Human Papillomavirus Triage of Women with Persistent Borderline or Mildly Dyskaryotic Smears

Comparison of Costs and Side Effects of Three Alternative Strategies

Published in: International Journal of Cancer, v. 121, no. 7, Oct. 1, 2007, p. 1529-1535

Posted on RAND.org on December 31, 2006

by Matejka Rebolj, Aagje G. Bais, Marjolein van Ballegooijen, Rob Boer, Willem-Jan Meerding, Theo J. M. Helmerhorst, John Dik F Habbema

Read More

Access further information on this document at www3.interscience.wiley.com

This article was published outside of RAND. The full text of the article can be found at the link above.

The conventional direct referral to colposcopy of persistent borderline or mildly dyskaryotic (BMD) smears in cervical cancer screening leads to considerable unnecessary referrals and associated anxiety and costs. This may be improved by including testing for oncogenic human papillomavirus (HPV) in the triage. The authors assessed costs and side effects (referrals, treatments and time in follow-up) for 3 possible HPV triage strategies (immediate HPV testing, a 6-month delay in HPV testing, a 2-stage combination of both) and compared them with the conventional strategy. The assessments are based on recent Dutch data from various national databases and trials. The authors estimated that the referral rate could be reduced by 49, 58 and 58% with immediate, delayed and 2-stage HPV testing, respectively. As a consequence, the average length of follow-up, as well as average costs, also decrease. Therefore, we advocate including HPV testing before referring to colposcopy. Among the 3 HPV strategies, analysis of additional aspects favors implementation of immediate HPV testing.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation external publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.