The accuracy and cost-effectiveness of triple screening tests in cervical neoplasia

자궁경부 종양에서 다중선별검사의 비용효과 분석

Jeon, Yong-Tark;Kim, Yong-Beom;Kim, Jae-Weon;Park, Noh-Hyun;Song, Yong-Sang;Kang, Soon-Beom;Lee, Hyo-Pyo
전용탁;김용범;김재원;박노현;송용상;강순범;이효표

  • Published : 2005.09.20

Abstract

Objective : Ideal cancer screening program should be not only accurate but also cost-effective. However, in Korea, the two aspect of cervix cancer screening program was not yet evaluated. Thus we conducted this study to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and accuracy of various screening methods for detecting uterine cervical neoplasia. Methods : We used various methods (conventional Pap smear, cervicography and HPV test) to detect cervical neoplasia on 255 women who visited the Seoul National University Hospital from Dec. 1996 to Jul. 1997 and analyzed the accuracy and costeffectiveness of each method along with various combinations of methods using Bayesian theorem. The accuracy was judged by the final histopathologic diagnosis. Results : Sensitivity (SE) and specificity (SP) of each method to detect cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 1 or above were 83.0% and 69.4% in Pap smear, 53.7% and 85.2% in cervicography, and 57.8% and 80.6% in HPV test, respectively. The combination of Pap smear with cervicography or with HPV test for detecting CIN 1 or above had same SE and SP of 89.1% and 62.0% respectively. The combination of cervicography and HPV test had SE of 78.9% and SP of 70.4%. Three methods combination showed 93.9% SE and 54.6% SP. The estimated cost per method was highest in three methods combination (117,000 won) and lowest in Pap smear alone (12,000 won). The cost for detection of one case of cervical neoplasia was highest in combination of cervicography and HPV test (241,907 won) and lowest in Pap smear alone (25,385 won). Conclusion : The combinations of each method showed increased SE. These combinations, however, had low SP and high cost than individual method. Cervicography or HPV test alone should not be considered as an alternative to Pap smear for cervical cancer screening because its cost-effectiveness is not significantly better than that of Pap smear.

목적 : 이상적인 선별검사의 조건은 정확하고 비용효과가 좋아야 한다. 자궁경부암 선별검사에 대하여 이 두 측면에 관한연구는 우리나라에서 매우 드물다. 이에 자궁경부암 선별검사에 사용될 수 있는 여러 가지 방법들과 그 조합들에 대한 정확성과 비용효과에 대하여 알아보고자 하였다. 연구 방법 : 1996년 12월부터 1997년 7월까지 서울대학교병원 산부인과를 방문한 255명의 여성을 대상으로 하였다. 질확대경 하 조준생검 또는 자궁경부 원추절제술을 시행하여 얻은 결과를 최종 진단으로 정하고 세포도말검사, 자궁경부 확대촬영검사, 인유두종바이러스검사 중 한 가지 검사만을 시행한 경우와 두 가지 검사를 조합한 경우, 마지막으로 세 가지 검사를 모두 시행한 경우에 있어서 각각 검사방법의 민감도와 특이도, 위양성률과 위음성률을 계산하였다.또한 이 결과를 바탕으로 Bayes 이론에 의한 계량진단법을 이용하여 비용효과 분석을 시행하였다. 결과 : 경증 자궁경부 이형성증 이상을 진단하는데 있어 각 한 가지 방법을 사용하였을 때 민감도와 특이도는 세포도말검사가 83.0%와 69.4%, 자궁경부 확대촬영검사가 53.7%와 85.2%, 인유두종바이러스검사가 57.8%와 80.6%였다. 세포도말검사에 자궁경부 확대촬영검사 혹은 인유두종바이러스검사를 병용한 경우 경증 자궁경부 이형성증 이상을 진단할 수 있는 민감도와 특이도는 두 조합 모두에서 89.1%와 62.0%를 보였다. 자궁경부 확대촬영검사와 인유두종바이러스검사를 병용할 경우 민감도는 78.9%, 특이도는 70.4%였다. 세 가지 검사를 모두 시행한 경우의 민감도는 93.9%, 특이도는 54.6%로 나타났다. 세포도말검사의 비용은 12,000원인데 비하여 세 가지 검사를 동시에 시행할 경우 비용은 117,000원이었고, 자궁경부 이형성증 1예를 발견하기 위한 비용은 자궁경부 확대촬영검사와 인유두종바이러스검사를 병용한 경우가 가장 비쌌고(241,907원) 세포도말검사가 가장 저렴하였다(25,385원). 결론 : 자궁경부암의 선별검사로써 세포도말검사와 자궁경부 확대촬영검사, 그리고 인유두종바이러스검사 각각을 단독으로 시행하는 경우보다 두 가지 혹은 세 가지 검사를 같이 시행하는 경우가 진단의 민감도를 높이고 위음성률을 낮추는 결과를 얻었으나, 비용효과 면에서는 정확도의 향상이라는 장점에 비하여 과도한 비용 상승을 보여주었다. 따라서 일반 인구집단을 대상으로 하는 선별검사로써는 세포도말 단독 검사가 현재로써는 가장 적절할 것으로 보인다.

Keywords

References

  1. IARC. World Cancer Report. In: Stewart BW, Kleihues P, eds. Washington D. C.: IARC Press, 2003
  2. IARC. World Cancer Report. In: Stewart BW, Kleihues P, eds. Washington D. C.: IARC Press, 2003
  3. Shin HR, Jung KW, Won YJ, Park JG. 2002 Annual Report of the Korea Central Cancer Registry: Based on Registered from 139 Hospitals. Cancer Res and Treat 2004; 36: 103-14 https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2004.36.2.103
  4. Dewar MA, Hall K, Perchalski J. Cervical cancer screening. Past success and future challenge. Prim Care 1992; 19: 589-606
  5. Koss LG. Cervical (Pap) smear. New directions. Cancer 1993; 71: 1406-12 https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.2820710405
  6. Lieu D. The Papanicolaou smear: its value and limitations. J Fam Pract 1996; 42: 391-9
  7. Guidozzi F. Screening for cervical cancer. Obstet Gynecol Surv 1996; 51: 247-52 https://doi.org/10.1097/00006254-199604000-00021
  8. Baldauf JJ, DreyfusM, Ritter J, Philippe E. An analysis of the factors involved in the diagnostic accuracy of colposcopically directed biopsy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1997; 76: 468-73 https://doi.org/10.3109/00016349709047830
  9. Stafl A. Cervicography: a new method for cervical cancer detection. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1981; 139: 815-25 https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9378(81)90549-4
  10. Szarewski A, Cuzick J, Edwards R, Butler B, Singer A. The use of cervicography in a primary screening service. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1991; 98: 313-7 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1991.tb13400.x
  11. zur Hausen H. Papillomaviruses and cancer: from basic studies to clinical application. Nat Rev Cancer 2002; 2: 342-50 https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc798
  12. Lorincz AT, Richart RM. Human papillomavirus DNA testing as an adjunct to cytology in cervical screening programs. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2003; 127: 959-68
  13. Coppleson LW, Brown B. Estimation of the screening error rate from the observed detection rates in repeated cercival cytology. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1974; 119: 953-8 https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9378(74)90013-1
  14. Giles JA, Hudson E, Crow J, Williams D, Walker P. Colposcopic assessment of the accuracy of cervical cytology screening. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1988; 296: 1099-102 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.296.6629.1099
  15. Fetherston WC. False-negative cytology in invasive cancer of the cervix. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1983; 26: 929-37 https://doi.org/10.1097/00003081-198312000-00017
  16. Morell ND, Taylor JR, Snyder RN, Ziel HK, Saltz A, Willie S. False-negative cytology rates in patients in whom invasive cervical cancer subsequently developed. Obstet Gynecol 1982; 60: 41-5
  17. Navratil E. Is there a place for the colposcope in an established cytologic screening program for uterine cancer? Acta Cytol 1965; 9: 391-3
  18. Ferris DG, Payne P, Frisch LE. Cervicography: an intermediate triage test for the evaluation of cervical atypia. J Fam Pract 1993; 37: 463-8
  19. Baldauf JJ, Dreyfus M, Lehmann M, Ritter J, Philippe E. Cervical cancer screening with cervicography and cytology. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1995; 58: 33-9 https://doi.org/10.1016/0028-2243(94)01970-I
  20. Baldauf JJ, Dreyfus M, Ritter J, Meyer P, Philippe E. Cervicography. Does it improve cervical cancer screening? Acta Cytol 1997; 41: 295-301 https://doi.org/10.1159/000332515
  21. De Sutter P, Coibion M, Vosse M, Hertens D, Huet F, Wesling F, et al. A multicentre study comparing cervicography and cytology in the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1998; 105: 613-20 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1998.tb10175.x
  22. Herrero R, Schiffman MH, Bratti C, Hildesheim A, Sherman ME, Morales J, et al. Evaluation of multiple screening techniques in a high risk area: The Guanacaste Project. In: Franco E, Monsonego J, eds. New Developments in Cervical Cancer Screening and Prevention. London: Blackwell Science, 1997.
  23. Kaufman RH, Adam E, Icenogle J, Reeves WC. Human papillomavirus testing as triage for atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance and low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions: sensitivity, specificity, and costeffectiveness. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997; 177: 930-6 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9378(97)70296-5
  24. Matsunaga G, Tsuji I, Sato S, Fukao A, Hisamichi S, Yajima A. Cost-effective analysis of mass screening for cervical cancer in Japan. J Epidemiol 1997; 7: 135-41 https://doi.org/10.2188/jea.7.135
  25. Qureshi MN, Rudelli RD, Tubbs RR, Biscotti CV, Layfield LJ. Role of HPV DNA testing in predicting cervical intraepithelial lesions: Comparison of HC HPV and ISH HPV. Diagn Cytopathol 2003; 29: 149-55 https://doi.org/10.1002/dc.10356
  26. Petry KU, Menton S, Menton M, van Loenen-Frosch F, de Carvalho Gomes H, Holz B, et al. Inclusion of HPV testing in routine cervical cancer screening for women above 29 years in Germany: results for 8466 patients. Br J Cancer 2003; 88: 1570-7 https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6600918
  27. An HJ, Cho NH, Lee SY, Kim IH, Lee C, Kim SJ, et al. Correlation of cervical carcinoma and precancerous lesions with human papillomavirus (HPV) genotypes detected with the HPV DNA chip microarray method. Cancer 2003; 97: 1672-80 https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.11235
  28. Clavel C, Masure M, Bory JP, Putaud I, Mangeonjean C, Lorenzato M, et al. Human papillomavirus testing in primary screening for the detection of high-grade cervical lesions: a study of 7932 women. Br J Cancer 2001; 84: 1616-23 https://doi.org/10.1054/bjoc.2001.1845