Investigator

Veerle J. C. Schevenhoven

Erasmus Mc

VJCVeerle J. C. Sche…
Papers(2)
Should the age range …Long-term cervical ca…
Collaborators(4)
Erik E. L. JansenInge M. C. M. de KokAlbert G. SiebersSylvia Kaljouw
Institutions(2)
Erasmus McRadboud University Me…

Papers

Should the age range of the Dutch hrHPV‐based cervical cancer screening program be broadened? A modelling study using cohort effects

AbstractIn the Netherlands, women are invited for human papillomavirus (HPV) screening between the ages of 30 and 60 (with conditional screening at age 65). However, an increase in cervical cancer (CC) incidence has been observed in younger women recently. Meanwhile, HPV‐vaccinated cohorts reached the screening age of 30 in 2023. Moreover, increasing healthy life expectancy is a consideration for screening in older age groups. Due to these developments, the starting and ending ages of the HPV screening programs should be reconsidered. Microsimulation model MISCAN‐Cervix was recalibrated for cohort effects using updated CC incidence data. We used this model to calculate the cost‐effectiveness of screening unvaccinated women in birth cohorts 1962–1992 until 65 years old. Additionally, we considered starting screening at 25 for partly vaccinated cohorts (born in 2002–2006). Vaccination effects were calculated using microsimulation model STDSIM. Main outcome measures included cancers prevented, life years gained (LYG), costs, and referrals compared to the current strategy (2027 onwards). Adding screening at age 65 to the current strategy leads to +3.5% cancers prevented, +10.3% referrals, +2.4% LYG and +57.0% costs (cost‐effectiveness ratio: €275,096/LYG). Adding screening at age 25 results in extra cases prevented (+1.3%–5.7%, depending on the target group's vaccination status) and LYG (+0.8%–3.7%), but increases referrals (12.9%–37.1%) and costs (+14.0%–33.1%) (cost‐effectiveness ratio: €120,017–€323,813/LYG). So, screening unvaccinated women at 65 years old and screening women in (partly‐)vaccinated cohorts at age 25 might not represent good value for money.

Long-term cervical cancer risk following negative hrHPV-based versus negative cytology-based screening: A population-based study

Randomized trials have shown that hrHPV-testing provides better protection against cervical cancer than cytology. However, long-term assessment of programme sensitivity remains essential. In the Netherlands, hrHPV-screening replaced cytology in 2017. We estimated the long-term cervical cancer risk following negative results in hrHPV- versus cytology-based screening. Screening and histology data from the nationwide Dutch pathology databank (Palga) were used to identify 469,116 women without referral in 2014 (cytology-based) and 362,128 in 2017 (hrHPV-based), representing 4,071,690 person-years. Cervical cancer risk following non-referral, including interval cancers (IC) and those detected in the next screening round were analysed. The incidence rate per 100,000 person-years was 3.3 IC following non-referral in cytology-based versus 2.7 following non-referral in hrHPV-based screening. Including next-round cancers, these numbers increase to 5.7 and 4.5. HrHPV-test negative women had a 50 % lower IC risk compared to those with normal cytology (HR 0.5; 95 % CI: 0.3-0.8), and 60 % lower when including next-round cancers (HR 0.4; 95 % CI: 0.3-0.5). HrHPV-positive women without referral had the highest cancer risk: 24 IC per 100,000 person-years, rising to 45 when including next-round cancers. Their risk was 3.4 times higher than for women with positive primary cytology without referral (HR: 3.4; 95 % CI: 1.1-8.1 for IC and HR: 3.4; 95 % CI: 1.4-8.1 including next-round cancers). A negative hrHPV test was linked to lower long-term risk of cervical cancer than normal cytology, supporting longer screening intervals for hrHPV-negative women. However, hrHPV-positivity with negative cytology was associated with increased risk, suggesting the possible need for alternative triage guidelines.

2Papers
4Collaborators