» Articles » PMID: 11072201

Overview of Important Cervical Cancer Screening Process Values in European Union (EU) Countries, and Tentative Predictions of the Corresponding Effectiveness and Cost-effectiveness

Overview
Journal Eur J Cancer
Specialty Oncology
Date 2000 Nov 10
PMID 11072201
Citations 18
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The objective was the evaluation of the (cost-)effectiveness of cervical cancer screening in the European Union (EU) countries. Data were collected on recommended screening age ranges and intervals, coverage, proportion of non-negative smears and smear use. Estimates reported by representatives of each participating Member State were compared, and used as input for model based on (using the MISCAN simulation model for cancer screening) effectiveness and cost-effectiveness calculations. Differences in coverage from below 50 to 82% resulted in more or less proportional differences in expected percentage life-years lost reduction, almost regardless of differences in 7-50+ smears recommended in a lifetime. Differences in screening intensity (resulting from the recommended number of smears per lifetime and the number of excess smears on top of these recommendations) resulted in more than 2-fold difference in the expected number of smears per percentage life-years lost reduction. (Cost-)effectiveness predictions would have greatly improved if estimates of long-term coverage had also been available. To conclude, estimates for a restricted set of well defined parameters - a few for short and long-term coverage and one for the total number of smears - are quite useful for country-specific (cost-)effectiveness evaluations. The main, and to some extent, unsolvable problem for further improvement of the analysis is the lack of reliable country-specific estimates for the background risk of cervical cancer in women eligible for screening in the near future.

Citing Articles

Attendance characteristics of the breast and colorectal cancer screening programmes in a highly urbanised region of the Netherlands: a retrospective observational study.

Bongaerts T, Buchner F, de Munck L, Elferink M, Guicherit O, Numans M BMJ Open. 2023; 13(6):e071354.

PMID: 37355264 PMC: 10314424. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-071354.


Perspectives on cancer screening participation in a highly urbanized region: a Q-methodology study in The Hague, the Netherlands.

Bongaerts T, Buchner F, Crone M, van Exel J, Guicherit O, Numans M BMC Public Health. 2022; 22(1):1925.

PMID: 36243684 PMC: 9571478. DOI: 10.1186/s12889-022-14312-4.


Facilitating Factors and Barriers of Women's Cancer Screening in Iran: A Systematic Review.

Ghahramani S, Kasraei H, Shahabi S, Bagheri Lankarani K Int J Prev Med. 2021; 11:199.

PMID: 33815723 PMC: 8000176. DOI: 10.4103/ijpvm.IJPVM_509_18.


Determinants of (non-)attendance at the Dutch cancer screening programmes: A systematic review.

Bongaerts T, Buchner F, Middelkoop B, Guicherit O, Numans M J Med Screen. 2019; 27(3):121-129.

PMID: 31801039 PMC: 7491249. DOI: 10.1177/0969141319887996.


Estimating the public health impact of a national guideline on cervical cancer screening: an audit study of a program in Campinas, Brazil.

Vale D, Menin T, Braganca J, Teixeira J, Cavalcante L, Zeferino L BMC Public Health. 2019; 19(1):1492.

PMID: 31703661 PMC: 6842174. DOI: 10.1186/s12889-019-7846-2.