See the published version of this preprint at BMC Cancer.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
Research article
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Background Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing is recommended in primary cervical screening to improve cancer prevention. An advantage of HPV testing is that it can be performed on self-samples, which could increase population coverage and result in a more efficient strategy to identify women at risk of developing cervical cancer. Our objective was to assess whether repeated self-sampling for HPV testing is cost-effective in comparison with Pap smear cytology for detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or more (CIN2+) in increasing participation rate in primary cervical screening.
Methods A cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) was performed on data from a previously published randomized clinical study including 36 390 women aged 30–49 years. Participants were randomized either to perform repeated self-sampling of vaginal fluid for HPV testing (n = 17 997, HPV self-sampling arm) or to midwife-collected Pap smears for cytological analysis (n = 18 393, Pap smear arm).
Results Self-sampling for HPV testing led to 1633 more screened women and 107 more histologically diagnosed CIN2+ at a lower cost vs. midwife-collected Pap smears (€ 229 446 vs. € 782 772).
Conclusions This study resulted in that repeated self-sampling for HPV testing increased participation and detection of CIN2+ at a lower cost than midwife-collected Pap smears in primary cervical screening. Offering women a home-based self-sampling may therefore be a more cost-effective alternative than clinic-based screening.
Trial registration
Not registered since this trial is a secondary analysis of an earlier published study (1).
Keywords
Self-sampling, HPV testing, primary cervical screening, cost-effectiveness, CIN2+, precancerous lesion, cervical cancer
Figure 1
Figure 2
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at BMC Cancer.
Version 3
Posted 18 Jun, 2020
No community comments so far
Submission checks complete
On 16 Jun, 2020
Editorial decision: Accept
On 16 Jun, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 11 Jun, 2020
Editor assigned
On 08 Jun, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 07 Jun, 2020
Editor invited
On 07 Jun, 2020
No comments provided
Reviewer #7 agreed
On 22 May, 2020
Reviewer #8 agreed
On 22 May, 2020
Review #3 received
Received 22 May, 2020
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 22 May, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 21 May, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 21 May, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 21 May, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 21 May, 2020
Reviewer #4 agreed
On 21 May, 2020
Reviewer #5 agreed
On 21 May, 2020
Reviewer #6 agreed
On 21 May, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 21 May, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 21 May, 2020
Editor assigned
On 19 May, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 18 May, 2020
Editor invited
On 18 May, 2020
First submitted
On 13 May, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Learn more about our company.
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
See the published version of this preprint at BMC Cancer.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research article
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at BMC Cancer.
Version 3
Posted 18 Jun, 2020
No community comments so far
Submission checks complete
On 16 Jun, 2020
Editorial decision: Accept
On 16 Jun, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 11 Jun, 2020
Editor assigned
On 08 Jun, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 07 Jun, 2020
Editor invited
On 07 Jun, 2020
No comments provided
Reviewer #7 agreed
On 22 May, 2020
Reviewer #8 agreed
On 22 May, 2020
Review #3 received
Received 22 May, 2020
Editorial decision: Minor revision
On 22 May, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 21 May, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 21 May, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 21 May, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 21 May, 2020
Reviewer #4 agreed
On 21 May, 2020
Reviewer #5 agreed
On 21 May, 2020
Reviewer #6 agreed
On 21 May, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 21 May, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 21 May, 2020
Editor assigned
On 19 May, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 18 May, 2020
Editor invited
On 18 May, 2020
First submitted
On 13 May, 2020
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
View the published article at BMC Cancer.
Background Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing is recommended in primary cervical screening to improve cancer prevention. An advantage of HPV testing is that it can be performed on self-samples, which could increase population coverage and result in a more efficient strategy to identify women at risk of developing cervical cancer. Our objective was to assess whether repeated self-sampling for HPV testing is cost-effective in comparison with Pap smear cytology for detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or more (CIN2+) in increasing participation rate in primary cervical screening.
Methods A cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) was performed on data from a previously published randomized clinical study including 36 390 women aged 30–49 years. Participants were randomized either to perform repeated self-sampling of vaginal fluid for HPV testing (n = 17 997, HPV self-sampling arm) or to midwife-collected Pap smears for cytological analysis (n = 18 393, Pap smear arm).
Results Self-sampling for HPV testing led to 1633 more screened women and 107 more histologically diagnosed CIN2+ at a lower cost vs. midwife-collected Pap smears (€ 229 446 vs. € 782 772).
Conclusions This study resulted in that repeated self-sampling for HPV testing increased participation and detection of CIN2+ at a lower cost than midwife-collected Pap smears in primary cervical screening. Offering women a home-based self-sampling may therefore be a more cost-effective alternative than clinic-based screening.
Trial registration
Not registered since this trial is a secondary analysis of an earlier published study (1).
Figure 1
Figure 2
Loading...