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) waning vaccine efficacy, and iv) 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. Similar proportions of cancers are prevented through (i)vaccination with no screening and (ii)realistic compliance to the current UK screening programme in the absence of vaccination. 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. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
from Cancer via ola Kala on Inoreader http://ift.tt/2hAEVuU
via IFTTT
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου