JJ, Wright TC. Cost-effectiveness of human papillomavirus DNA testing for cervical cancer screening in women aged 30 years or more.
Obstet Gynecol

2004
;
103
:
619
–31.
(32)
Goldie SJ, Weinstein MC, Kuntz KM, Freedberg KA. The costs, clinical benefits, and cost-effectiveness of screening for cervical cancer in HIV-infected women.
Ann Intern Med

1999
;
130
:
97
–107.
(33)
Goldie SJ, Freedberg KA, Weinstein MC, Wright TC, Kuntz KM. Cost effectiveness of human papillomavirus testing to augment cervical cancer screening in women infected with the human immunodeficiency virus.
Am J Med

2001
;
111
:
140
–9.
(34)
Goldie SJ, Kuhn L, Denny L, Pollack A, Wright TC. Policy analysis of cervical cancer screening strategies in low-resource settings: clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness.
JAMA

2001
;
285
:
3107
–15.
(35)
International Union against Cancer. Cancer Incidence in Five Continents. Vol 1. New York (NY): Springer;
1966
.
(36)
International Agency for Research on Cancer. Cancer Incidence in Five Continents. Vol 5. Lyon (France): IARC Press;
1987
.
(37)
International Agency for Research on Cancer. Cancer Incidence in Five Continents. Vol 8. Lyon (France): IARC Press;
2002
.
(38)
Ferlay J, Bray F, Pisani P, Parkin DM. Globocan 2000: Cancer incidence, mortality, and prevalence worldwide. Lyon (France): IARC Press;
2001
.
(39)
Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russel LB, Weinstein MC, editors. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York (NY): Oxford University Press;
1996
.
(40)
World Health Organization. Investing in Health for Economic Development. Report of the Commission on Macroeconomics and Health. Geneva (Switzerland): World Health Organization;
2001
.
(41)
Franco EL. Chapter 13: Primary screening of cervical cancer with human papillomavirus tests.
J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr

2003
:
31
:
89
–96.
(42)
Kurman RJ, Solomon D. The Bethesda system for reporting cervical/vaginal cytologic diagnoses: definitions, criteria, and explanatory notes for terminology and specimen adequacy. New York (NY): Springer;
1994
.
(43)
Hildesheim A, Schiffman MH, Gravitt PE, Glass AG, Greer CE, Zhang T, et al. Persistence of type-specific human papillomavirus infection among cytologically normal women.
J Infect Dis

1994
;
169
:
235
–40.
(44)
Ho GY, Bierman R, Beardsley L, Chang CJ, Burk RD. Natural history of cervicovaginal papillomavirus infection in young women.
N Engl J Med

1998
;
338
:
423
–8.
(45)
Liu T, Soong SJ, Alvarez RD, Butterworth CE Jr. A longitudinal analysis of human papillomavirus 16 infection, nutritional status, and cervical dysplasia progression.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev

1995
;
4
:
373
–80.
(46)
Lawson HW, Lee NC, Thames SF, Henson R, Miller DS. Cervical cancer screening among low-income women: results of a national screening program, 1991-1995.
Obstet Gynecol

1998
;
92
:
745
–52.
(47)
Sun XW, Kuhn L, Ellerbrock TV, Chiasson MA, Bush TJ, Wright TC Jr. Human papillomavirus infection in women infected with the human immunodeficiency virus.
N Engl J Med

1997
;
337
:
1343
–9.
(48)
McCrory DC, Matchar DB, Bastian L, Datta S, Hasselblad V, Hickey J, et al. Evaluation of cervical cytology.
Evid Rep Technol Assess (Summ)

1999
:
1
–6.
(49)
Myers ER, McCrory DC, Nanda K, Bastian L, Matchar DB. Mathematical model for the natural history of human papillomavirus infection and cervical carcinogenesis.
Am J Epidemiol

2000
;
151
:
1158
–71.
(50)
Londesborough P, Ho L, Terry G, Cuzick J, Wheeler C, Singer A. Human papillomavirus genotype as a predictor of persistence and development of high-grade lesions in women with minor cervical abnormalities.
Int J Cancer

1996
;
69
:
364
–8.
(51)
Syrjanen K, Kataja V, Yliskoski M, Chang F, Syrjanen S, Saarikoski S. Natural history of cervical human papillomavirus lesions does not substantiate the biologic relevance of the Bethesda System.
Obstet Gynecol

1992
;
79
:
675
–82.
(52)
Ho GY, Burk RD, Klein S, Kadish AS, Chang CJ, Palan P, et al. Persistent genital human papillomavirus infection as a risk factor for persistent cervical dysplasia.
J Natl Cancer Inst

1995
;
87
:
1365
–71.
(53)
Ostor AG. Natural history of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a critical review.
Int J Gynecol Pathol

1993
;
12
:
186
–92.
(54)
Melnikow J, Nuovo J, Willan AR, Chan BK, Howell LP. Natural history of cervical squamous intraepithelial lesions: a meta-analysis.
Obstet Gynecol

1998
;
92
:
727
–35.
(55)
Ho GY, Kadish AS, Burk RD, Basu J, Palan PR, Mikhail M, et al. HPV 16 and cigarette smoking as risk factors for high-grade cervical intra-epithelial neoplasia.
Int J Cancer

1998
;
78
:
281
–5.
(56)
Hopman EH, Rozendaal L, Voorhorst FJ, Walboomers JM, Kenemans P, Helmerhorst TJ. High risk human papillomavirus in women with normal cervical cytology prior to the development of abnormal cytology and colposcopy.
BJOG

2000
;
107
:
600
–4.
(57)
Rozendaal L, Walboomers JM, van der Linden JC, Voorhorst FJ, Kenemans P, Helmerhorst TJ, et al. PCR-based high-risk HPV test in cervical cancer screening gives objective risk assessment of women with cytomorphologically normal cervical smears.
Int J Cancer

1996
;
68
:
766
–9.
(58)
Ellerbrock TV, Chiasson MA, Bush TJ, Sun XW, Sawo D, Brudney K, et al. Incidence of cervical squamous intraepithelial lesions in HIV-infected women.
JAMA

2000
;
283
:
1031
–7.
(59)
Koutsky LA, Holmes KK, Critchlow CW, Stevens CE, Paavonen J, Beckmann AM, et al. A cohort study of the risk of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or 3 in relation to papillomavirus infection.
N Engl J Med

1992
;
327
:
1272
–8.
(60)
Nobbenhuis MA, Walboomers JM, Helmerhorst TJ, Rozendaal L, Remmink AJ, Risse EK, et al. Relation of human papillomavirus status to cervical lesions and consequences for cervical-cancer screening: a prospective study.
Lancet

1999
;
354
:
20
–5.
(61)
Remmink AJ, Walboomers JM, Helmerhorst TJ, Voorhorst FJ, Rozendaal L, Risse EK, et al. The presence of persistent high-risk HPV genotypes in dysplastic cervical lesions is associated with progressive disease: natural history up to 36 months.
Int J Cancer

1995
;
61
:
306
–11.
(62)
National Cancer Institute. Surveillance, Epidemiology, End Results (SEER) Cancer Statistics Review, 1975–2001: US DHHS, PHS, NIH, NCI;
2004
.
(63)
Coste J, Cochand-Priollet B, de Cremoux P, Le Gales C, Cartier I, Molinie V, et al. Cross sectional study of conventional cervical smear, monolayer cytology, and human papillomavirus DNA testing for cervical cancer screening.
BMJ

2003
;
326
:
733
.
(64)
Cecchini S, Bonardi R, Iossa A, Zappa M, Ciatto S. Colposcopy as a primary screening test for cervical cancer.
Tumori

1997
;
83
:
810
–3.
(65)
Cuzick J, Szarewski A, Cubie H, Hulman G, Kitchener H, Luesley D, et al. Management of women who test positive for high-risk types of human papillomavirus: the HART study.
Lancet

2003
;
362
:
1871
–6.
(66)
Clavel C, Masure M, Bory JP, Putaud I, Mangeonjean C, Lorenzato M, et al. Human papillomavirus testing in primary screening for the detection of high-grade cervical lesions: a study of 7932 women.
Br J Cancer

2001
;
84
:
1616
–23.
(67)
Cruickshank ME, Chambers G, Murray G, McKenzie L, Donaldson C, Andrew J, et al. Age-restricted cervical screening: HPV testing at age 50 identifies a high risk group for cervical disease.
Int J Gynecol Cancer

2002
;
12
:
735
–40.
(68)
Wolstenholme JL, Whynes DK. Stage-specific treatment costs for cervical cancer in the United Kingdom.
Eur J Cancer

1998
;
34
:
1889
–93.
(69)
Merea E, Le Gales C, Cochand-Priollet B, Cartier I, de Cremoux P, Vacher-Lavenu MC, et al. Cost of screening for cancerous and precancerous lesions of the cervix.
Diagn Cytopathol

2002
;
27
:
251
–7.
(70)
el M'Rini T, Arveux P, Gay C, Woronoff-Lemsi MC, Gautier C, Gaillard A, et al. [Estimation of the treatment cost of cervical cancer].
Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique

1997
;
45
:
508
–15.
(71)
Zappa M, Cecchini S, Ciatto S, Iossa A, Falini P, Mancini M, et al. Measurement of the cost of screening for cervical cancer in the district of Florence, Italy.
Tumori

1998
;
84
:
631
–5.
(72)
Ratman S, Franco EL, Ferenczy A. Human papillomavirus testing for primary screening of cervical cancer precursors.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev

2000
;
9
:
945
–51.
(73)
EUROSTAT. Consumer price indices—annual data. Available at: http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/eurostat [Last accessed: March 3,
2005
].
(74)
Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Federal Reserve Statistical Release: Foreign Exchange Rates. Available at: http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g5a/current/ ;
2004
.
(75)
EUROSTAT. Euro/ECU exchange rates—annual data. Available at: http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/eurostat [Last accessed: March 3,
2005
].
(76)
Fryback DG, Dasbach EJ, Klein R, Klein BE, Dorn N, Peterson K, et al. The Beaver Dam Health Outcomes Study: initial catalog of health-state quality factors.
Med Decis Making

1993
;
13
:
89
–102.
(77)
Mandelblatt JS, Lawrence WF, Womack SM, Jacobson D, Yi B, Hwang YT, et al. Benefits and costs of using HPV testing to screen for cervical cancer.
JAMA

2002
;
287
:
2372
–81.
(78)
Central Intelligence Agency. The World Factbook: GDP per capita, 2003. Available at: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2004.html [Last accessed: February 22,
2004
].