臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

研究背景 從1960年開始，子宮頸抹片就廣泛的用在西方國家的子宮頸癌篩檢以降低子宮頸癌的死亡率，但過去三十年來此種三年一次篩檢之效益呈現瓶頸。因此結合人類乳突病毒去氧核醣核酸檢測及施打人類乳突病毒疫苗也成為子宮頸癌發生及減少死亡之另類預防措施。然而如何結合子宮頸抹片和人類乳突病毒去氧核醣核酸檢測或施打人類乳突病毒疫苗以增加篩檢的效益及其相關的成本效益研究卻較少被提及。
研究目的 在於探討不同篩檢間隔下傳統子宮頸抹片與人類乳突病毒去氧核醣核酸檢測及施打疫苗之各種不同組合之預防措施對子宮頸癌發生及死亡避免之效益及成本效益分析。
研究方法 本研究針對台灣三十歲共十五萬婦女世代進行四十年追蹤，研究設計以馬可夫分析決策模型首先模擬出在無預防政策下，由健康至人類乳突病毒感染、子宮頸上皮細胞病變、子宮頸原位癌、發展至子宮頸侵襲癌再到死亡的疾病進展過程，再探討出16種預防策略 (根據篩檢間隔的不同：每年一次、每三年一次、50歲前三年一次，50歲後五年一次及每五年一次；使用篩檢工具的不同：子宮頸抹片或合併人類乳突病毒去氧核醣核酸檢測；以及是否施打疫苗) 如何改變上述疾病自然病史並和現行三年一次篩檢策略作比較。評估效益終點包括子宮頸癌前病變、子宮頸癌發生及子宮頸癌死亡。有關效益及成本效益分析參數的來源主要來自文獻查證。另外考慮參數的不確定性，我們選用適合的統計分佈，運用蒙地卡羅模擬，進行5000次的電腦模擬。結果的呈現是比較不同篩檢策略之下，平均與增加成本效益比(average and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios(ICERs))以及淨利益增量(incremental net benefit(INB))。
研究結果 本研究在不同策略之效益比較上，主要發現有
(一) 以子宮頸抹片策略為主之效益發現與三年一次抹片相比，每年一次抹片可降低11%癌前病變發生，43%子宮頸癌發生及45%子宮頸癌死亡。
(二) 以人類乳突病毒去氧核醣核酸檢測加子宮頸抹片策略為主之效益發現與三年一次抹片相比，每年一次人類乳突病毒去氧核醣核酸檢測加子宮頸抹片策略可降低17%癌前病變發生，54%子宮頸癌發生及55%子宮頸癌死亡。
(三) 以疫苗施打加子宮頸抹片策略為主之效益發現與三年一次抹片相比，疫苗施打加每年一次子宮頸抹片策略可降低29%癌前病變發生，56%子宮頸癌發生及56%子宮頸癌死亡。
(四) 以疫苗施打加人類乳突病毒去氧核醣核酸檢測加子宮頸抹片策略為主之效益發現與三年一次抹片相比，疫苗施打加每年一次人類乳突病毒去氧核醣核酸檢測加子宮頸抹片策略可降低33%癌前病變發生，59%子宮頸癌發生及60%子宮頸癌死亡。在相同的篩檢策略之下，施打疫苗比沒有施打疫苗可以減少5-24%子宮頸癌的發生以及子宮頸癌死亡率。
成本效益分析的主要結果發現「每年一次子宮頸抹片」和「施打疫苗加上每年一次人類乳突病毒去氧核醣核酸檢測及子宮頸抹片」為較具優勢的預防策略。若將「每年一次子宮頸抹片」和「每三年一次子宮頸抹片」相比，符合成本效益的機率非常高為99.5%，每增加一年平均餘命需多花費美金$23,093元，同樣的每減少一名子宮頸癌的發生需美金 $41,991元，在使用者付費意願為美金$50,000元時，淨利益增量為美金$435.9元。
若比較「施打疫苗加上每年一次人類乳突病毒去氧核醣核酸檢測及子宮頸抹片」和「每三年一次子宮頸抹片」，符合成本效益的機率也非常高為95.5%，每增加一年平均餘命需多花費美金$34,306元，同樣的每減少一名子宮頸癌的發生需美金 $59,375元，在使用者付費意願為美金$50,000元時，淨利益增量為美金$339.0元。
結論 「每年一次子宮頸抹片」或「施打疫苗加上每年一次人類乳突病毒去氧核醣核酸檢測及子宮頸抹片」的策略和三年一次子宮頸抹片相比，比其他策略更符合成本效益。

Background Population-based screening for cervical cancer with Pap smear has been widely used worldwide since 1960s and demonstrated to lead to a remarkable reduction of mortality. However, as the reduction of mortality after Pap smear screening has shown a plateau, we still need a breakthrough for cervical cancer prevention. Therefore, screening policy with HPV DNA testing and HPV vaccination are considered as alternative preventive strategies. The additional effectiveness on the basis of economic evaluation from these two related preventive strategies combined with different scheduled Pap smear screening programs has been rarely addressed. Compared with triennial screening program, studies on cost-effectiveness analysis on various combinations of preventive strategies are also limited.
Purpose We aimed to elucidate the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of different preventive strategies for cervical cancer screening.
Methods The probabilistic cost-effectiveness analysis of various preventive strategies in reduction of cervical cancer mortality and life cost was elucidated by using a population-based study targeted to 150,000 women in Taiwan. A Markov cycle process was defined as a series of multi-state outcome including healthy, HPV infection, CIN1, CIN2+, carcinoma in situ, invasive cancer, and death. Total of 16 preventive strategies considering screening intervals (annually, triennially, 3 yearly for age under 50 and 5 yearly for age over 50, and 5 yearly), screening modalities (HPV DNA testing, Pap smear), and HPV vaccination are further developed to compare with triennial Pap smear screening strategy used in current clinical practice. The parameters for analysis were derived from literatures. By assigning the specific statistical distribution to each parameter, Monte Carlo simulation with 5000 microsimulation trials was therefore applied to capture the parameter uncertainty. We then present the outcome in terms of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) per life-year gained and incremental net benefit (INB) under varying prevention strategies compared with triennial Pap smear screening program.
Result
In terms of elucidating the effectiveness of different strategies in our study, we have the following main finding,
1. Compared with triennial Pap smear, annual Pap smear reduced the 11% of pre-cancer lesions, 43% of invasive cervical cancer, and 45% of cervical cancer death.
2. Compared with triennial Pap smear, annual HPV DNA testing and Pap smear reduced the 17% of pre-cancer lesions, 54% of invasive cervical cancer, and 55% of cervical cancer death.
3. Compared with triennial Pap smear, vaccination and annual Pap smear reduced the 29% of pre-cancer lesions, 56% of invasive cervical cancer, and 56% of cervical cancer death.
4. Compared with triennial Pap smear, vaccination together with annual HPV DNA testing and Pap smear reduced the 33% of pre-cancer lesions, 59% of invasive cervical cancer, and 60% of cervical cancer death.
The marginal effect of vaccination therefore might be reckoned around 5-24% under different prevention strategies.
The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for annual Pap smear against the triennial Pap smear were calculated as $41,991 and $23,093 for per cervical cancer prevented and per life-year gained, respectively. The corresponding figures for vaccination program with annual HPV DNA testing followed by Pap smear against the triennial Pap smear were calculated as $59,375 and $34,306 for per cervical cancer prevented women and per life-year gained, respectively given the threshold of $50,000 of willingness to pay. Compared with triennial Pap smear, the probability of being cost-effective by the acceptability curve were 99.5% for annual Pap smear and 95.5% for vaccination program with annual HPV DNA testing followed by Pap smear, respectively. The corresponding INBs given the threshold of $50,000 of WTP for annual Pap smear and vaccination program with annual HPV DNA testing followed by Pap smear were calculated as $ 435.9 and $339.0.
Conclusion
Compared with current practice (triennial Pap smear screening program), annual Pap smear or vaccination program with annual HPV DNA testing followed by Pap smear is the more cost-effectiveness strategies among all various preventive strategies.

目錄………………………………………………………………I-III
表目錄……………………………………………………………IV
圖目綠……………………………………………………………V
中文摘要…………………………………………………………VI-VIII
英文摘要…………………………………………………………IX-XI
第一章 前言……………………………………………………1-3
第二章 文獻探討………………………………………………4-12
一、 子宮頸癌簡介…………………………………………4-5
二、子宮頸癌篩檢的工具及效益……………………………5-6
三、人類乳突病毒疫苗之效益………………………………6-8
四、子宮頸癌篩檢及疫苗使用之成本效益…………………8-10
五、各國篩檢及疫苗政策……………………………………10-12
第三章 研究方法………………………………………………13-22
一、 子宮頸癌的疾病自然史模式……………………………13-14
二、 篩檢或預防策略…………………………………………14-16
三、隨機性成本效益分析……………………………………16-22
1. 參數之統計分布-利用貝式共軛對…………………17-18
2. 參數使用上之補充說明………………………………18
3. 馬可夫模型……………………………………………19-21
4. 蒙地卡羅模擬………………………………………………21-22
第四章 結果……………………………………………………23-35
一、終生罹病成本、平均餘命、癌前病變、罹癌數及死亡率在各篩檢策略之基本模擬結果……………………………………23
二、比較不同策略之效益……………………………………23-25
(一)以子宮頸抹片策略為主之效益………………………23
(二)以人類乳突病毒去氧核醣核酸檢測加子宮頸抹片策略為主之效益………23-24
(三)以疫苗施打加子宮頸抹片策略為主之效益…………24
(四)以疫苗施打加人類乳突病毒去氧核醣核酸檢測加子宮頸抹片策略為主之效益…………………………………………………24-25
三、不同終點之效益…………………………………………25-28
(一)降低癌前病變之效益…………………………………25-26
(二)降低子宮頸癌之效益…………………………………26-27
(三)降低子宮頸癌死亡之效益……………………………27-28
四、成本效益分析結果………………………………………29-35
(一)成本效益模擬結果………………………………………………29
(二)增加成本效益比(ICER)結果………………………………30-31
(三)淨利益增量(INB)結果…………………………………………31
(四)以避免子宮侵襲癌及死亡個案之ICER…………………………32
(五)成本效益前緣分析(Frontier Analysis) ………………32-33
(六)接受曲線分析(Acceptability Curves Analysis) ……33-34
(七)機率性敏感度分析 (Probabilistic analysis) ………34-35
第五章 討論…………………………………………………………36-42
一、主要結果…………………………………………………36-38
(一)子宮頸抹片篩檢效益………………………………………36
(二)其他篩檢工具及人類乳突病毒疫苗效益……………36-37
(三)各項預防策略之成本效益……………………………37-38
二、不同預防策略之效益比較………………………………38-39
三、健康決策者參考(Health Policy-makers) …………39-40
四、成本參數…………………………………………………41-42
五、研究限制……………………………………………………42
第六章 結論……………………………………………………………43
參考文獻……………………………………………………………77-81

1.Patnick J: Cervical cancer screening in England. Eur J Cancer 36:2205-8, 2000
2.Schaffer P, Sancho-Garnier H, Fender M, et al: Cervical cancer screening in France. Eur J Cancer 36:2215-20, 2000
3.van Ballegooijen M, Hermens R: Cervical cancer screening in the Netherlands. Eur J Cancer 36:2244-6, 2000
4.Villa LL, Costa RL, Petta CA, et al: High sustained efficacy of a prophylactic quadrivalent human papillomavirus types 6/11/16/18 L1 virus-like particle vaccine through 5 years of follow-up. Br J Cancer 95:1459-66, 2006
5.Harper DM, Franco EL, Wheeler CM, et al: Sustained efficacy up to 4.5 years of a bivalent L1 virus-like particle vaccine against human papillomavirus types 16 and 18: follow-up from a randomised control trial. Lancet 367:1247-55, 2006
6.Walboomers JM BF, Kummer JA, Shah KV, Snijders PJ, Peto J, Meijer CJ, Muñoz N.: Human papillomavirus is a necessary cause of invasive cervical cancer worldwide. The Journal of Pathology 189:12-19, 1999
7.Insinga RP, Glass AG, Rush BB: Diagnoses and outcomes in cervical cancer screening: a population-based study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 191:105-13, 2004
8.Ries LAG MD, Krapcho M, et al.: SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2004. National Cancer Institute; Bethesda, MD 2007
9.Gustafsson L AH: Natural history of cervical neoplasia: consistent results obtained by an identification technique. Br J Cancer 60(1):132-41, 1989
10.Van Oortmarssen GJ HJ: Duration of preclinical cervical cancer and reduction in incidence of invasive cancer following negative Pap smear. Int J Epidemiol 24:300–7, 1995
11.Kahn JA: HP V vaccination for the prevention of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. N Engl J Med 361, 2009
12.Moscicki AB, Hills N, Shiboski S, et al: Risks for incident human papillomavirus infection and low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion development in young females. JAMA 285:2995-3002, 2001
13.Moscicki AB: Genital infections with human papillomavirus (HPV). Pediatr Infect Dis J 17:651-2, 1998
14.Ronco G, Cuzick J, Pierotti P, et al: Accuracy of liquid based versus conventional cytology: overall results of new technologies for cervical cancer screening: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 335:28, 2007
15.Whitlock EP, Vesco KK, Eder M, et al: Liquid-based cytology and human papillomavirus testing to screen for cervical cancer: a systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 155:687-97, W214-5, 2011
16.Schiffman M, Solomon D: Findings to date from the ASCUS-LSIL Triage Study (ALTS). Arch Pathol Lab Med 127:946-9, 2003
17.Vesco KK, Whitlock EP, Eder M, et al: Risk factors and other epidemiologic considerations for cervical cancer screening: a narrative review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 155:698-705, W216, 2011
18.Mayrand MH, Duarte-Franco E, Rodrigues I, et al: Human papillomavirus DNA versus Papanicolaou screening tests for cervical cancer. N Engl J Med 357:1579-88, 2007
19.Naucler P, Ryd W, Tornberg S, et al: Efficacy of HPV DNA testing with cytology triage and/or repeat HPV DNA testing in primary cervical cancer screening. J Natl Cancer Inst 101:88-99, 2009
20.Quadrivalent vaccine against human papillomavirus to prevent high-grade cervical lesions. N Engl J Med 356:1915-27, 2007
21.Garland SM, Hernandez-Avila M, Wheeler CM, et al: Quadrivalent vaccine against human papillomavirus to prevent anogenital diseases. N Engl J Med 356:1928-43, 2007
22.Lee VJ, Tay SK, Teoh YL, et al: Cost-effectiveness of different human papillomavirus vaccines in Singapore. BMC Public Health 11:203, 2011
23.Wheeler CM, Castellsague X, Garland SM, et al: Cross-protective efficacy of HPV-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine against cervical infection and precancer caused by non-vaccine oncogenic HPV types: 4-year end-of-study analysis of the randomised, double-blind PATRICIA trial. Lancet Oncol 13:100-10, 2011
24.Aimée R. Kreimer ACR, Allan Hildesheim, Rolando Herrero, Carolina Porras, Mark Schiffman, Paula González, Diane Solomon, Silvia Jiménez, John T. Schiller, Douglas R. Lowy, Wim Quint, Mark E. Sherman, John Schussler, Sholom Wacholder, and for the CVT Vaccine Group: Proof-of-principle evaluation of the efficacy of fewer than three doses of a bivalent HPV16/18 vaccine. J Natl Cancer Inst. 103:1444-1451, 2011
25.Goldie SJ, Kim JJ, Wright TC: Cost-effectiveness of human papillomavirus DNA testing for cervical cancer screening in women aged 30 years or more. Obstet Gynecol 103:619-31, 2004
26.Huang YK, You SL, Yuan CC, et al: Long-term outcomes of high-risk human papillomavirus infection support a long interval of cervical cancer screening. Br J Cancer 98:863-9, 2008
27.Dillner J, Rebolj M, Birembaut P, et al: Long term predictive values of cytology and human papillomavirus testing in cervical cancer screening: joint European cohort study. BMJ 337:a1754, 2008
28.Muhlberger N, Sroczynski G, Esteban E, et al: Cost-effectiveness of primarily human papillomavirus-based cervical cancer screening in settings with currently established Pap screening: a systematic review commissioned by the German Federal Ministry of Health. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 24:184-92, 2008
29.Chow IH, Tang CH, You SL, et al: Cost-effectiveness analysis of human papillomavirus DNA testing and Pap smear for cervical cancer screening in a publicly financed health-care system. Br J Cancer 103:1773-82, 2010
30.van Rosmalen J, de Kok I, van Ballegooijen M: Cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening: cytology versus human papillomavirus DNA testing. BJOG 119:699-709, 2012
31.Moss SM GA, Legood R, Henstock E: Evaluation of HPV/LBC Cervical screening pilot studies. First report to the Department of Health on evaluation of LBC. Available at: http://www.cancerscreening.nhs.uk/cervical/lbc-pilot-evaluation.pdf. Accessed April 2003, 2002
32.Sherlaw-Johnson C, Philips Z: An evaluation of liquid-based cytology and human papillomavirus testing within the UK cervical cancer screening programme. Br J Cancer 91:84-91, 2004
33.Bidus MA, Maxwell GL, Kulasingam S, et al: Cost-effectiveness analysis of liquid-based cytology and human papillomavirus testing in cervical cancer screening. Obstet Gynecol 107:997-1005, 2006
34.Chen HC, Schiffman M, Lin CY, et al: Persistence of type-specific human papillomavirus infection and increased long-term risk of cervical cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 103:1387-96, 2011
35.Goldhaber-Fiebert JD, Stout NK, Salomon JA, et al: Cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening with human papillomavirus DNA testing and HPV-16,18 vaccination. J Natl Cancer Inst 100:308-20, 2008
36.Chen MK, Hung HF, Duffy S, et al: Cost-effectiveness analysis for Pap smear screening and human papillomavirus DNA testing and vaccination. J Eval Clin Pract 17:1050-8, 2011
37.Dee A, Howell F, O''Connor C, et al: Determining the cost of genital warts: a study from Ireland. Sex Transm Infect 85:402-3, 2009
38.Anonychuk AM, Bauch CT, Merid MF, et al: A cost-utility analysis of cervical cancer vaccination in preadolescent Canadian females. BMC Public Health 9:401, 2009
39.Obradovic M, Mrhar A, Kos M: Cost-effectiveness analysis of HPV vaccination alongside cervical cancer screening programme in Slovenia. Eur J Public Health 20:415-21, 2010
40.de Kok IM, van Ballegooijen M, Habbema JD: Cost-effectiveness analysis of human papillomavirus vaccination in the Netherlands. J Natl Cancer Inst 101:1083-92, 2009
41.Chang YJ, Chen HC, Lee BH, et al: Unique variants of human papillomavirus genotypes 52 and 58 and risk of cervical neoplasia. Int J Cancer 129:965-73, 2010
42.Briggs A CK, Sculpher M.: Decision Modelling for Health Economic Evaluation. Oxford University Press, USA, 2006
43.Chen LS HN, Tsay JH, Wang PJ, Chou YJ, Chou P, Lee CH: Screening for cervical cancer among female physicians and their relatives in Taiwan: a population-based comparative study. Prev Med. 44:531-5, 2007
44.Cuzick J, Szarewski A, Cubie H, et al: Management of women who test positive for high-risk types of human papillomavirus: the HART study. Lancet 362:1871-6, 2003
45.Ho GY, Palan PR, Basu J, et al: Viral characteristics of human papillomavirus infection and antioxidant levels as risk factors for cervical dysplasia. Int J Cancer 78:594-9, 1998
46.Franco EL, Villa LL, Sobrinho JP, et al: Epidemiology of acquisition and clearance of cervical human papillomavirus infection in women from a high-risk area for cervical cancer. J Infect Dis 180:1415-23, 1999
47.Woodman CB, Collins S, Winter H, et al: Natural history of cervical human papillomavirus infection in young women: a longitudinal cohort study. Lancet 357:1831-6, 2001
48.Thomas KK, Hughes JP, Kuypers JM, et al: Concurrent and sequential acquisition of different genital human papillomavirus types. J Infect Dis 182:1097-102, 2000
49.Clifford GM, Gallus S, Herrero R, et al: Worldwide distribution of human papillomavirus types in cytologically normal women in the International Agency for Research on Cancer HPV prevalence surveys: a pooled analysis. Lancet 366:991-8, 2005
50.Koong SL, Yen AM, Chen TH: Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of nationwide cervical cancer screening in Taiwan. J Med Screen 13 Suppl 1:S44-7, 2006
51.Chen LS, Huang N, Tsay JH, et al: Screening for cervical cancer among female physicians and their relatives in Taiwan: a population-based comparative study. Prev Med 44:531-5, 2007
52.Schlecht NF, Platt RW, Duarte-Franco E, et al: Human papillomavirus infection and time to progression and regression of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. J Natl Cancer Inst 95:1336-43, 2003
53.Song SH, Lee JK, Oh MJ, et al: Risk factors for the progression or persistence of untreated mild dysplasia of the uterine cervix. Int J Gynecol Cancer 16:1608-13, 2006
54.Mandelblatt JS, Lawrence WF, Gaffikin L, et al: Costs and benefits of different strategies to screen for cervical cancer in less-developed countries. J Natl Cancer Inst 94:1469-83, 2002
55.Mandelblatt JS, Lawrence WF, Womack SM, et al: Benefits and costs of using HPV testing to screen for cervical cancer. JAMA 287:2372-81, 2002
56.Koong S-L: Evaluation of Cervical Cancer Screening Policy in Taiwan. London: London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine., 2003
57.Chan JK, Monk BJ, Brewer C, et al: HPV infection and number of lifetime sexual partners are strong predictors for ''natural'' regression of CIN 2 and 3. Br J Cancer 89:1062-6, 2003
58.Ho CM, Chien TY, Huang SH, et al: Multivariate analysis of the prognostic factors and outcomes in early cervical cancer patients undergoing radical hysterectomy. Gynecol Oncol 93:458-64, 2004
59.Bielska-Lasota M, Inghelmann R, van de Poll-Franse L, et al: Trends in cervical cancer survival in Europe, 1983-1994: a population-based study. Gynecol Oncol 105:609-19, 2007
60.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 119:1095-101, 2006
61.Schiffman M, Herrero R, Hildesheim A, et al: HPV DNA testing in cervical cancer screening: results from women in a high-risk province of Costa Rica. JAMA 283:87-93, 2000
62.Hutchinson ML, Zahniser DJ, Sherman ME, et al: Utility of liquid-based cytology for cervical carcinoma screening: results of a population-based study conducted in a region of Costa Rica with a high incidence of cervical carcinoma. Cancer 87:48-55, 1999
63.Wright TC, Jr., Denny L, Kuhn L, et al: HPV DNA testing of self-collected vaginal samples compared with cytologic screening to detect cervical cancer. JAMA 283:81-6, 2000
64.Belinson J, Qiao YL, Pretorius R, et al: Shanxi Province Cervical Cancer Screening Study: a cross-sectional comparative trial of multiple techniques to detect cervical neoplasia. Gynecol Oncol 83:439-44, 2001
65.Ronco G, Segnan N, Giorgi-Rossi P, et al: Human papillomavirus testing and liquid-based cytology: results at recruitment from the new technologies for cervical cancer randomized controlled trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 98:765-74, 2006
66.Luoto R, Raitanen J, Pukkala E, et al: Effect of hysterectomy on incidence trends of endometrial and cervical cancer in Finland 1953-2010. Br J Cancer 90:1756-9, 2004
67.Gimbel H, Settnes A, Tabor A: Hysterectomy on benign indication in Denmark 1988-1998. A register based trend analysis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 80:267-72, 2001
68.Kulasingam SL, Myers ER: Potential health and economic impact of adding a human papillomavirus vaccine to screening programs. JAMA 290:781-9, 2003
69.Sanders GD, Taira AV: Cost-effectiveness of a potential vaccine for human papillomavirus. Emerg Infect Dis 9:37-48, 2003
70.Kim JJ, Wright TC, Goldie SJ: Cost-effectiveness of alternative triage strategies for atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance. JAMA 287:2382-90, 2002
71.Kim JJ, Wright TC, Goldie SJ: Cost-effectiveness of human papillomavirus DNA testing in the United Kingdom, The Netherlands, France, and Italy. J Natl Cancer Inst 97:888-95, 2005
72.Legood R, Gray A, Wolstenholme J, et al: Lifetime effects, costs, and cost effectiveness of testing for human papillomavirus to manage low grade cytological abnormalities: results of the NHS pilot studies. BMJ 332:79-85, 2006
73.Kulasingam SL, Kim JJ, Lawrence WF, et al: Cost-effectiveness analysis based on the atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance/low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion Triage Study (ALTS). J Natl Cancer Inst 98:92-100, 2006
74.Techakehakij W, Feldman RD: Cost-effectiveness of HPV vaccination compared with Pap smear screening on a national scale: a literature review. Vaccine 26:6258-65, 2008
75.Chuck A: Cost-effectiveness of 21 alternative cervical cancer screening strategies. Value Health 13:169-79, 2010
76.Liu PH, Hu FC, Lee PI, et al: Cost-effectiveness of human papillomavirus vaccination for prevention of cervical cancer in Taiwan. BMC Health Serv Res 10:11, 2010