Published 28 July 2009, doi:10.1136/bmj.b2549
Cite this as: BMJ 2009;339:b2549

Research

Options for managing low grade cervical abnormalities detected at screening: cost effectiveness study

Objective To estimate the cost effectiveness of alternative methods of managing low grade cervical cytological abnormalities detected at routine screening.

Design Cost analysis within multicentre individually randomised controlled trial.

Setting Grampian, Tayside, and Nottingham.

Participants 4201 women with low grade abnormalities.

Interventions Cytological surveillance or referral to colposcopy for biopsy and recall if necessary or referral to colposcopy with immediate treatment based on colposcopic appearance.

Main outcome measures Data on resource use collected from participants throughout the duration of the trial (36 months), enabling the estimation of both the direct (health care) and indirect (time and travel) costs of management. Quality of life assessed at recruitment and at 12, 18, 24, and 30 months, using the EQ-5D instrument. Economic outcomes expressed as costs per case of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (grade II or worse) detected, by trial arm, as confirmed at exit, and cost utility ratios (cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained) for the three pairwise comparisons of trial arms.

Results The mean three year discounted costs of surveillance, immediate treatment, and biopsy and recall were £150.20 (177, $249), £240.30 (283, $415), and £241.10 (284, $4000), respectively, viewed from the health service perspective. From the social perspective, mean discounted costs were £204.40 (241, $339), £339.90 (440, $563), and £327.50 (386, $543), respectively. Estimated at the means, the incremental cost effectiveness ratios indicated that immediate treatment was dominated by the other two management methods, although it did offer the lowest cost per case of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia detected and treated. The pronounced skews in the distributions indicated that probabilistic uncertainty analysis would offer more meaningful estimates of cost effectiveness. The observed differences in the cost effectiveness ratios between trial arms were not significant.

Conclusion Judged within the time frame of the TOMBOLA evaluation, there is no compelling economic reason to favour any one follow-up method over either of the others.

Trial Registration ISRCTN 34841617.

© 2009
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    StumbleUpon    Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Articles

An embarrassment of riches

Trish Groves
BMJ 2009 339: b3186. [Extract] [Full Text]

Managing low grade and borderline cervical abnormalities

Eduardo L Franco
BMJ 2009 339: b3014. [Extract] [Full Text]

Accuracy of liquid based versus conventional cytology: overall results of new technologies for cervical cancer screening: randomised controlled trial

Guglielmo Ronco, Jack Cuzick, Paola Pierotti, Maria Paola Cariaggi, Paolo Dalla Palma, Carlo Naldoni, Bruno Ghiringhello, Paolo Giorgi-Rossi, Daria Minucci, Franca Parisio, Ada Pojer, Maria Luisa Schiboni, Catia Sintoni, Manuel Zorzi, Nereo Segnan, and Massimo Confortini
BMJ 2007 335: 28. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Lifetime effects, costs, and cost effectiveness of testing for human papillomavirus to manage low grade cytological abnormalities: results of the NHS pilot studies

Rosa Legood, Alastair Gray, Jane Wolstenholme, and Sue Moss
BMJ 2006 332: 79-85. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Need for differential discounting of costs and health effects in cost effectiveness analyses

Werner B F Brouwer, Louis W Niessen, Maarten J Postma, and Frans F H Rutten
BMJ 2005 331: 446-448. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Cross sectional study of conventional cervical smear, monolayer cytology, and human papillomavirus DNA testing for cervical cancer screening

Joël Coste, Béatrix Cochand-Priollet, Patricia de Cremoux, Catherine Le Galès, Isabelle Cartier, Vincent Molinié, Sylvain Labbé, Marie-Cécile Vacher-Lavenu, and Philippe Vielh
BMJ 2003 326: 733. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• TOMBOLA Group, (2009). Biopsy and selective recall compared with immediate large loop excision in management of women with low grade abnormal cervical cytology referred for colposcopy: multicentre randomised controlled trial. BMJ 339: b2548-b2548 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Franco, E. L (2009). Managing low grade and borderline cervical abnormalities. BMJ 339: b3014-b3014 [Full text]  

Online poll

Find out more on doc2doc >>