Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 1, 2025
RNAscope for In situ Detection of Transcriptionally Active Human Papillomavirus in Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma
Published on: March 11, 2014
The Potential Clinical and Economic Value of a Human Papillomavirus Primary Screening Test That Additionally
Lindsey Asti1, Colin Hopley2, Cameron Avelis1
1From the Public Health Computational and Operations Research (PHICOR), City University of New York (CUNY) School of Public Health and Health Policy, New York City, NY.
Background:
Although current human papillomavirus (HPV) genotype screening tests identify genotypes 16 and 18 and do not specifically identify other high-risk types, a new extended genotyping test identifies additional individual (31, 45, 51, and 52) and groups (33/58, 35/39/68, and 56/59/66) of high-risk genotypes.
Methods:
We developed a Markov model of the HPV disease course and evaluated the clinical and economic value of HPV primary screening with Onclarity (BD Diagnostics, Franklin Lakes, NJ) capable of extended genotyping in a cohort of women 30 years or older. Women with certain genotypes were later rescreened instead of undergoing immediate colposcopy and varied which genotypes were rescreened, disease progression rate, and test cost.
Results:
Assuming 100% compliance with screening, HPV primary screening using current tests resulted in 25,194 invasive procedures and 48 invasive cervical cancer (ICC) cases per 100,000 women. Screening with extended genotyping (100% compliance) and later rescreening women with certain genotypes averted 903 to 3163 invasive procedures and resulted in 0 to 3 more ICC cases compared with current HPV primary screening tests. Extended genotyping was cost-effective ($2298-$7236/quality-adjusted life year) when costing $75 and cost saving (median, $0.3-$1.0 million) when costing $43. When the probabilities of disease progression increased (2-4 times), extended genotyping was not cost-effective because it resulted in more ICC cases and accrued fewer quality-adjusted life years.
Conclusions:
Our study identified the conditions under which extended genotyping was cost-effective and even cost saving compared with current tests. A key driver of cost-effectiveness is the risk of disease progression, which emphasizes the need to better understand such risks in different populations.
