Primary HPV-DNA screening in women under 30 years of age: health technology assessment
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18597/rcog.3866Keywords:
Biomedical technology assessment, cost-benefit analysis, early cancer detection, uterine cervix neoplasmsAbstract
Background
Primary screening with Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) testing was introduced in Colombia in 2014 for individuals between 30 and 65 years of age. When the result is positive, cytology triage is performed for colposcopy referral. The convenience of initiating HPV-DNA testing for screening at 25 years of age is currently a subject of discussion. Therefore, the objective of this health technology assessment (HTA) is to analyze the available evidence regarding safety, efficacy, cost-effectiveness, values and preferences, ethical dilemmas and considerations pertaining to the implementation of the HPV-DNA test as a cervical screening strategy in women under 30 years of age in the Colombian context.
Domains to be assessed
Clinical efficacy and safety
1. Cumulative rate of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 2 or high-er after 2 screening rounds.
2. Cumulative rates of invasive cancer of the uterine cervix after 2 screening rounds.
3. Safety: referral to colposcopy
Cost-effectiveness
Cost-effectiveness for Colombia.
Other domains considered
Ethical considerations associated with cervical screening in women under 30 years of age. Organizational and individual considerations. Barriers and facilitators pertaining to the implementation of cervical screening in women under 30 years of age in the Colombian context.
Methods
Clinical efficacy and safety assessment
A systematic literature search of systematic reviews and clinical trials was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL. The body of evidence was rated using the GRADE approach. An interdisciplinary team was then convened to create a working group to review the retrieved evidence. This led to the discussion and construction of the conclusions following the guidelines of a formal consensus in accordance with the RAND/UCLA methodology.
Economic study
Systematic literature research of studies that had assessed cost-effectiveness for Colombia.
Results
Out of the 7,659 references retrieved, 8 studies were included.
Clinical outcomes
An integrative analysis of 5 randomized clinical trials that met the inclusion critera was performed. Compared with cytology, primary HPV-DNA testing in women under 30 years of age could be associated with a lower frequency of CIN+2 lesions during the first screening round (RR: 1.57; CI: 1.20 to 2.04; low evidence certainty), and a lower incidence of CIN+2 (RR: 0.67; CI: 0.48 to 0.92; low evidence certainty). Moreover, it is associated with a lower frequency of invasive carcinoma at the end of follow-up (RR: 0.19; CI: 0.07 to 0.53; high evidence certainty).
Economic results
From the financial point of view, the use of HPVDNA testing plus cytology-based triage starting at 25 years of age is perhaps the most cost-effective option for Colombia (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, COP 8,820,980 in 2013).
Other implications
Two studies suggest that barriers to implementation attributable to intermediation, public unrest and geographic considerations could be overcome with the use of new screening technologies or strategies. It is important to consider administration and service provision alternatives in order to overcome some acceptability and access barriers. Any cervical screening program must take into consideration ethical principles of nonmaleficence, beneficence, autonomy and equity. Future studies should focus on analyzing new screening techniques with emphasis on the population under 30 years of age.
Conclusions
The use of HPV-DNA testing as a screening strategy in women under 30 years of age is a potentially efficacious and cost-effective intervention for Colombia. Future studies should focus on analyzing new screening technologies, with emphasis on the population under 30 years of age.
Author Biographies
Carmen Doris Garzón-Olivares, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá (Colombia).
Profesora Asociada, Departamento de Obstetricia y Ginecología, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá (Colombia).
Carlos Fernando Grillo-Ardila, Instituto Nacional de Cancerología, Bogotá (Colombia).
Profesor Asistente, Departamento de Obstetricia y Ginecología, Universidad Nacional de Colombia. Grupo de investigación clínica y epidemiológica del Cáncer, Instituto Nacional de Cancerología, Bogotá (Colombia).
Jairo Amaya-Guio, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá (Colombia).
Profesor Titular, Departamento de Obstetricia y Ginecología, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá (Colombia).
Maria Teresa Vallejo-Ortega, Instituto Nacional de Cancerología, Bogotá (Colombia).
Grupo de investigación clínica y epidemiológica del Cáncer, Instituto Nacional de Cancerología, Bogotá (Colombia).
Luz Amparo Diaz-Cruz, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá (Colombia).
Profesora Asociada, Departamento de Obstetricia y Ginecología, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá (Colombia).
Carolina Fernández-Motta, Universidad Surcolombiana, Neiva (Huila).
Universidad Surcolombiana, Neiva (Huila).
Alejandra del Pilar Gomez-Motta, Universidad Surcolombiana, Neiva (Huila).
Universidad Surcolombiana, Neiva (Huila).
Alina Tatiana Barrera, Universidad Surcolombiana, Neiva (Huila).
Universidad Surcolombiana, Neiva (Huila).
Lina María Trujillo-Sánchez, Instituto Nacional de Cancerología, Bogotá (Colombia).
Subdirectora General de Atención Médica y Docencia. Instituto Nacional de Cancerología, Bogotá (Colombia).
Carlos Humberto Pérez-Moreno, Federación Internacional de Patología del Tracto Genital Inferior y Colposcopia, Bogotá (Colombia).
Presidente Federación Internacional de Patología del Tracto Genital Inferior y Colposcopia, Bogotá (Colombia).
Luis Jairo Bonilla-Osma, Fundación Universitaria de Ciencias de las Salud, Bogotá (Colombia).
Profesor Fundación Universitaria de Ciencias de las Salud, Bogotá (Colombia).
Robinson Fernández-Mercado, Asociación Colombiana de Ginecólogos Oncólogos, Barranquilla (Colombia).
Profesor Universidad Libre de Barranquilla. Representante de Asociación Colombiana de Ginecólogos Oncólogos, Barranquilla (Colombia).
Néstor Augusto Giraldo-Méndez, Subred Integrada de servicios de Salud Norte-Bogotá, Bogotá (Colombia).
Coordinador Ginecología de Subred Integrada de servicios de Salud Norte-Bogotá, Bogotá (Colombia).
Jorge Eduardo Caro-Caro, Subred Integrada de servicios de Salud Centro-Oriente-Bogotá, Bogotá (Colombia).
Coordinador Ginecología de Subred Integrada de servicios de Salud Centro-Oriente-Bogotá, Bogotá (Colombia).
Amparo Leonor Ramírez-Corredor, Subred Integrada de Servicios de Salud Sur, Bogotá (Colombia).
Coordinadora Ginecología de Subred Integrada de Servicios de Salud Sur, Bogotá (Colombia).
Dayanne Milecsy Rodríguez-Hernández, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá (Colombia).
Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá (Colombia).
References
Ferlay J, Colombet M, Soerjomataram I, Parkin DM, Piñeros M, Znaor A, et al. Cancer statistics for the year 2020: An overview. Int J Cancer. 2021;149(4):778–89. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.33588
Torné Bladé A, Pino Saladrigues M del, Cusidó Gimferrer M, Alameda Quitllet F, Andia Ortiz D, Castellsagué Piqué X, et al. Guía de cribado del cáncer de cuello de útero en España, 2014. Rev Española Patol. 2014;47:1–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1699-8855(14)70203-X
Rodríguez-Garcés C, Padilla-Fuentes G. Cáncer de cérvix y autorresponsabilidad: perfilando el riesgo de abstención al Papanicolaou entre las mujeres chilenas mediante Árboles de Decisión. Horiz Med (Barcelona). 2018;18(1):13–22. https://doi.org/10.24265/horizmed.2018.v18n1.03
IARC. Cervical cancer screening. IARC Handb Cancer Prev. 2022;18:1–456. Disponible en: https://publications.iarc.fr/604.
Ronco G, Dillner J, Elfström KM, Tunesi S, Snijders PJF, Arbyn M, et al. Efficacy of HPV-based screening for prevention of invasive cervical cancer: follow-up of four European randomised controlled trials. Lancet (London, England). 2014;383(9916):524–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62218-7
Kitchener H, Canfell K, Gilham C, Sargent A, Roberts C, Desai M, et al. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of primary human papillomavirus cervical screening in England: extended follow-up of the ARTISTIC randomised trial cohort through three screening rounds. Health Technol Assess (Rockv). 2014;18(23):1–196. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta18230
Perkins RB, Guido RS, Castle PE, Chelmow D, Einstein MH, Garcia F, et al. 2019 ASCCP Risk-Based Management Consensus Guidelines for Abnormal Cervical Cancer Screening Tests and Cancer Precursors. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2020;24(2):102–31. https://doi.org/10.1097/LGT.0000000000000525
Ministerio de Salud y Protección Social. Guía de Práctica Clínica para la detección y manejo de lesiones precancerosas de cuello uterino. Minist Salud y Protección Soc República Colomb. 2014;(44):1–30.
Instituto de Evaluación Tecnológica en Salud. Manual metodológico para la elaboración de evaluaciones de efectividad, seguridad y validez diagnóstica de tecnologías en salud. Bogotá D.C.: IETS; 2014.
Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, Thuku M, Hamel C, Moran J, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ. 2017;j4008. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j4008
Organización Mundial de la Salud, Organización Panamericana de la Salud. Una herramienta para la adaptación e implementación de guías en las Américas. Revista OMS, OPS. 2018. 16 p.12.
Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al. (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.2 (updated February 2021). Cochrane, 2021. Recuperado de: https://training.cochrane.org/handbook
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. The BMJ. 2021;372. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, et al. RoB2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019;366:l4898. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l4898
Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, Carswell C, Moher D, Greenberg D, et al. Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards (CHEERS)-explanation and elaboration: A report of the ISPOR health economic evaluation publication guidelines good reporting practices task force. Value in Health. 2013;16(2):231–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2013.02.002
The Joanna Briggs Institute. Checklist for Qualitative Research: Critical Appraisal tools for use in JBI Systematic Reviews. JbiGlobal. 2017;1–6.
GRADEpro GDT: GRADEpro Guideline Development Tool [Software]. McMaster University, 2020 (developed by Evidence Prime, Inc.). Recuperado de: https://www.gradepro.org
Fitch K, Bernstein SJ, Aguilar MD, Burnand B, LaCalle JR, Lazaro P, et al. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User’s Manual. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation PP - Santa Monica, CA; 2001. Recuperado de: https://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1269.html
Bulkmans N, Berkhof J, Rozendaal L, van Kemenade F, Boeke A, Bulk S, et al. Human papillomavirus DNA testing for the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 and cancer: 5-year follow-up of a randomised controlled implementation trial. Lancet. 2007;370(9601):1764–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61450-0
Ronco G, Giorgi-Rossi P, Carozzi F, Confortini M, Palma PD, Del Mistro A, et al. Efficacy of human papillomavirus testing for the detection of invasive cervical cancers and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11(3):249–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(09)70360-2
Leinonen MK, Nieminen P, Lonnberg S, Malila N, Hakama M, Pokhrel A, et al. Detection rates of precancerous and cancerous cervical lesions within one screening round of primary human papillomavirus DNA testing: prospective randomised trial in Finland. BMJ. 2012;345(nov29 3):e7789–e7789. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e7789
Kitchener HC, Almonte M, Thomson C, Wheeler P, Sargent A, Stoykova B, et al. HPV testing in combination with liquid-based cytology in primary cervical screening (ARTISTIC): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2009;10(7):672–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(09)70156-1
Ogilvie GS, van Niekerk D, Krajden M, Smith LW, Cook D, Gondara L, et al. Effect of Screening With Primary Cervical HPV Testing vs Cytology Testing on Highgrade Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia at 48 Months. JAMA. 2018;320(1):43. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.7464
Andrés-Gamboa O, Chicaíza L, García-Molina M, Díaz J, González M, Murillo R, et al. Cost-effectiveness of conventional cytology and HPV DNA testing for cervical cancer screening in Colombia Cost-effectiveness of conventional cytology and HPV DNA testing for cervical cancer screening in Colombia Salud Pública. Vol. 50, Mex. 2008. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0036-36342008000400005
Chao YS, Clark M, Carson E, Weeks L, Moulton K, McFaul S. HPV Testing for Primary Cervical Cancer Screening: A Health Technology Assessment. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Otawa(ON); 2019.
Wiesner C, Rincón L, Gamboa Ó, Piñeros M, González M, Ortiz N, et al. Barreras para la implementación de la prueba ADN-VPH como técnica de tamización primaria para cáncer de cuello uterino en un área demostrativa en Colombia. Rev Colomb Cancerol. 2013;17(3):93–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0123-9015(13)70011-8
Ministerio de Salud y la Protección Social - MinSalud. Guía Metodológica para la elaboración de Guías de Práctica Clínica con Evaluación Económica en el Sistema General de Seguridad Social. 2014. Recuperado de: https://www.minsalud.gov.co/salud/Documents.
Dane. Cuentas nacionales trimestrales. Dane, 1. 2021. Disponible en: https://www.dane.gov.co/index.php/estadisticas-por-tema/cuentas-nacionales/cuentasnacionales-trimestrales
How to Cite
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
| Article metrics | |
|---|---|
| Abstract views | |
| Galley vies | |
| PDF Views | |
| HTML views | |
| Other views | |
