Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 12, 2026
Use of Interferon-γ Enzyme-linked Immunospot Assay to Characterize Novel T-cell Epitopes of Human Papillomavirus
Published on: March 8, 2012
Projected cost-effectiveness of repeat high-risk human papillomavirus testing using self-collected vaginal samples in
Ellinor Östensson1, Ann-Cathrin Hellström, Kristina Hellman
1Department of Women's and Children's Health, Division of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Karolinska University Hospital-Solna, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden. ellinor.ostensson@ki.se
Background:
Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing is not currently used in primary cervical cancer screening in Sweden, and corresponding cost-effectiveness is unclear.
Objective:
From a societal perspective, to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of high-risk (HR)-HPV testing using self-collected vaginal samples.
Design:
A cost-effectiveness analysis.
Setting:
The Swedish organized cervical cancer screening program.
Methods:
We constructed a model to simulate the natural history of cervical cancer using Swedish data on cervical cancer risk. For the base-case analysis we evaluated two screening strategies with different screening intervals: (i) cytology screening throughout the woman's lifetime (i.e. "conventional cytology strategy") and (ii) conventional cytology screening until age 35 years, followed by HR-HPV testing using self-collected vaginal samples in women aged ≥35 years (i.e. "combination strategy"). Sensitivity analyses were performed, varying model parameters over a significant range of values to identify cost-effective screening strategies.
Main Outcome Measures:
Average lifetime cost, discounted and undiscounted life-years gained, reduction in cervical cancer risk, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios with and without the cost of added life-years.
Results:
Depending on screening interval, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for the combination strategy ranged from €43,000 to €180,000 per life-years gained without the cost of added life-years, and from €74,000 to €206,000 with costs of added life-years included.
Conclusion:
The combination strategy with a 5-year screening interval is potentially cost-effective compared with no screening, and with current screening practice when using a threshold value of €80,000 per life-years gained.
