Page 67 - Screening for Cervical Cancer: Systematic Evidence Review
P. 67

Chapter III.  Results



               the laboratory facility.  At the University of North Carolina Healthcare System, the Hybrid

               Capture II test kit cost $43 in February 2001.  The clinical laboratory fees were $125 for Hybrid


               Capture II testing and $160 for consensus PCR at the same time.  As any other diagnostic

               modality, increased demand should eventually increase capacity, in part through competition,


               and lower costs.  These market forces are not yet at work, and costs have not converged or

               declined.


                       For cost modeling purposes this uncertainty about the expense of the test can easily be

               handled by varying the model estimates of test cost.  Adequate estimates of the cost of primary


               care office-based cervical cancer screening and resulting evaluation and treatment relevant to the

                                                  32
               US health care system are available.   However, the remaining parameters required for cost-

               effectiveness analysis hinder such estimates.  Factors such as repeatability of HPV test results,

               incidence and types of HPV by age category, rates of progression and regression of HPV, and

               sensitivity and specificity for predicting outcomes over varied intervals of time are inadequately


               defined for using HPV tests in screening.

                       No recent literature specific to the United States is available to model and compare


               effectiveness or costs of screening or triage uses of HPV testing that have been proposed.  The

               most complete contemporary model to date, constructed based on the United Kingdom screening


               system, considered adding HPV to Pap testing, replacing Pap testing with HPV testing, and

               adding HPV testing to surveillance of low-grade lesions versus continuing conventional


               surveillance.  The authors concluded: “The uncertainty, as expressed by the differences between

               models, is so large, the results are inconclusive.  Adding HPV testing to cervical cancer


               screening may or may not improve the (cost) effectiveness of screening.  There are relatively few

               longitudinal HPV screening studies with enough time lapse between measurement points to






                                                             67
   62   63   64   65   66   67   68   69   70   71   72