Search

Objectives We modelled human papilloma virus (HPV) primary screening scenarios compared with Pap cytology to evaluate clinical effectiveness and projected annual costs in Germany. Study design A Markov cohort model was built to compare the budget impact of annual Pap cytology with different 5-yearly HPV screening scenarios: (1) a positive HPV test followed by Pap cytology; (2) a positive HPV test followed by p16/Ki-67 dual-stained cytology; (3) a positive HPV test followed by colposcopy if HPV-16/18-positive or p16/Ki-67 dual-stained cytology if positive for other subtypes; (4) co-testing with HPV and Pap. Screening scenarios were based on a 10-year horizon. Results All HPV screening scenarios in the model were associated with fewer deaths from missed diagnosis of cervical cancer compared with Pap screening; 10-year totals n = 172–344 (1.5–3 per 100,000) versus n = 477 (4.1 per 100,000), respectively. Total annual costs were lower with HPV screening than Pap cytology. The projected average annual cost for HPV screening ranged from €117 million to €136 million compared with €177 million for Pap screening, representing annual savings of €41–60 million. The greatest clinical impact was achieved with primary HPV screening (with genotyping) followed by colposcopy for HPV 16/18-positive women or p16/Ki-67 dual-stained cytology for women positive for other HPV subtypes. Conclusion Screening strategies including primary HPV testing for high-risk subtypes (HPV-16/18) in conjunction with p16/Ki-67 dual-stained cytology can improve the detection of cervical cancer at a lower total annual cost than conventional Pap cytology screening.

Objectives Colposcopy training and assessment is not uniform across Europe with individual countries determining their own required standards and regulations. In light of the significant changes in colposcopic practice that have occurred over the past decade and the expansion of the European Federation for Colposcopy (EFC) membership, a study was conducted firstly, to assess the current requirements for training in each of the member countries and secondly, to review an EFC-approved core training curriculum for colposcopy. Study design A questionnaire survey of the EFC representatives from all member countries investigating their country's current practices/requirements with regard to training, assessment and accreditation for colposcopy. A two-round Delphi consultation with representation from the full, associate and three potential member countries was conducted using a 5-point Likert scale for scoring opinions. The results were analysed with respect to each country's population size and World Bank economic classification. Results For the questionnaire survey, responses were received from 31/34 countries invited to participate. Training programmes were reported to be in place in 21 of the 31 countries but only 17 of the 21 countries had a committee overseeing the training programme. An assessment was part of the training programme in 20 countries with multiple choice questions and portfolios the most common assessment tools. Countries with a population size less than 2 million have a statistically significant lower probability of having a structured training/assessment programme, 1/5 compared to 20/26 for a populations greater than 2 million, p = 0.013. For the Delphi study, responses were received from 34/39 countries invited to participate. Of the 51 competencies previously identified only 2 did not receive full support: ‘perform bacterial swabs’ and ‘provide data to national body’. There was no significant difference in the responses given by member, associate member or potential member countries. Conclusions There is considerable variation in colposcopy training and assessment across Europe. This study has enabled consensus opinion with the EFC on the contents of an EFC core curriculum. The revised curriculum has a mandate from the EFC member countries to be implemented across Europe as the standard for colposcopic training.