The Cost-Effectiveness of Screening Programs Using Single and Multiple Birth Cohort Simulations: A Comparison Using a Model of Cervical Cancer

Abstract

Despite early recognition of the theoretical advantages of simulations that include different population subgroups/ strata and different birth cohorts, manymodeling-based economic evaluations of cervical screening have been based on unrealistic single birth cohort simulations. The authors examined the effect of amultiple birth cohort simulation on the incremental cost-effectiveness estimates of cervical screening programs, compared to a conventional single cohort simulation. The choice of hypothetical cohort that starts the simulation had a major impact on the cost-effectiveness estimates: Compared with a single birth cohort simulation, the incremental cost-effectiveness of a shift from biennial to triennial screening was 30% higher when using the multiple cohort simulation. Multiple cohort simulations using the different age structures of 4 countries had little impact on the costeffectiveness ratios (variation <5%). Future modeling-based evaluations of screening policies should better reflect the age range of the population that is targeted by carefully specifying the nature of the starting cohort(s).

Keywords

cost-effectiveness Markov model cervical screening cohort simulations

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

1. Brown AD , Garber AM . Cost-effectiveness of three methods to enhance the sensitivity of Papanicolaou testing. JAMA. 1999;281(4): 347–353.

2. Eddy DM . Screening for cervical cancer. Ann Intern Med. 1990;113(3):214–226.

3. Fahs MC , Mandelblatt J , Schechter C , Muller C. Cost effectiveness of cervical cancer screening for the elderly. Ann Intern Med. 1992;117(6):520–527.

4. 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(24):3107–3115.

5. Matsunaga G , Tsuji I , Sato S , Fukao A , Hisamichi S , Yajima A. Cost-effectiveness analysis ofmass screening for cervical cancer in Japan. J Epidemiol. 1997;7(3):135–141.

6. Myers ER , McCrory DC , Subramanian S , et al. Setting the target for a better cervical screening test: characteristics of a cost-effective test for cervical neoplasia screening. Obstet Gynecol. 2000;96(5): 645–802.

7. Agency for Health Care Policy and Research . Evaluation ofCervical Cytology. Rockville (MD): Agency for Health Care Policy and Research; 1999.

8. van Oortmarssen GJ , Boer R , Habbema JD . Modelling issues in cancer screening. Stat Methods Med Res. 1995;4(1):33–54.

9. Habbema JD , vanOortmarssen GJ , Lubbe JT , van derMaas PJ . The MISCAN simulation program for the evaluation of screening for disease. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 1984;20(1):79–93.

10.

10. Sato S , Matunaga G , Tsuji I , Yajima A , Sasaki H. Determining the cost-effectiveness of mass screening for cervical cancer using common analytic models. Acta Cytol. 1999;43(6):1006–1014.

11.

11. Habbema JD , Lubbe JT , van Oortmarssen GJ , van der Maas PJ . A simulation approach to cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit calculations of screening for the early detection of disease. Eur J Operation Res. 1987;29:159–166.

12.

12. 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: amodel-based exploration of the (cost-)effectiveness. Br J Cancer. 1997;76(5):651–657.

13.

13. Koopmanschap MA , van Oortmarssen GJ , van Agt HM , van Ballegooijen M , Habbema JD , Lubbe KT . Cervical-cancer screening: attendance and cost-effectiveness. Int J Cancer. 1990;45(3):410–415.

14.

14. Goldie SJ , Weinstein MC , Kuntz KM , Freedberg K. The costs, clinical benefits, and cost-effectiveness of screening for cervical cancer in HIV-infected women. Ann Intern Med. 1999;130:97–107.

15.

15. 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(12): 1158–1171.

16.

16. Mitchell H , Medley G. Age and time trends in the prevalence of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia on Papanicolaou smear tests, 19701988. Med J Aust. 1990;152(5):252–255.

17.

17. Gustafsson L , Ponten J , Bergstrom R , Adami HO . International incidence rates of invasive cervical cancer before cytological screening. Int J Cancer. 1997;71(2):159–165.

18.

18. Weinstein MC , O’Brien B , Hornberger J , et al. Principles of good practice for decision analytic modeling in health-care evaluation: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practice: modeling studies. Value Health. 2003;6(1):9–17.

19.

19. Kuntz KM , Goldie SJ . Assessing the sensitivity of decisionanalytic results to unobserved markers of risk: defining the effects of heterogeneity bias. Med Decis Making. 2002;22(3):218–227.

20.

20. Hunink MGM . Decision Making in Health and Medicine: Integrating Evidence and Values. Cambridge (UK): Cambridge University Press; 2001.

21.

21. Hunink M , Goldman L , Tosteson A. The recent decline inmortality from coronary heart disease, 1980-1990: the effect of secular trends in risk factors and treatment. JAMA. 1997;277:535–542.

22.

22. Loeve F , Boer R , van Oortmarssen G , van Ballegooijen M , Habbema JD . TheMISCAN-COLON simulationmodel for the evaluation of colorectal cancer screening. Comput Biomed Res. 1999;32: 13–33.