Cost-effectiveness of primary human papillomavirus triage approaches among vaccinated women in Norway: A model-based analysis.

As Norway considers revising triage approaches following their first adolescent cohort with human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination entering the cervical cancer screening program, we analyzed the health impact and cost-effectiveness of alternative primary HPV triage approaches for women initiating cervical cancer screening in 2023. We used a multimodeling approach that captured HPV transmission and cervical carcinogenesis to evaluate the health benefits, harms and cost-effectiveness of alternative extended genotyping and age-based triage strategies under five-yearly primary HPV testing (including the status-quo screening strategy in Norway) for women born in 1998 (ie, age 25 in 2023). We examined 35 strategies that varied alternative groupings of high-risk HPV genotypes ("high-risk" genotypes; "medium-risk" genotypes or "intermediate-risk" genotypes), number and types of HPV included in each group, management of HPV-positive women to direct colposcopy or active surveillance, wait time for re-testing and age at which the HPV triage algorithm switched from less to more intensive strategies. Given the range of benchmarks for severity-specific cost-effectiveness thresholds in Norway, we found that the preferred strategy for vaccinated women aged 25 years in 2023 involved an age-based switch from a less to more intensive follow-up algorithm at age 30 or 35 years with HPV-16/18 genotypes in the "high-risk" group. The two potentially cost-effective strategies could reduce the number of colposcopies compared to current guidelines and simultaneously improve health benefits. Using age to guide primary HPV triage, paired with selective HPV genotype and follow-up time for re-testing, could improve both the cervical cancer program effectiveness and efficiency.

The legal framework for European cervical cancer screening programmes.

BACKGROUND: A comprehensive legal framework needs to be developed to run the health services and to regulate the information systems required to manage and to ensure the quality of cancer screening programmes. The aim of our study was to document and to compare the status of legal basis for cervical screening registration in European countries. METHODS: An electronic questionnaire including questions on governance, decision-making structures and legal framework was developed. The primary responses were collected by September 2016. RESULTS: We sent the questionnaire to representatives of 35 European countries (28 countries of the EU, with the United Kingdom included as 4 countries; 4 EFTA member countries: Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, and Switzerland); responses were collected from 33 countries. The legal framework makes it possible to personally invite individuals in 29 countries (88%). Systematic screening registration in an electronic registry is legally enshrined in 23 countries (70%). Individual linkage of records between screening and cancer registries is allowed in 19 of those countries. Linkage studies involving cancer and screening registries have been conducted in 15 countries. CONCLUSION: Although the majority of EU/EFTA countries have implemented population-based screening, only half of them have successfully performed record linkage studies, which are nevertheless a key recommendation for quality assurance of the entire screening process. The European legislation is open to the possibility of using health data for these purposes; however, member states themselves must recognize the public interest to create a legal basis, which would enable all the necessary functions for high-quality cancer screening programmes.