Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Feb 15;142(4):709-718.
doi: 10.1002/ijc.31094. Epub 2017 Nov 10.

What cervical screening is appropriate for women who have been vaccinated against high risk HPV? A simulation study

Rebecca Landy  1 , Peter Windridge  1 , Matthew S Gillman  1 , Peter D Sasieni  1
Affiliations

What cervical screening is appropriate for women who have been vaccinated against high risk HPV? A simulation study

Rebecca Landy et al. Int J Cancer. .

Abstract

Women vaccinated against HPV16/18 are approaching the age for cervical screening; however, an updated screening algorithm has not been agreed. We use a microsimulation model calibrated to real published data to determine the appropriate screening intensity for vaccinated women. Natural histories in the absence of vaccination were simulated for 300,000 women using 10,000 sets of transition probabilities. Vaccination with (i) 100% efficacy against HPV16/18, (ii) 15% cross-protection, (iii) 22% cross-protection, (iv) waning vaccine efficacy and (v) 100% efficacy against HPV16/18/31/33/45/52/58 was added, as were a range of screening scenarios appropriate to the UK. To benchmark cost-benefits of screening for vaccinated women, we evaluated the proportion of cancers prevented per additional screen (incremental benefit) of current cytology and likely HPV screening scenarios in unvaccinated women. Slightly more cancers are prevented through vaccination with no screening (70.3%, 95% CR: 65.1-75.5) than realistic compliance to the current UK screening programme in the absence of vaccination (64.3%, 95% CR: 61.3-66.8). In unvaccinated women, when switching to HPV primary testing, there is no loss in effectiveness when doubling the screening interval. Benchmarking supports screening scenarios with incremental benefits of ≥2.0%, and rejects scenarios with incremental benefits ≤0.9%. In HPV16/18-vaccinated women, the incremental benefit of offering a third lifetime screen was at most 3.3% (95% CR: 2.2-4.5), with an incremental benefit of 1.3% (-0.3-2.8) for a fourth screen. For HPV16/18/31/33/45/52/58-vaccinated women, two lifetime screens are supported. It is important to know women's vaccination status; in these simulations, HPV16/18-vaccinated women require three lifetime screens, HPV16/18/31/33/45/52/58-vaccinated women require two lifetime screens, yet unvaccinated women require seven lifetime screens.

Keywords: HPV; cervical cancer; policy; screening; simulation; vaccination.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Possible transitions in the model, with six‐monthly transition probabilities for the natural history model. HPV‐16/18 and other (non‐16/18) high‐risk HPV processes are run separately.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Mean simulated HPV prevalence by age, and observed HPV prevalence by age in the ARTISTIC trial.9 [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Clifford G, Franceschi S, Diaz M, et al. HPV type‐distribution in women with and without cervical neoplastic diseases. Vaccine 2006;24:S26–34. - PubMed
    1. Ronco G, Dillner J, Elfström KM, et al. Efficacy of HPV‐based screening for prevention of invasive cervical cancer: follow‐up of four European randomised controlled trials. Lancet 2014;383:524–32. - PubMed
    1. Cuzick J, Clavel C, Petry KU, et al. Overview of the European and North American studies on HPV testing in primary cervical cancer screening. Int J Cancer 2006;119:1095–101. - PubMed
    1. Saslow D, Solomon D, Lawson HW, et al. American Cancer Society, American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, and American Society for Clinical Pathology screening guidelines for the prevention and early detection of cervical cancer. CA Cancer J Clin 2012;62:147–72. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kim JJ, Tosteson AN, Zauber AG, et al. Cancer models and real‐world data: better together. JNCIJ 2016;108:djv316 - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

Substances