Resource use and cost analysis of managing abnormal Pap smears: a retrospective study in five countries

Objective: To evaluate and compare treatment patterns and related resource use and costs in women with abnormal cervical smears in five countries. Methods: Data from patient charts were collected for a minimum of 24 months, starting from the first recorded abnormal cervical smear. Costs, from the public health perspective, were calculated based on country-specific unit costs per procedure and expressed in euros. Results: A total of 3,380 patient charts were reviewed. Subjects with suspected or detectable cervical cancer were excluded from the analysis (n = 380). A significant age difference of 1.8-2.6 years was observed between the lowest and highest severity of cytological and histological types (p < 0.05). The correlation between cytology and histology results was weak overall (35.8%) and varied widely between countries (ranging from 48% for Australia to 29.7% for the UK). As expected, countries with ail organised screening programme (UK, Australia) diagnosed and initiated treatment at earlier disease stages. These Countries demonstrated a much lower and narrower cost band for more advanced histological types. In contrast, other countries (Germany, Italy, Spain) followed an opportunistic screening programme in which advanced disease was diagnosed and treated at much higher and more varied costs. Histological, not cytological, results were the main factor underlying the cost differences per type. Conclusion: Costs and treatment patterns in women with abnormal cervical smears differ among countries due to tile type of screening programme (organised versus opportunistic) and, consequently, the histological type. These results need to be taken into consideration when designing cost-effectiveness Studies which include cervical cancer screening data.

Cervical cytology; Screening; HPV; Cervical cancer; Cost analysis; Pap smear

[1] Anttila A., Ronco G., Clifford G., Bray F., Hakama M., Arbyn M., et al.: “Cervical cancer screening programmes and policies in 18 European countries”. Br. J. Cancer, 2004, 91, 935.

[2] Apgar B.S., Brotzman G.: “Management of cervical cytologic abnormalities”. Am. Fam. Phys., 2004, 70, 1905.

[3] Kocjan G., Priollet B.C., Desai M., Koutselini H., Mahovlic V., Oliveira M.H. et al.: “BSCC, Bethesda or other? Terminology in cervical cytology European panel discussion”. Cytopathology, 2005, 16, 113.

[4] Syrjanen K.J.: “Management of Abnormal Pap Smears (MAPS): Implications of Terminology Used in Cytopathology”. J. Lower Gen. Tract Dis., 2000, 4, 217.

[5] Bell S., Porter M., Kitchener H., Fraser C., Fisher P., Mann E.: “Psychological response to cervical screening”. Prev. Med., 1995, 24, 610.

[6] Freeman-Wang T., Walker P., Linehan J., Coffey C., Glasser B., Sherr L.: “Anxiety levels in women attending colposcopy clinics for treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia: a randomised trial of written and video information”. BJOG, 2001, 108, 482.

[7] Fylan F.: “Screening for cervical cancer: a review of women's attitudes, knowledge, and behaviour”. Br. J. Gen. Pract., 1998, 48, 1509.

[8] van Ballegooijen M., van den Akker-van Marle E., Patnick J., Lynge E., Arbyn M., Anttila A. et al.: “Overview of important cervical cancer screening process values in European Union (EU) countries, and tentative predictions of the corresponding effectiveness and cost-effectiveness”. Eur. J. Cancer, 2000, 36, 2177.

[9] van Ballegooijen M., Habbema J.D., van Oortmarssen G.J., Koopmanschap M.A., Lubbe J.T., van Agt H.M.: “Preventive Papsmears: balancing costs, risks and benefits”. Br. J. Cancer, 1992, 65, 930.

[10] Kaminsky F.C., Benneyan J.C., Mullins D.L.: “Automated rescreening in cervical cytology. Mathematical models for evaluating overall process sensitivity, specificity and cost”. Acta Cytol., 1997, 41, 209.

[11] van den Akker-van Marle M.E., van Ballegooijen M., van Oortmarssen G.J., Boer R., Habbema J.D.: “Cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening: comparison of screening policies”. J. Natl. Cancer Inst., 2002, 94, 193.

[12] Wright T.C. Jr., Cox J.T., Massad L.S., Twiggs L.B., Wilkinson E.J.: “2001 Consensus Guidelines for the management of women with cervical cytological abnormalities”. JAMA, 2002, 287, 2120.

[13] Wolstenholme J.L., Whynes D.K.: “Stage-specific treatment costs for cervical cancer in the United Kingdom”. Eur. J. Cancer, 1998, 34, 1889.

[14] Bergeron C., Benard S., Bouee S., Breugelmans G.: “Cervical cancer screening and treatment costs in France”. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol., 2006.

[15] Brown R.E., Bruegelmans J.G., Theodoratou D., Bénard S.: “Cost of detection and treatment of cervical cancer, cervical dysplasia and genital warts in the UK”. Curr. Med. Res. Opin., 2006, 22, 663.

[16] Insinga R.P., Glass A.G., Rush B.B.: “The health care costs of cervical human papillomavirus-related disease”. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol., 2004, 191, 114.

[17] Goldie S.J.: “Health economics and cervical cancer prevention: a global perspective”. Virus Res., 2002, 89, 301.

[18] Solomon D., Davey D., Kurman R., Moriarty A., O’Connor D., Prey M. et al.: “The 2001 Bethesda System: terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology”. JAMA, 2002, 287, 2114.

[19] Evans D.M., Hudson E.A., Brown C.L., Boddington M.M., Hughes H.E., Mackenzie E.F. et al.: “Terminology in gynaecological cytopathology: report of the Working Party of the British Society for Clinical Cytology”. J. Clin. Pathol., 1986, 39, 933.

[20] Soost H.J.: “The Munich nomenclature”. Recent Results Cancer Res., 1993, 133, 105.

[21] Terminology. Screening to Prevent Cervical Cancer: Guidelines for the Management of Asymptomatic Women with Screen Detected Abnormalities. Canberra: National Health and Medical Research Council, 2005, 19.

[22] Purchasing power parities. OECD 2007 [cited 2007 Jan]; Available from: URL: http://www.oecd.org/document/47/0,2340, en_2649_201185_36202863_1_1_1_1,00.html#ppp.

[23] Kim J.J., Leung G.M., Woo P.P., Goldie S.J.: “Cost-effectiveness of organized versus opportunistic cervical cytology screening in Hong Kong”. J. Public Health (Oxf.), 2004, 26, 130.

[24] Dvorak K.A., Finnemore M., Maksem J.A.: “Histology correlation with atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS) and low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (LSIL) cytology diagnoses: An argument to ensure ASCUS follow-up that is as aggressive as that for LSIL”. Diagn. Cytopathol., 1999, 21, 292.

[25] McCrory D.C., Matchar D.B., Bastian L., Datta S., Hasselblad V., Hickey J. et al.: “Evaluation of cervical cytology”. Evid. Rep. Technol. Assess. (Summ.), 1999, 5, 1.

[26] Noller K.L.: “Cervical cytology screening and evaluation”. Obstet. Gynecol., 2005, 106, 391.

[27] Renshaw A.A.: “Measuring sensitivity in gynecologic cytology: a review”. Cancer, 2002, 96, 210.

[28] Cuzick J., Clavel C., Petry K.U., Meijer C.J., Hoyer H., Ratnam S. et al.: “Overview of the European and North American studies on HPV testing in primary cervical cancer screening”. Int. J. Cancer, 2006, 119, 1095.

[29] Mahdavi A., Monk B.J.: “Vaccines against human papillomavirus and cervical cancer: promises and challenges”. Oncologist, 2005, 10, 528.

[30] Nuovo J., Melnikow J., Howell L.P.: “New tests for cervical cancer screening”. Am. Fam. Phys., 2001, 64, 780.