Special Article
Cost-Effectiveness of Cervical-Cancer Screening in Five Developing Countries
N Engl J Med 2005; 353:2158-2168November 17, 2005
- Abstract
Background
Cervical-cancer screening strategies that involve the use of conventional cytology and require multiple visits have been impractical in developing countries.
Methods
We used computer-based models to assess the cost-effectiveness of a variety of cervical-cancer screening strategies in India, Kenya, Peru, South Africa, and Thailand. Primary data were combined with data from the literature to estimate age-specific incidence and mortality rates for cancer and the effectiveness of screening for and treatment of precancerous lesions. We assessed the direct medical, time, and program-related costs of strategies that differed according to screening test, targeted age and frequency, and number of clinic visits required. Single-visit strategies involved the assumption that screening and treatment could be provided in the same day. Outcomes included the lifetime risk of cancer, years of life saved, lifetime costs, and cost-effectiveness ratios (cost per year of life saved).
Results
The most cost-effective strategies were those that required the fewest visits, resulting in improved follow-up testing and treatment. Screening women once in their lifetime, at the age of 35 years, with a one-visit or two-visit screening strategy involving visual inspection of the cervix with acetic acid or DNA testing for human papillomavirus (HPV) in cervical cell samples, reduced the lifetime risk of cancer by approximately 25 to 36 percent, and cost less than $500 per year of life saved. Relative cancer risk declined by an additional 40 percent with two screenings (at 35 and 40 years of age), resulting in a cost per year of life saved that was less than each country's per capita gross domestic product — a very cost-effective result, according to the Commission on Macroeconomics and Health.
Conclusions
Cervical-cancer screening strategies incorporating visual inspection of the cervix with acetic acid or DNA testing for HPV in one or two clinical visits are cost-effective alternatives to conventional three-visit cytology-based screening programs in resource-poor settings.
Media in This Article
Figure 1
Components of the Costs Associated with Screening.Figure 2
Cost-Effectiveness of Screening for Cervical Cancer.Article Activity
- Article
Cervical cancer is a leading cause of death from cancer among women in low-resource settings, affecting women at a time of life when they are critical to social and economic stability.1 Cervical cancer is highly preventable through cytologic screening programs that facilitate the detection and treatment of precancerous lesions. Such screening, however, requires an established laboratory, highly trained cytotechnologists, and up to three visits for screening, evaluation of cytologic abnormalities, and treatment and is therefore difficult to implement and sustain in settings with limited resources. Alternative methods, such as DNA testing for human papillomavirus (HPV) and simple visual screening, may prove more practical when incorporated into new strategies that are less dependent on existing laboratory infrastructure and require fewer visits.2-6
Although recent studies support the potential promise of an effective vaccine against selected high-risk types of HPV, the vaccine is not yet commercially available.7,8 Since first-generation vaccines will target young adolescents, it will take several decades to determine the effect of these vaccines on the rate of death from cervical cancer. Even then, since current vaccines target only two types of oncogenic HPV, a combination of screening and vaccination will probably be required. Consequently, timely implementation of a cost-effective screening strategy for use in developing countries is particularly critical.
Using primary data from studies in countries with diverse epidemiologic profiles and resources (India, Kenya, Peru, South Africa, and Thailand), we assessed the cost-effectiveness of alternative strategies to reduce the rate of death from cervical cancer (Table 1Table 1
Demographic and Economic Characteristics of the Countries.).9-11 This approach had considerable advantages over previous analyses, which generally have not included the costs of laboratory equipment and supplies, transportation of specimens, training, administration, and other program-related activities. Moreover, because most studies have involved the assessment of screening options for a single country,12,13 clinical and economic assumptions have not been standardized, making it difficult to compare results. The analytic approach we have used was designed to permit inferences to be made about policies regarding the control of cervical cancer that would be easily generalizable.Methods
Overview
With the use of a computer-based model, we synthesized the best available data and simulated the natural history of HPV-induced cervical neoplasia and the procedures used in the screening, diagnosis, and treatment of cervical cancer. We assessed alternative strategies by determining the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, which is defined as the additional cost of a specific strategy divided by its additional clinical benefit, as compared with the next-less-expensive strategy. The numerator represents the average lifetime costs per woman (in 2000 international dollars, a currency unit that minimizes the consequences of differences in price levels existing among countries), and the denominator represents the average gain in life expectancy per woman. We discounted costs and benefits by an annual rate of 3 percent, consistent with economic guidelines.14,15
Natural-History Model
In our model, which has been described previously,12 the health states among subjects represent HPV DNA status, the grade of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (grade 1, grades 2 and 3), and the stage of invasive cancer. Movement through the health states occurs in monthly increments according to probabilities that are dependent on age, HPV status, and disease history. Although we assume that the natural history of cervical cancer is similar across countries, we also assume that patterns of sexual behavior and risk factors for cervical cancer vary; we therefore have incorporated age-specific rates of death due to causes other than cancer, such as those associated with pregnancy and the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).16 Calibration methods ensured that the age-specific incidence of cervical cancer and rates of death from the disease as predicted by each model approximated the best available country-specific data1 (see the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this article at www.nejm.org).
Screening Model and Strategies
We differentiated screening strategies according to number of clinical visits, frequency of screening, and targeted ages. Tests included visual inspection of the cervix with acetic acid (hereafter referred to as visual inspection), cytologic examination of cervical cells on a Papanicolaou smear, and DNA testing for HPV in cervical-cell samples with the use of the hybrid-capture method (Hybrid Capture II HPV test, Digene). We also evaluated a combined strategy of HPV and visual inspection testing in which visual inspection followed a positive HPV DNA test. Three-visit strategies included an initial screening test, colposcopy and biopsy in the case of positive results, and treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Two-visit strategies consisted of initial screening followed by treatment, without colposcopic evaluation, of all women with positive screening results. One-visit strategies incorporated same-day screening and treatment for women with positive screening results. A single lifetime screening was performed at 35 years of age, with additional screenings performed at five-year intervals. Target ages and screening intervals were varied in sensitivity analyses.
We assumed that screening was performed at a primary-level facility. One-visit and two-visit strategies involved the use of visual inspection to determine whether women with positive results on screening were eligible for cryosurgery; those with lesions that covered more than 75 percent of the cervix or that extended to the vaginal wall or 2 mm beyond the tip of the probe used for cryosurgery and those with anatomical abnormalities of the cervix were ineligible. Women deemed ineligible were referred to a secondary-level facility (e.g., a district or regional hospital) for diagnostic testing (e.g., colposcopy and biopsy) and, if necessary, treatment of precancerous lesions with a loop electrosurgical excision procedure, cold-knife conization, or simple hysterectomy, depending on the size and type of lesion. For three-visit strategies, women with positive screening results were referred for diagnostic testing, with those who required treatment returning for a third visit. Women in whom cancer was detected were referred to secondary or tertiary care hospitals.
Clinical Data
Table 2Table 2
Selected Variables of the Model Used in the Comparative Analysis for the Five Countries. shows selected variables, based on primary data and published literature,3-6,17,18 that were used to conduct comparative analyses for all five countries. Methods to derive variables related to natural history, including those used to account for the effect of HIV, have been described previously12 (see also the Supplementary Appendix).Cost Data
Costs are presented in 2000 international dollars, with differences in purchasing power taken into account.19 We used a quantity-and-price approach to estimate total costs, with primary data used when available. Details of the procedures used for cost estimation are provided in the Supplementary Appendix.
We categorized costs as direct medical costs (e.g., for staff, disposable supplies, equipment, and specimen transport), women's time costs (time spent traveling and waiting for and receiving care), transportation costs, or program-related costs. Since many women who were eligible for screening were not formally employed, we estimated the value of their time with the use of a weighted average of wages for formal-sector jobs and of minimum wages for informal-sector jobs9-11,19-21 (see the Supplementary Appendix). We estimated program-related costs that differed according to strategy, such as those for laboratory equipment and supplies, specimen transport, and training for and supervision of particular techniques, assuming an 80 percent use of capacity.19,22 We assumed that activities related to administration and recruitment would increase the total medical costs by an additional 25 percent and varied this increase from 10 to 75 percent in the sensitivity analysis.
Figure 1Figure 1
Components of the Costs Associated with Screening. shows the relative consistency of the direct medical costs associated with the screening visits in all five countries. The considerable variation in patient time and transport costs reflects differences among rural populations and population densities, comprehensiveness of coverage by the primary-level clinic, and wages, difficulty of travel, or both.9-11,19-23 Table 3Table 3
Selected Costs Associated with the Diagnosis and Treatment of Cervical Cancer in the Five Countries. summarizes selected costs associated with diagnosis and treatment, including those for false positive results, referral of women ineligible for cryosurgery to other centers, and treatment complications. The allocation of resources for each stage of cancer treatment was based on clinical protocols used at regional hospitals and cited in other studies.12,13,24,25 Results
Reduction in Lifetime Risk
The country-specific reduction in the lifetime risk of invasive cervical cancer with a single screening at the age of 35 years ranged from 25 to 31 percent with one-visit and two-visit visual inspection, 30 to 36 percent with one-visit and two-visit HPV DNA testing, and 18 to 22 percent with two-visit and three-visit cytologic examination. As compared with a single screening, two screenings (at 35 and 40 years of age) provided an increased relative reduction in lifetime risk of approximately 40 percent. Three screenings (at 35, 40, and 45 years of age) provided an additional 15 percent reduction in risk. With maximized follow-up, through one-visit strategies or other methods, HPV DNA testing was the most effective strategy, followed closely by visual inspection and then cytologic examination. The least effective strategies were two-visit and three-visit cytologic examination and the combination of two-visit visual inspection and HPV DNA testing.
Cost-Effectiveness of Screening at Different Intervals
Figure 2Figure 2
Cost-Effectiveness of Screening for Cervical Cancer. shows the lifetime costs and life expectancy associated with eight strategies performed at different intervals for each country. Detailed results for all strategies are available in the Supplementary Appendix.The total discounted costs for a single lifetime screening strategy (one-visit visual inspection, two-visit HPV DNA testing, or three-visit cytologic examination) were lowest in India ($24.20, $26.29, and $33.56, respectively) and highest in South Africa ($78.86, $82.51, and $110.95, respectively). The costs for all screening strategies increased only moderately with more frequent screening, since the majority of the lifetime cost per woman is attributable to cancer treatment.
The cost-effectiveness of a change from one screening strategy to a costlier alternative is represented by the difference in cost divided by the difference in life expectancy associated with a competing strategy. Strategies lying on the “efficiency curve” shown in each panel of Figure 2 “dominate” those lying to the right of the curve, because they are more effective and either cost less or have a better cost-effectiveness ratio than the next best strategy.
The cost per year of life saved associated with a single lifetime screening, with the use of either visual inspection or HPV DNA testing as compared with no screening, varied from $10 to $467. A strategy of one-visit visual inspection is the least costly nondominated strategy in India ($10 per year of life saved) and Kenya ($134 per year of life saved). HPV DNA testing with same-day treatment is the least costly nondominated strategy in South Africa ($467 per year of life saved). In Peru and Thailand, both one-visit visual inspection ($124 per year of life saved and $109 per year of life saved, respectively) and HPV DNA testing ($152 per year of life saved and $170 per year of life saved, respectively) dominate all other options. In all countries, an increase in screening frequency to two and three times per lifetime is more effective but costlier, as reflected in the increase in the cost-effectiveness ratio by a factor of 5 to 10.
Several strategies lying to the far right of the efficiency curve — including three-visit strategies using cytologic examination or HPV DNA testing — are consistently unattractive because they cost more but are less effective than one-visit or two-visit strategies involving visual inspection or HPV DNA testing over a wide range of sensitivity analyses. Other strategies lying adjacent to the efficiency curve — notably, two-visit HPV DNA testing, two-visit cytologic examination, and two-visit visual inspection — may be as cost-effective as strategies on the curve, given varying assumptions about medical and program-related costs, follow-up rates, and test performance.
Sensitivity Analysis
The cost-effectiveness of screening, irrespective of method, was sensitive to the costs associated with the treatment of invasive cancer and the target age of screening, whereas the choice among strategies was sensitive to test characteristics and screening costs. When the costs associated with invasive cancer were doubled, as was the case when we included the productivity costs of women dying from cervical cancer, screening with a single lifetime visual inspection or HPV DNA test became cost saving in India, Kenya, Peru, and Thailand and was less than $500 per year of life saved in South Africa. When costs were halved, the cost-effectiveness of once-in-a-lifetime screening increased by 50 to 75 percent in Kenya, Peru, and Thailand, by 25 percent in South Africa, and by a factor of 8 in India. Strategies involving a single lifetime screening when targeted to women younger than 30 or older than 45 years of age were never as cost-effective as was targeting women in their mid-30s (see the Supplementary Appendix).
In India, if the costs of HPV DNA testing were reduced by 50 percent, two-visit HPV DNA testing dominated one-visit visual-inspection strategies and cost $1 per year of life saved for one screening, $73 for two screenings, and $231 for three screenings in a lifetime. In Kenya and Peru, time and transportation accounted for most of the screening costs, and varying these costs had a greater effect than did varying the direct medical costs. Furthermore, these costs influenced the cost-effectiveness of two-visit strategies more than one-visit strategies, owing to a doubling of savings for travel and time. When these costs were lowered by 50 percent, the costs associated with all two-visit strategies were reduced considerably, although visual inspection dominated unless the costs associated with HPV DNA testing were also reduced by 50 percent.
The varying of program-related costs common to all strategies (e.g., those associated with recruitment) did not affect the rank ordering of strategies. Large changes in program-related costs associated with a particular strategy were more influential. If the costs associated with ongoing training for a one-visit visual-inspection strategy increased the total screening costs by a factor of more than five relative to two-visit HPV DNA testing, for example, the latter strategy was preferred. In contrast, two-visit HPV DNA testing became less attractive if the program-related costs of HPV DNA testing relative to a one-visit visual-inspection strategy resulted in a relative increase of more than twice the costs associated with a one-visit visual-inspection strategy.
Results were sensitive to assumptions about follow-up rates and differential screening coverage among women with different risks of cancer. If the per-visit loss to follow-up was reduced to 5 percent, two-visit strategies became more attractive. In all countries, three-visit strategies were never attractive unless there was a simultaneous reduction in the loss to follow-up, in time and travel costs, and in direct medical costs. A reduction of 50 percent in screening coverage resulted in a near-proportional increase in the expected incidence of cervical cancer, provided that all women were equally compliant. With the assumption that screening was less likely to occur in high-risk women, the expected reduction in incidence was less than proportional, making screening less cost-effective (see the Supplementary Appendix). The results for Kenya and South Africa that incorporated age-specific HIV-related mortality were stable, provided that the target population was women 35 to 40 years of age who did not have symptomatic cases of AIDS.
Discussion
The most clinically effective and cost-effective strategies in the countries we assessed were those that enhanced the linkage between screening and treatment, through either a reduced number of visits or improved follow-up, and that relied on less laboratory infrastructure than did conventional cytologic methods. The screening of women with one-visit or two-visit visual inspection or HPV DNA testing at about 35 years of age would reduce the lifetime risk of cervical cancer by 25 to 36 percent. Two screenings in a lifetime would provide a relative increase in the lifetime reduction of risk of cancer of approximately 40 percent, although the incremental benefits of three screenings are much smaller.
The lifetime costs associated with alternative screening approaches vary among countries, owing to differences in the costs associated with labor and nontradable goods and the relative proportion of direct medical, time, and transportation costs. For similar reasons, cost-effectiveness ratios vary as well. For example, the cost per year of life saved for screening twice in a lifetime with a one-visit visual-inspection strategy is $91 in India and $319 in Kenya; this same strategy with the use of HPV DNA testing costs $310 per year of life saved in Thailand, $453 in Peru, and $1,093 in South Africa. Despite considerable differences among absolute cost-effectiveness ratios, the policy implications for these countries are similar once their relative resources (e.g., per capita gross domestic product [GDP]) are considered.
There is no universal criterion that defines a threshold cost-effectiveness ratio, above which an intervention would not be considered cost-effective. We chose to use guidelines specifically intended for international comparisons, as proposed by the Commission on Macroeconomics and Health, which defines interventions with a cost-effectiveness ratio that is less than the per capita GDP as “very cost-effective.”26 Expressed in international dollars, the per capita GDP ranges from $1,005 in Kenya to $9,486 in South Africa, suggesting that screening for cervical cancer twice in a lifetime in Kenya and three times in South Africa, Peru, Thailand, and India would be considered very cost-effective. To place our results in the context of other public health interventions, the cost-effectiveness ratios that are associated with the most efficient strategies are expressed as a percentage of each country's GDP (Table 4Table 4
Cost-Effectiveness Ratios, Expressed as a Percentage of per Capita GDP, According to Country.). Strategies that involve a single lifetime screening are as cost-effective as hepatitis B immunization in India, second-line treatment for tuberculosis in Peru, and prevention of malaria with the use of bed nets in Kenya.27-29 Our analysis has several limitations. Data were combined from multiple sources with varied study designs, and many variables are uncertain. We could not account for the temporal effects of factors such as sexual behavior, although the effect of these factors on the cost-effectiveness of a strategy involving one or two screenings in a lifetime would probably be minimal. In settings with severe resource constraints, treatment for invasive cervical cancer may be unavailable. That being said, cervical cancer is one of the few cancers with a long preclinical phase, and a successful cancer-control program aimed at detecting and treating precancerous lesions therefore will reduce the number of cases that require treatment. Finally, strategies we have identified as cost-effective may be unaffordable without assistance in the poorest countries; our results can provide guidance for the global community by identifying health investments that are of the highest priority and have the greatest promise.
The cost-effectiveness of an intervention is only one consideration in terms of allocating scarce resources. All screening tests may not be equally available in all settings, and they may be selected for program-related reasons, for qualitative attributes, or for their synergy with future public health initiatives. We considered it prudent to provide results for all potentially available strategies, recognizing that country-specific circumstances vary. For example, a strategy that involves one-visit HPV DNA testing requires screening sites to run the test on the day that the sample is received. The currently available diagnostic test for HPV DNA takes several hours to process, and a same-day approach may be impractical for smaller rural settings. On the other hand, two-visit strategies may be more culturally acceptable in certain countries because women may want to discuss treatment options with family members after being screened.
Strategies that involve the use of visual inspection or HPV DNA testing and that require only one or two clinical visits offer cost-effective alternatives to conventional cytology-based screening in low-resource settings. If targeted once or twice in a lifetime to women between the ages of 35 and 45 years, these strategies would be among the most cost-effective interventions available and could lower the global incidence of cervical cancer by as much as 50 percent.
Supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; by grants to EngenderHealth, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, JHPIEGO, the Pan American Health Organization, and the Program for Appropriate Technology in Health; and by a grant (R01 CA93435) from the National Cancer Institute (to Dr. Goldie).
We are indebted to the participants, investigators, and staff members associated with the Alliance for Cervical Cancer Prevention for their outstanding dedication and commitment, including Dr. Graciela Salvador (JHPIEGO, Cervical Cancer Prevention Office), Dr. Pirom Kamolratanakul (dean, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand), Kasturi Jayant and M.K. Chauhan (Nargis Dutt Memorial Cancer Hospital, Barshi, India), Dr. Parthasarathy Basu (Chittaranjan National Cancer Institute, Calcutta, India), Sylla G. Malvi (Tata Memorial Centre, Mumbai, India), Dr. Ramani Wesley (Regional Cancer Center, Trivandrum, India), Dr. Roberto Del Aguila (Pan American Health Organization, World Health Organization [WHO], Lima), and Dr. Miguel Gonzales (Pan American Health Organization, WHO, Tarapoto, Peru); and to Steven Sweet and Jesse Ortendahl of the Harvard University Initiative for Global Health, Cambridge, Mass., for their outstanding technical and computer-programming assistance.
Source Information
From the Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston (S.J.G.); JHPIEGO, Baltimore (L.G.); the Ph.D. Program in Health Policy, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. (J.D.G.-F.); the Pan American Health Organization–World Health Organization, Washington, D.C. (A.G.-T.); the Program for Appropriate Technology in Health, Seattle (C.L.); the International Agency for Research on Cancer–World Health Organization, Lyon, France (C.M.); and the College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York (T.C.W.).
Address reprint requests to Dr. Goldie at the Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard School of Public Health, Harvard University Initiative for Global Health, 104 Mt. Auburn St., 3rd Fl., Cambridge, MA 02138, or at sue_goldie@harvard.edu.
Other members of the Alliance for Cervical Cancer Prevention Cost Working Group are listed in the Appendix.
Appendix
Other members of the Alliance for Cervical Cancer Prevention Cost Working Group are as follows: Thailand (JHPIEGO): P.D. Blumenthal (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore), K.K. Limpaphayom and S. Chaithongwongwatthana (Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand); India (International Agency for Research on Cancer–World Health Organization [IARC–WHO]): R. Sankaranarayanan and R. Muwonge (IARC–WHO, Lyon, France), R. Legood (Health Economics Research Center, Oxford, England); Kenya (Program for Appropriate Technology in Health [PATH]): V. Tsu (PATH, Seattle), K. Lewis (Reproductive Health Strategic Program, PATH, Seattle); South Africa (EngenderHealth): L. Denny (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Cape Town, South Africa); L. Kuhn (Columbia University, New York), K. Beattie (EngenderHealth, New York); Pan American Health Organization–WHO [PAHO–WHO]: S. Robles, (PAHO–WHO, Washington D.C.); and J.J. Kim (Harvard University Initiative for Global Health, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.).
- References
References
1
Ferlay J, Bray F, Pisani P, Parkin DM. GLOBOCAN 2000: cancer incidence, mortality and prevalence worldwide, version 1.0. IARC Cancerbase no. 5. Lyon, France: IARC Press, 2001.
2
Sankaranarayanan R ,Budukh AM ,Rajkumar R . Effective screening programmes for cervical cancer in low- and middle-income developing countries. Bull World Health Organ 2001;79:954-962
Web of Science | Medline3
Denny L ,Kuhn L ,Pollack A ,Wainwright H ,Wright TC Jr . Evaluation of alternative methods of cervical cancer screening for resource-poor settings. Cancer 2000;89:826-833
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline4
Visual inspection with acetic acid for cervical-cancer screening: test qualities in a primary care setting: University of Zimbabwe/JHPIEGO Cervical Cancer Project. Lancet 1999;353:869-873
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline5
Kuhn L ,Denny L ,Pollack A ,Lorincz A ,Richart RM ,Wright TC . Human papillomavirus DNA testing for cervical cancer screening in low-resource settings. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:818-825
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline6
Sankaranarayanan R ,Shyamalakumary B ,Wesley R ,Sreedevi Amma N ,Parkin DM ,Nair MK . Visual inspection with acetic acid in the early detection of cervical cancer and precursors. Int J Cancer 1999;80:161-163
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline7
Koutsky LA ,Ault KA ,Wheeler CM , et al. A controlled trial of a human papillomavirus type 16 vaccine. N Engl J Med 2002;347:1645-1651
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline8
Harper DM ,Franco EL ,Wheeler C , et al. Efficacy of a bivalent L1 virus-like particle vaccine in prevention of infection with human papillomavirus type 16 and 18 in young women: a randomised control trial. Lancet 2004;364:1757-1765
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline9
World Bank WDI Online. (Accessed October 24, 2005, at http://www.worldbank.org/data/countrydata/countrydata.html.)
10
Women and men in the informal economy: a statistical picture. International Labour Office Report. (Accessed October 24, 2005, at: http://www.ilo.org/public/english/employment/gems/download/women.pdf.)
11
Department of Commerce. 1999 Income data. (Accessed October 24, 2005, at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/wages/99wages/99wages.htm.)
12
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;285:3107-3115[Erratum, JAMA 2001;286:1026.]
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline13
Mandelblatt JS ,Lawrence WF ,Gaffikin L , et al. Costs and benefits of different strategies to screen for cervical cancer in less-developed countries. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94:1469-1483
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline14
Disease Control Priorities Project guidelines. (Accessed October 24, 2005, at http://www.fic.nih.gov/dcpp/authors.html.)
15
Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russel LB, Weinstein MC, eds. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.
16
World Health Organization. Life tables for 191 countries. (Accessed October 24, 2005, at http://www3.who.int/whosis/life_tables/life_tables_process.cfm?country=tcd&language=en.)
17
Future directions in epidemiologic and preventive research on human papillomavirus and cancer. In: Bosch FX, Schiffman M, Solomon D, eds. National Cancer Institute monograph no. 31. Bethesda, Md.: National Cancer Institute, 2003.
18
Alliance for Cervical Cancer Prevention (ACCP). Effectiveness, safety, and acceptability of cryotherapy: a systematic literature review. (Accessed October 24, 2005, at http://www.alliance-cxca.org/english/publications.html#presentations.)
19
World Health Organization statistical information system: CHOICE (CHOosing Interventions that are Cost Effective). (Accessed October 24, 2005, at http://www3.who.int/whosis/.)
20
Department of Labor. Wages, benefits, poverty line, and meeting workers' needs in the apparel and footwear industries of selected countries. (Accessed October 24, 2005, at http://www.dol.gov/ilab/media/reports/oiea/wagestudy/wagestudy.pdf.)
21
Nominal interbank exchange rates (year averages). (Accessed October 24, 2005, at http://www.oanda.com/convert/fxhistory.)
22
Johns B ,Baltussen R ,Hutubessy R . Programme costs in the economic evaluation of health interventions. Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation 2003;1:1-1
CrossRef | Medline23
International Center for Tropical Agriculture. Accessibility, transport and travel time information. (Accessed October 24, 2005, at http://gisweb.ciat.cgiar.org/cross_scale/download/2.5_web.pdf.)
24
Waggoner SE . Cervical cancer. Lancet 2003;361:2217-2225
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline25
van Ballegooijen M ,Koopmanschap M ,Tjokrowardojo AJ ,van Oortmarssen GJ . Care and costs of advanced cervical cancer. Eur J Cancer 1992;28:1703-1708
CrossRef26
World Health Organization. Macroeconomics and health: investing in health for economic development: report of the Commission on Macroeconomics and Health. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2001.
27
Aggarwal R ,Ghoshal UC ,Naik SR . Assessment of cost-effectiveness of universal hepatitis B immunization in a low-income country with intermediate endemicity using a Markov model. J Hepatol 2003;38:215-222
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline28
Wiseman V ,Hawley WA ,ter Kuile F , et al. The cost-effectiveness of permethrin-treated bed nets in an area of intense malaria transmission in western Kenya. Am J Trop Med Hyg 2003;68:Suppl 4:161-167
Web of Science | Medline29
Suarez PG ,Floyd K ,Portocarrero J , et al. Feasibility and cost-effectiveness of standardised second-line drug treatment for chronic tuberculosis patients: a national cohort study in Peru. Lancet 2002;359:1980-1989
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline
- Citing Articles (116)
Citing Articles
1
F.-H. Zhao, A. K. Lewkowitz, F. Chen, M. J. Lin, S.-Y. Hu, X. Zhang, Q.-J. Pan, J.-F. Ma, M. Niyazi, C.-Q. Li, S.-M. Li, J. S. Smith, J. L. Belinson, Y.-L. Qiao, P. E. Castle. (2012) Pooled Analysis of a Self-Sampling HPV DNA Test as a Cervical Cancer Primary Screening Method. JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute
CrossRef2
Deborah Maine, Sarah Hurlburt. (2012) Maine and Hurlburt Respond. American Journal of Public Healthe1-e1
CrossRef3
M Sharma, J Ortendahl, E van der Ham, S Sy, JJ Kim. (2012) Cost-effectiveness of human papillomavirus vaccination and cervical cancer screening in Thailand. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 119:2, 166-176
CrossRef4
Ahmedin Jemal, Freddie Bray, David Forman, Meg O'Brien, Jacques Ferlay, Melissa Center, D. Maxwell Parkin. (2012) Cancer burden in Africa and opportunities for prevention. Cancern/a-n/a
CrossRef5
B. L. Quincy, D. J. Turbow, L. N. Dabinett. (2012) Acceptability of self-collected human papillomavirus specimens as a primary screen for cervical cancer. Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 32:1, 87-91
CrossRef6
Meng-Kan Chen, Hui-Fang Hung, Stephen Duffy, Amy Ming-Fang Yen, Hsiu-Hsi Chen. (2011) Cost-effectiveness analysis for Pap smear screening and human papillomavirus DNA testing and vaccination. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 17:6, 1050-1058
CrossRef7
Shalini Kulasingam, Laura Havrilesky. (2011) Health economics of screening for gynaecological cancers. Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology
CrossRef8
Daniel Echelman, Sarah Feldman. (2011) Management of Cervical Precancers: A Global Perspective. Hematology/Oncology Clinics of North America
CrossRef9
Rengaswamy Sankaranarayanan, Ashrafun Nessa, Pulikattil Okkuru Esmy, Jean-Marie Dangou. (2011) Visual inspection methods for cervical cancer prevention. Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology
CrossRef10
Lisa D. Levine, Scott G. Chudnoff, Kathleen Taylor, Michael Baganizi, Erika Banks. (2011) A 5-day educational program for teaching cervical cancer screening using visual inspection with acetic acid in low-resource settings. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics 115:2, 171-174
CrossRef11
Silvana Luciani, Sergio Munoz, Miguel Gonzales, Jose M. Delgado, Mario Valcarcel. (2011) Effectiveness of cervical cancer screening using visual inspection with acetic acid in Peru. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics 115:1, 53-56
CrossRef12
Naiyana Praditsitthikorn, Yot Teerawattananon, Sripen Tantivess, Supon Limwattananon, Arthorn Riewpaiboon, Saibua Chichareon, Nantakan Ieumwananonthachai, Viroj Tangcharoensathien. (2011) Economic Evaluation of Policy Options for Prevention and Control of Cervical Cancer in Thailand. PharmacoEconomics 29:9, 781-806
CrossRef13
Timon P.H. Buys, Scott B. Cantor, Martial Guillaud, Karen Adler-Storthz, Dennis D. Cox, Clement Okolo, Oyedunni Arulogon, Oladimeji Oladepo, Karen Basen-Engquist, Eileen Shinn, José-Miguel Yamal, J. Robert Beck, Michael E. Scheurer, Dirk van Niekerk, Anais Malpica, Jasenka Matisic, Gregg Staerkel, Edward Neely Atkinson, Luc Bidaut, Pierre Lane, J. Lou Benedet, Dianne Miller, Tom Ehlen, Roderick Price, Isaac F. Adelwole, Calum MacAulay, Michele Follen. (2011) Optical Technologies and Molecular Imaging for Cervical Neoplasia: A Program Project Update. Gender Medicine
CrossRef14
Carla J. Chibwesha, Susan Cu-Uvin. (2011) See-and-Treat Approaches to Cervical Cancer Prevention for HIV-Infected Women. Current HIV/AIDS Reports 8:3, 192-199
CrossRef15
Vikrant V Sahasrabuddhe, Patricia Luhn, Nicolas Wentzensen. (2011) Human papillomavirus and cervical cancer: biomarkers for improved prevention efforts. Future Microbiology 6:9, 1083-1098
CrossRef16
Deborah Maine, Sarah Hurlburt, Dana Greeson. (2011) Cervical Cancer Prevention in the 21st Century: Cost Is Not the Only Issue. American Journal of Public Health 101:9, 1549-1555
CrossRef17
D. Maine, S. Hurlburt, D. Greeson. (2011) Cervical Cancer Prevention in the 21st Century: Cost Is Not the Only Issue. American Journal of Public Health 101:9, 1549-1555
CrossRef18
Tazio Vanni, Rosa Legood, Eduardo L. Franco, Luisa L. Villa, Paula Mendes Luz, Gilberto Schwartsmann. (2011) Economic evaluation of strategies for managing women with equivocal cytological results in Brazil. International Journal of Cancer 129:3, 671-679
CrossRef19
Megan J. Huchko, Elizabeth A. Bukusi, Craig R. Cohen. (2011) Building capacity for cervical cancer screening in outpatient HIV clinics in the Nyanza province of western Kenya. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics 114:2, 106-110
CrossRef20
Geoffrey P Garnett, Simon Cousens, Timothy B Hallett, Richard Steketee, Neff Walker. (2011) Mathematical models in the evaluation of health programmes. The Lancet 378:9790, 515-525
CrossRef21
J. Monsonego. (2011) EUROGIN 2010 : feuille de route pour la prévention du cancer du col de l’utérus. Gynécologie Obstétrique & Fertilité 39:7-8, 462-467
CrossRef22
Wilm Quentin, Yaw Adu-Sarkodie, Fern Terris-Prestholt, Rosa Legood, Baafuor K. Opoku, Philippe Mayaud. (2011) Costs of cervical cancer screening and treatment using visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) and cryotherapy in Ghana: the importance of scale. Tropical Medicine & International Health 16:3, 379-389
CrossRef23
Nicole G. Campos, Jane J. Kim, Philip E. Castle, Jesse D. Ortendahl, Meredith O'Shea, Mireia Diaz, Sue J. Goldie. (2011) Health and economic impact of HPV 16/18 vaccination and cervical cancer screening in Eastern Africa. International Journal of Cancern/a-n/a
CrossRef24
Julia C. Gage, Kayode O. Ajenifuja, Nicolas A. Wentzensen, Akinfolarin C. Adepiti, Claire Eklund, Mary Reilly, Martha Hutchinson, Sholom Wacholder, Joe Harford, Amr S. Soliman, Robert D. Burk, Mark Schiffman. (2011) The age-specific prevalence of human papillomavirus and risk of cytologic abnormalities in rural Nigeria: Implications for screen-and-treat strategies. International Journal of Cancern/a-n/a
CrossRef25
Ju-Fang Shi, Karen Canfell, Jie-Bin Lew, Fang-Hui Zhao, Rosa Legood, Yan Ning, Leonardo Simonella, Li Ma, Yoon-Jung Kang, Yong-Zhen Zhang, Megan A Smith, Jun-Feng Chen, Xiang-Xian Feng, You-Lin Qiao. (2011) Evaluation of primary HPV-DNA testing in relation to visual inspection methods for cervical cancer screening in rural China: an epidemiologic and cost-effectiveness modelling study. BMC Cancer 11:1, 239
CrossRef26
Tazio Vanni, Paula Mendes Luz, Beatriz Grinsztejn, Valdilea G. Veloso, Anna Foss, Marco Mesa-Frias, Rosa Legood. (2011) Cervical cancer screening among HIV-infected women: An economic evaluation in a middle-income country. International Journal of Cancern/a-n/a
CrossRef27
AN Fiander. (2011) The prevention of cervical cancer in Africa. Women's Health 7:1, 121-132
CrossRef28
Amelia Acera, Ana Rodriguez, Marta Trapero-Bertran, Pilar Soteras, Norman Sanchez, Josep M Bonet, Josep M Manresa, Pablo Hidalgo, Pere Toran, Gemma Prieto. (2011) Economic evaluation of three populational screening strategies for cervical cancer in the county of Valles Occidental: CRICERVA clinical trial.. BMC Health Services Research 11:1, 278
CrossRef29
I H-I Chow, C-H Tang, S-L You, C-H Liao, T-Y Chu, C-J Chen, C-A Chen, R-F Pwu. (2010) Cost-effectiveness analysis of human papillomavirus DNA testing and Pap smear for cervical cancer screening in a publicly financed health-care system. British Journal of Cancer 103:12, 1773-1782
CrossRef30
Laura A. McLay, Christodoulos Foufoulides, Jason R. W. Merrick. (2010) Using simulation-optimization to construct screening strategies for cervical cancer. Health Care Management Science 13:4, 294-318
CrossRef31
Shelley A. Francis, Jennifer Nelson, Joan Liverpool, Soji Soogun, Nokuthula Mofammere, Roland J. Thorpe. (2010) Examining attitudes and knowledge about HPV and cervical cancer risk among female clinic attendees in Johannesburg, South Africa. Vaccine 28:50, 8026-8032
CrossRef32
L. Denny, L. Kuhn, C.-C. Hu, W.-Y. Tsai, T. C. Wright. (2010) Human Papillomavirus-Based Cervical Cancer Prevention: Long-term Results of a Randomized Screening Trial. JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute 102:20, 1557-1567
CrossRef33
Louise Kuhn, Chunhui Wang, Wei-Yann Tsai, Thomas C Wright, Lynette Denny. (2010) Efficacy of human papillomavirus-based screen-and-treat for cervical cancer prevention among HIV-infected women. AIDS 24:16, 2553-2561
CrossRef34
R. Sankaranarayanan, P. Boffetta. (2010) Research on cancer prevention, detection and management in low- and medium-income countries. Annals of Oncology 21:10, 1935-1943
CrossRef35
Carol E. Levin, John Sellors, Ju-Fang Shi, Li Ma, You-lin Qiao, Jesse Ortendahl, Meredith K.H. O'Shea, Sue J. Goldie. (2010) Cost-effectiveness analysis of cervical cancer prevention based on a rapid human papillomavirus screening test in a high-risk region of China. International Journal of Cancer 127:6, 1404-1411
CrossRef36
Raul Murillo, Joaquin Luna, Oscar Gamboa, Elkin Osorio, Jairo Bonilla, Ricardo Cendales. (2010) Cervical cancer screening with naked-eye visual inspection in Colombia. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics 109:3, 230-234
CrossRef37
Alok C Bharti, Shirish Shukla, Sutapa Mahata, Suresh Hedau, Bhudev C Das. (2010) Human papillomavirus and control of cervical cancer in India. Expert Review of Obstetrics & Gynecology 5:3, 329-346
CrossRef38
Max Kling, Joshua A. Zeichner. (2010) The role of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine in developing countries. International Journal of Dermatology 49:4, 377-379
CrossRef39
Rebecca B. Perkins, Sarah M. Langrish, Linda J. Stern, James F. Burgess, Carol J. Simon. (2010) Impact of Patient Adherence and Test Performance on the Cost-Effectiveness of Cervical Cancer Screening in Developing Countries. Women's Health Issues 20:1, 35-42
CrossRef40
A.J. Cagle, S.Y. Hu, J.W. Sellors, Y.P. Bao, J.M. Lim, S.M. Li, K. Lewis, Y. Song, J.F. Ma, Q.J. Pan, W.H. Zhang, F.H. Zhao, Y.L. Qiao. (2010) Use of an expanded gold standard to estimate the accuracy of colposcopy and visual inspection with acetic acid. International Journal of Cancer 126:1, 156-161
CrossRef41
Peng Luo, Lei Zhang, Zhou Fei, Guang Cheng. (2010) Identification of children with low-risk brain injuries. The Lancet 375:9710, 198-199
CrossRef42
Edina Sinanovic, Jennifer Moodley, Mark A. Barone, Sumaya Mall, Susan Cleary, Jane Harries. (2009) The potential cost-effectiveness of adding a human papillomavirus vaccine to the cervical cancer screening programme in South Africa. Vaccine 27:44, 6196-6202
CrossRef43
Karly S. Louie, Silvia de Sanjose, Philippe Mayaud. (2009) Epidemiology and prevention of human papillomavirus and cervical cancer in sub-Saharan Africa: a comprehensive review. Tropical Medicine & International Health 14:10, 1287-1302
CrossRef44
Gary Michael Ginsberg, Tessa Tan-Torres Edejer, Jeremy A. Lauer, Cecilia Sepulveda. (2009) Screening, prevention and treatment of cervical cancer—A global and regional generalized cost-effectiveness analysis. Vaccine 27:43, 6060-6079
CrossRef45
Lisandro Colantonio, Jorge A. Gómez, Nadia Demarteau, Baudouin Standaert, Andrés Pichón-Rivière, Federico Augustovski. (2009) Cost-effectiveness analysis of a cervical cancer vaccine in five Latin American countries. Vaccine 27:40, 5519-5529
CrossRef46
Silvana Luciani, Barbara Jauregui, Clemence Kieny, Jon Kim Andrus. (2009) Human papillomavirus vaccines: new tools for accelerating cervical cancer prevention in developing countries. Immunotherapy 1:5, 795-807
CrossRef47
Lara C. Weinstein, Edward M. Buchanan, Christina Hillson, Christopher V. Chambers. (2009) Screening and Prevention: Cervical Cancer. Primary Care: Clinics in Office Practice 36:3, 559-574
CrossRef48
Natasha K. Stout, Amy B. Knudsen, Chung Yin Kong, Pamela M. McMahon, G. Scott Gazelle. (2009) Calibration Methods Used in Cancer Simulation Models and Suggested Reporting Guidelines. PharmacoEconomics 27:7, 533-545
CrossRef49
Mulindi H Mwanahamuntu, Vikrant V Sahasrabuddhe, Krista S Pfaendler, Victor Mudenda, Michael L Hicks, Sten H Vermund, Jeffrey SA Stringer, Groesbeck P Parham. (2009) Implementation of ‘see-and-treat’ cervical cancer prevention services linked to HIV care in Zambia. AIDS1
CrossRef50
Arthi Vijayaraghavan, Molly Efrusy, Gerhard Lindeque, Greta Dreyer, Christopher Santas. (2009) Cost effectiveness of high-risk HPV DNA testing for cervical cancer screening in South Africa. Gynecologic Oncology 112:2, 377-383
CrossRef51
Janis M. Taube, Betty Kamira, Mahnaz Motevalli, Clemensia Nakabiito, Robert Lukande, Deidra P. Kelly, Yener S. Erozan, Patti E. Gravitt, Megan E. Buresh, Francis Mmiro, Danstan Bagenda, Laura A. Guay, J. Brooks Jackson. (2009) Human papillomavirus prevalence and cytopathology correlation in young Ugandan women using a low-cost liquid-based Pap preparation. Diagnostic CytopathologyNA-NA
CrossRef52
S. KACHROO, C.J. ETZEL. (2009) Decreasing the cancer burden in developing countries: concerns and recommendations. European Journal of Cancer Care 18:1, 18-21
CrossRef53
Tosin Ogunbowale, Taiwo O. Lawoyin. (2008) Cervical cancer risk factors and predictors of cervical dysplasia among women in south-west Nigeria. Australian Journal of Rural Health 16:6, 338-342
CrossRef54
David J. Cohen, Matthew R. Reynolds. (2008) Interpreting the Results of Cost-Effectiveness Studies. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 52:25, 2119-2126
CrossRef55
Douglas R. Lowy, Diane Solomon, Allan Hildesheim, John T. Schiller, Mark Schiffman. (2008) Human papillomavirus infection and the primary and secondary prevention of cervical cancer. Cancer 113:S7, 1980-1993
CrossRef56
You-lin Qiao, John W Sellors, Paul S Eder, Yan-ping Bao, Jeanette M Lim, Fang-hui Zhao, Bernhard Weigl, Wen-hua Zhang, Roger B Peck, Ling Li, Feng Chen, Qing-jing Pan, Attila T Lorincz. (2008) A new HPV-DNA test for cervical-cancer screening in developing regions: a cross-sectional study of clinical accuracy in rural China. The Lancet Oncology 9:10, 929-936
CrossRef57
Nadhi Thekkek, Rebecca Richards-Kortum. (2008) Optical imaging for cervical cancer detection: solutions for a continuing global problem. Nature Reviews Cancer 8:9, 725-731
CrossRef58
Patti E. Gravitt, François Coutlée, Thomas Iftner, John W. Sellors, Wim G.V. Quint, Cosette M. Wheeler. (2008) New Technologies in Cervical Cancer Screening. Vaccine 26, K42-K52
CrossRef59
Rolando Herrero, Catterina Ferreccio, Jorge Salmerón, Maribel Almonte, Gloria Ines Sánchez, Eduardo Lazcano-Ponce, José Jerónimo. (2008) New Approaches to Cervical Cancer Screening in Latin America and the Caribbean. Vaccine 26, L49-L58
CrossRef60
Jack Cuzick, Marc Arbyn, Rengaswamy Sankaranarayanan, Vivien Tsu, Guglielmo Ronco, Marie-Helene Mayrand, Joakim Dillner, Chris J.L.M. Meijer. (2008) Overview of Human Papillomavirus-Based and Other Novel Options for Cervical Cancer Screening in Developed and Developing Countries. Vaccine 26, K29-K41
CrossRef61
Raul Murillo, Maribel Almonte, Ana Pereira, Elena Ferrer, Oscar A. Gamboa, José Jerónimo, Eduardo Lazcano-Ponce. (2008) Cervical Cancer Screening Programs in Latin America and the Caribbean. Vaccine 26, L37-L48
CrossRef62
Rengaswamy Sankaranarayanan, Neerja Bhatla, Patti E. Gravitt, Partha Basu, Pulikattil O. Esmy, K.S. Ashrafunnessa, Yasantha Ariyaratne, Aarati Shah, Bhagwan M. Nene. (2008) Human Papillomavirus Infection and Cervical Cancer Prevention in India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Nepal. Vaccine 26, M43-M52
CrossRef63
Sue J. Goldie, Mireia Diaz, Sun-Young Kim, Carol E. Levin, Hoang Van Minh, Jane J. Kim. (2008) Mathematical Models of Cervical Cancer Prevention in the Asia Pacific Region. Vaccine 26, M17-M29
CrossRef64
Sue J. Goldie, Mireia Diaz, Dagna Constenla, Nelson Alvis, Jon Kim Andrus, Sun-Young Kim. (2008) Mathematical Models of Cervical Cancer Prevention in Latin America and the Caribbean. Vaccine 26, L59-L72
CrossRef65
M Diaz, J J Kim, G Albero, S de Sanjosé, G Clifford, F X Bosch, S J Goldie. (2008) Health and economic impact of HPV 16 and 18 vaccination and cervical cancer screening in India. British Journal of Cancer 99:2, 230-238
CrossRef66
P.-M. TEBEU, A.L. MAJOR, E. RAPITI, P. PETIGNAT, C. BOUCHARDY, Z. SANDO, L. de BERNIS, L. ALI, P. MHAWECH-FAUCEGLIA. (2008) The attitude and knowledge of cervical cancer by Cameroonian women; a clinical survey conducted in Maroua, the capital of Far North Province of Cameroon. International Journal of Gynecological Cancer 18:4, 761-765
CrossRef67
Sue J. Goldie, Meredith O'Shea, Nicole Gastineau Campos, Mireia Diaz, Steven Sweet, Sun-Young Kim. (2008) Health and economic outcomes of HPV 16,18 vaccination in 72 GAVI-eligible countries. Vaccine 26:32, 4080-4093
CrossRef68
H Pilgrim, J Chilcott. (2008) Assessment of a 7-day turn-around for the reporting of cervical smear results using discrete event simulation. Journal of the Operational Research Society 59:7, 902-910
CrossRef69
Jane J. Kim, Katie E. Kobus, Mireia Diaz, Meredith O'Shea, Hoang Van Minh, Sue J. Goldie. (2008) Exploring the cost-effectiveness of HPV vaccination in Vietnam: Insights for evidence-based cervical cancer prevention policy. Vaccine 26:32, 4015-4024
CrossRef70
Silvana Luciani, Miguel Gonzales, Sergio Munoz, Jose Jeronimo, Sylvia Robles. (2008) Effectiveness of cryotherapy treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics 101:2, 172-177
CrossRef71
Evan Myers, Warner K. Huh, Jason D. Wright, Jennifer S. Smith. (2008) The current and future role of screening in the era of HPV vaccination. Gynecologic Oncology 109:2, S31-S39
CrossRef72
Lynette Denny. (2008) Prevention of cervical cancer in developing countries. Therapy 5:3, 329-338
CrossRef73
Kathleen Strong, Colin Mathers, JoAnne Epping-Jordan, Serge Resnikoff, Andreas Ullrich. (2008) Preventing cancer through tobacco and infection control: how many lives can we save in the next 10 years?. European Journal of Cancer Prevention 17:2, 153-161
CrossRef74
A. L. Akinwuntan, O. A. Adesina, C. A. Okolo, O. A. Oluwasola, A. Oladokun, A. A. Ifemeje, I. F. Adewole. (2008) Correlation of cervical cytology and visual inspection with acetic acid in HIV-positive women. Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 28:6, 638-641
CrossRef75
Sun Young Park, Michele Follen, Andrea Milbourne, Helen Rhodes, Anais Malpica, Nick MacKinnon, Calum MacAulay, Mia K. Markey, Rebecca Richards-Kortum. (2008) Automated image analysis of digital colposcopy for the detection of cervical neoplasia. Journal of Biomedical Optics 13:1, 014029
CrossRef76
Paolo Giorgi-Rossi, Nereo Segnan, Marco Zappa, Carlo Naldoni, Manuel Zorzi, Massimo Confortini, Monica Merito, Jack Cuzick, Guglielmo Ronco, . (2007) The impact of new technologies in cervical cancer screening: Results of the recruitment phase of a large randomised controlled trial from a public health perspective. International Journal of Cancer 121:12, 2729-2734
CrossRef77
Nina Fotinatos, Adrian Warmington, Todd Walker, Mark Pilbeam. (2007) Estimates for cervical abnormalities in Vanuatu. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health 31:6, 571-575
CrossRef78
Thomas C. Wright, Paul Blumenthal, Janet Bradley, Lynette Denny, Pulikattil Okkaru Esmy, Kasturi Jayant, Bhagwan M. Nene, Amy E. Pollack, Rajamanickam Rajkumar, Rengaswamy Sankaranarayanan, John W. Sellors, Surendra S. Shastri, Jacqueline Sherris, Vivien Tsu. (2007) Cervical cancer prevention for all the world's women: New approaches offer opportunities and promise. Diagnostic Cytopathology 35:12, 845-848
CrossRef79
Jeong-Hoon Bae, Jong-Sup Park. (2007) Emerging biomarkers in the detection, diagnosis and management of cervical dysplasia and carcinoma. Expert Opinion on Medical Diagnostics 1:3, 305-314
CrossRef80
C. Derancourt. (2007) Prophylaxie vaccinale de l’infection à papillomavirus humains. Annales de Dermatologie et de Vénéréologie 134:11, 882-885
CrossRef81
Adhemar Longatto-Filho, Fernando C. Schmitt. (2007) Gynecological cytology: Too old to be a pop star but too young to die. Diagnostic Cytopathology 35:10, 672-673
CrossRef82
Darren Roblyer, Sun-Young Park, Rebecca Richards-Kortum, Isaac Adewole, Michele Follen. (2007) Objective screening for cervical cancer in developing nations: Lessons from Nigeria. Gynecologic Oncology 107:1, S94-S97
CrossRef83
R. B. Perkins, S. M. Langrish, L. J. Stern, J. Figueroa, C. J. Simon. (2007) Comparison of visual inspection and Papanicolau (PAP) smears for cervical cancer screening in Honduras: should PAP smears be abandoned?. Tropical Medicine & International Health 12:9, 1018-1025
CrossRef84
Mark Schiffman, Philip E Castle, Jose Jeronimo, Ana C Rodriguez, Sholom Wacholder. (2007) Human papillomavirus and cervical cancer. The Lancet 370:9590, 890-907
CrossRef85
Sue J. Goldie, Jane J. Kim, Katie Kobus, Jeremy D. Goldhaber-Fiebert, Joshua Salomon, Meredith K.H. O'Shea, F. Xavier Bosch, Silvia de Sanjosé, Eduardo L. Franco. (2007) Cost-effectiveness of HPV 16, 18 vaccination in Brazil. Vaccine 25:33, 6257-6270
CrossRef86
Rengaswamy Sankaranarayanan, Pulikkottil Okkuru Esmy, Rajamanickam Rajkumar, Richard Muwonge, Rajaraman Swaminathan, Sivanandam Shanthakumari, Jean-Marie Fayette, Jacob Cherian. (2007) Effect of visual screening on cervical cancer incidence and mortality in Tamil Nadu, India: a cluster-randomised trial. The Lancet 370:9585, 398-406
CrossRef87
Meherbano M. Kamal, Rekha U. Sapkal, Chhaya S. Sarodey, Maitreyee M. Munshi, Yamini D. Alsi, Mrudul A. Chande, Sneha R. Hingway, Seema Dandige, Utpala S. Kane, Ragini Kshirsagar, Madhvi Tangsale, Sanjay Zodpey, Archana B. Patel, Manju Mamtani, Hemant Kulkarni. (2007) Comparative study of four candidate strategies to detect cervical cancer in different health care settings. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research 33:4, 480-489
CrossRef88
Alejandro García Carrancá, Silvia C Galván. (2007) Vaccines against human papillomavirus: perspectives for controlling cervical cancer. Expert Review of Vaccines 6:4, 497-510
CrossRef89
Sanjay Gupta, Veena Singh, Ashok Sehgal, Pushpa Sodhani. (2007) Cervical cancer in resource-limited settings: preventable but not yet prevented. Expert Review of Obstetrics & Gynecology 2:4, 515-527
CrossRef90
William J. Frable. (2007) Screening for cervical cancer-controversy and contention or thoughtful analysis. Cancer 111:3, 143-144
CrossRef91
Agosti, Jan M., Goldie, Sue J., . (2007) Introducing HPV Vaccine in Developing Countries — Key Challenges and Issues. New England Journal of Medicine 356:19, 1908-1910
Full Text92
Michael Anthony Quinn. (2007) Should all women be vaccinated against human papillomavirus and what effect will this have on screening programs?. Expert Review of Obstetrics & Gynecology 2:3, 315-319
CrossRef93
Paul D. Blumenthal, Lynne Gaffikin, Sylvia Deganus, Robbyn Lewis, Mark Emerson, Sydney Adadevoh. (2007) Cervical cancer prevention: safety, acceptability, and feasibility of a single-visit approach in Accra, Ghana. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 196:4, 407.e1-407.e9
CrossRef94
Buncha PALANUWONG. (2007) Alternative cervical cancer prevention in low-resource settings: Experiences of visual inspection by acetic acid with single-visit approach in the first five provinces of Thailand. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 47:1, 54-60
CrossRef95
Maurie Markman. (2007) Cancer Screening: Understanding Barriers to Optimal Use of Evidence-Based Strategies. Journal of Women's Health 16:1, 9-10
CrossRef96
Joo-Hyun Nam. (2007) Research on Uterine Cervical Cancer in Korea : Current Status and Perspectives. Journal of the Korean Medical Association 50:9, 807
CrossRef97
R. Ruland, C. Prugger, R. Schiffer, M. Regidor, R. J. Lellé. (2006) Prevalence of human papilloma virus infection in women in rural Ethiopia. European Journal of Epidemiology 21:9, 727-729
CrossRef98
J. Sherris, T. C. Wright, L. Denny, R. Sankaranarayanan, A. E. Pollack, H. Sanghvi, J. W. Sellors. (2006) ALLIANCE FOR CERVICAL CANCER PREVENTION: SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT. American Journal of Public Health 97:2, 200-201
CrossRef99
Tom Cox, Jack Cuzick. (2006) HPV DNA testing in cervical cancer screening: From evidence to policies. Gynecologic Oncology 103:1, 8-11
CrossRef100
Judy M. Lee, Deidra Kelly, Patti E. Gravitt, Zoya Fansler, John A. Maksem, Douglas P. Clark. (2006) Validation of a low-cost, liquid-based screening method for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 195:4, 965-970
CrossRef101
David W Dowdy, Michael D Sweat, David R Holtgrave. (2006) Country-wide distribution of the nitrile female condom (FC2) in Brazil and South Africa: a cost-effectiveness analysis. AIDS 20:16, 2091-2098
CrossRef102
Ghislain Sangwa-Lugoma, Salaheddin Mahmud, Samih H. Nasr, Jean Liaras, Patrick K. Kayembe, Rahma R. Tozin, Pierre Drouin, Attila Lorincz, Alex Ferenczy, Eduardo L. Franco. (2006) Visual inspection as a cervical cancer screening method in a primary health care setting in Africa. International Journal of Cancer 119:6, 1389-1395
CrossRef103
Goldie, Sue J., Yazdanpanah, Yazdan, Losina, Elena, Weinstein, Milton C., Anglaret, Xavier, Walensky, Rochelle P., Hsu, Heather E., Kimmel, April, Holmes, Charles, Kaplan, Jonathan E., Freedberg, Kenneth A., . (2006) Cost-Effectiveness of HIV Treatment in Resource-Poor Settings — The Case of Côte d'Ivoire. New England Journal of Medicine 355:11, 1141-1153
Full Text104
Awori Jeremiah Hayanga. (2006) HPV, cervical dysplasia and anal cancer screening—A need for liaison between gynecology and colorectal clinics. Gynecologic Oncology 102:3, 600-601
CrossRef105
P.F. ESCOBAR, L. ROJAS-ESPAILLAT, S. TISCI, C. ENERSON, J. BRAINARD, J. SMITH, N.J. TRESSER, F.I. FELDCHTEIN, L.B. ROJAS, J.L. BELINSON. (2006) Optical coherence tomography as a diagnostic aid to visual inspection and colposcopy for preinvasive and invasive cancer of the uterine cervix. International Journal of Gynecological Cancer 16:5, 1815-1822
CrossRef106
Sue J. Goldie, Jeremy D. Goldhaber-Fiebert, Geoffrey P. Garnett. (2006) Chapter 18: Public health policy for cervical cancer prevention: The role of decision science, economic evaluation, and mathematical modeling. Vaccine 24, S155-S163
CrossRef107
Lynette Denny, Michael Quinn, R. Sankaranarayanan. (2006) Chapter 8: Screening for cervical cancer in developing countries. Vaccine 24, S71-S77
CrossRef108
Allan Hildesheim, Lauri Markowitz, Mauricio Hernandez Avila, Silvia Franceschi. (2006) Chapter 27: Research needs following initial licensure of virus-like particle HPV vaccines. Vaccine 24, S227-S232
CrossRef109
Henry C. Kitchener, Philip E. Castle, J. Thomas Cox. (2006) Chapter 7: Achievements and limitations of cervical cytology screening. Vaccine 24, S63-S70
CrossRef110
Sue J. Goldie, Jane J. Kim, Evan Myers. (2006) Chapter 19: Cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening. Vaccine 24, S164-S170
CrossRef111
Nam K. Tran, Gerald J. Kost. (2006) Worldwide Point-of-Care Testing. Point of Care: The Journal of Near-Patient Testing & Technology 5:2, 84-92
CrossRef112
David H. Moore. (2006) Cervical Cancer. Obstetrics & Gynecology 107:5, 1152-1161
CrossRef113
(2006) Cost-Effectiveness of Cervical-Cancer Screening in Developing Countries. New England Journal of Medicine 354:14, 1535-1536
Full Text114
Ronald W. Jones. (2006) Microscopes, microbes and molecules: Evolution of our understanding of the cause and natural history of the precursor lesions of squamous lower genital tract neoplasia*. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research 32:2, 128-134
CrossRef115
E. J. Suba. (2006) Systems Analysis of Real-World Obstacles to Successful Cervical Cancer Prevention in Developing Countries. American Journal of Public Health 96:3, 480-487
CrossRef116
Schiffman, Mark, Castle, Philip E., . (2005) The Promise of Global Cervical-Cancer Prevention. New England Journal of Medicine 353:20, 2101-2104
Full Text
- Letters
