Advertisement

Impact of the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program on Cervical Cancer Mortality Among Uninsured Low-Income Women in the U.S., 1991–2007

      Background

      The benefits of the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) on cervical cancer screening for participating uninsured low-income women have never been measured.

      Purpose

      To estimate the benefits in life-years (LYs) gained; quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained; and deaths averted.

      Methods

      A cervical cancer simulation model was constructed based on an existing cohort model. The model was applied to NBCCEDP participants aged 18–64 years. Screening habits for uninsured low-income women were estimated using National Health Interview Survey data from 1990 to 2005 and NBCCEDP data from 1991 to 2007. The study was conducted during 2011–2012 and covered all 68 NBCCEDP grantees in 50 states, the District of Columbia, five U.S. territories, and 12 tribal organizations. Separate simulations were performed for the following three scenarios: (1) women who received NBCCEDP (Program) screening; (2) women who received screening without the program (No Program); and (3) women who received no screening (No Screening).

      Results

      Among 1.8 million women screened in 1991–2007, the Program added 10,369 LYs gained compared to No Program, and 101,509 LYs gained compared to No Screening. The Program prevented 325 women from dying of cervical cancer relative to No Program, and 3,829 relative to No Screening. During this time period, the Program accounted for 15,589 QALYs gained when compared with No Program, and 121,529 QALYs gained when compared with No Screening.

      Conclusions

      These estimates suggest that NBCCEDP cervical cancer screening has reduced mortality among medically underserved low-income women who participated in the program.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to American Journal of Preventive Medicine
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Smith H.O.
        • Tiffany M.F.
        • Qualls C.R.
        • Key C.R.
        The rising incidence of adenocarcinoma relative to squamous cell carcinoma of the uterine cervix in the U.S.—a 24-year population-based study.
        Gynecol Oncol. 2000; 78: 97-105
        • Pierce Campbell C.M.
        • Menezes L.J.
        • Paskett E.D.
        • et al.
        Prevention of invasive cervical cancer in the U.S.: past, present, and future.
        Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2012; 21: 1402-1408
        • Jemal A.
        • Simard E.P.
        • Dorell C.
        • et al.
        Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975–2009, featuring the burden and trends in human papillomavirus (HPV)–associated cancers and HPV vaccination coverage levels.
        J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013; 105: 175-201
        • Dunn Jr, J.E.
        • Schweitzer V.
        The relationship of cervical cytology to the incidence of invasive cervical cancer and mortality in Alameda County, California, 1960 to 1974.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1981; 139: 868-876
        • Meissner H.I.
        • Smith R.A.
        • Rimer B.K.
        • et al.
        Promoting cancer screening: learning from experience.
        Cancer. 2004; 101: S1107-S1117
        • Swan J.
        • Breen N.
        • Coates R.J.
        • Rimer B.K.
        • Lee N.C.
        Progress in cancer screening practices in the U.S.: results from the 2000 National Health Interview Survey.
        Cancer. 2003; 97: 1528-1540
        • Edwards B.K.
        • Ward E.
        • Kohler B.A.
        • et al.
        Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975–2006, featuring colorectal cancer trends and impact of interventions (risk factors, screening, and treatment) to reduce future rates.
        Cancer. 2010; 116: 544-573
        • Leyden W.A.
        • Manos M.M.
        • Geiger A.M.
        • et al.
        Cervical cancer in women with comprehensive health care access: attributable factors in the screening process.
        J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005; 97: 675-683
        • Wang S.S.
        • Sherman M.E.
        • Hildesheim A.
        • Lacey Jr, J.V.
        • Devesa S.
        Cervical adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma incidence trends among white women and black women in the U.S. for 1976–2000.
        Cancer. 2004; 100: 1035-1044
      1. CDC. The National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program. cdc.gov/cancer/nbccedp/about.htm.

        • Myers E.R.
        • McCrory D.C.
        • Nanda K.
        • Bastian L.
        • Matchar D.B.
        Mathematical model for the natural history of human papillomavirus infection and cervical carcinogenesis.
        Am J Epidemiol. 2000; 151: 1158-1171
        • Kulasingam S.L.
        • Myers E.R.
        Potential health and economic impact of adding a human papillomavirus vaccine to screening programs.
        JAMA. 2003; 290: 781-789
      2. Greene F.L. Page D.L. Fleming I.D. AJCC cancer staging manual. 6th ed. Springer-Verlag, New York2002
      3. Young Jr, J.L. Roffers S.D. Ries L.A.G. Fritz A.G. Hurlbut A.A. National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda MD2001 (Publication No. 01-4969)
        • Benard V.B.
        • Howe W.
        • Royalty J.
        • Helsel W.
        • Kammerer W.
        • Richardson L.C.
        Timeliness of cervical cancer diagnosis and initiation of treatment in the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program.
        J Womens Health. 2012; 21: 1-7
      4. CDC, National Center for Health Statistics, life tables. cdc.gov/nchs/products/life_tables.htm.

        • Mandelblatt J.S.
        • Lawrence W.F.
        • Womack S.M.
        • et al.
        Benefits and costs of using HPV testing to screen for cervical cancer.
        JAMA. 2002; 287: 2372-2381
        • Kim J.J.
        • Wright T.C.
        • Goldie S.J.
        Cost-effectiveness of alternative triage strategies for atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance.
        JAMA. 2002; 287: 2382-2390
        • Gold M.R.
        • Siegel J.E.
        • Russell L.B.
        • Weinstein M.C.
        Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine.
        1st ed. Oxford University Press, New York1996
        • Tangka F.K.
        • O’Hara B.
        • Gardner J.G.
        • et al.
        Meeting the cervical cancer screening needs of underserved women: the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program, 2004–2006.
        Cancer Causes Control. 2010; 21: 1081-1090
        • Wright J.C.
        • Weinstein M.C.
        Gains in life expectancy from medical interventions–standardizing data on outcomes.
        N Engl J Med. 1998; 339: 380-386
        • Maciosek M.V.
        • Coffield A.B.
        • Flottemesch T.J.
        • Edwards N.M.
        • Solberg L.I.
        Greater use of preventive services in U.S. health care could save lives at little or no cost.
        Health Aff. 2010; 29: 1656-1660
        • Hoerger T.J.
        • Ekwueme D.U.
        • Miller J.W.
        • et al.
        Estimated effects of the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program on breast cancer mortality.
        Am J Prev Med. 2011; 40: 397-404
      5. Steele RJ, Gnauck R, Hrcka R, Kronborg O, et al. Methods and economic considerations: group 1 report. ESGE/UEGF Colorectal Cancer–Public Awareness Campaign. The Public/Professional Interface Workshop: Oslo, Norway, June 20–22, 2003. Endoscopy 2004;36(4):349–53.

        • U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
        Screening for cervical cancer: recommendations and rationale.
        Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville MD2003
        • Moyer V.A.
        Screening for cervical cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.
        Ann Intern Med. 2012; 156: 880-891
        • Saslow D.
        • Solomon D.
        • Lawson H.W.
        • et al.
        American Cancer Society, American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, and American Society for Clinical Pathology Screening guidelines for the prevention and early detection of cervical cancer.
        CA Cancer J Clin. 2012; 62: 147-172
        • Committee on Practice Bulletins–Gynecology
        ACOG practice bulletin number 131: screening for cervical cancer.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2012; 120: 1222-1238
        • Kulasingam S.L.
        • Havrilesky L.
        • Ghebre R.
        • Myers E.R.
        Screening for cervical cancer: a decision analysis for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.
        Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville MD2011
        • Castle P.E.
        • Carreon J.D.
        Practice improvement in cervical screening and management (PICSM): symposium on management of cervical abnormalities in adolescents and young women.
        J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2010; 14: 238-240
      6. Breast and Cervical Cancer Prevention and Treatment Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106–354, 114 Stat. 1381 (Oct. 24, 2000).

      7. Curry S.J. Byers T. Hewitt M. Fulfilling the potential of cancer prevention and early detection. National Academy Press, Washington DC2003
        • Levy A.R.
        • Bruen B.K.
        • Ku L.
        Health care reform and women’s insurance coverage for breast and cervical cancer screening.
        Prev Chronic Dis. 2012; 9: E159
      8. Physicians for a National Health Program. CBO now estimates 31 million will remain uninsured. pnhp.org/print/news/2013/may/cbo-now-estimates-31-million-will-remain-uninsured.

        • Whitlock E.P.
        • Vesco K.
        • Eder M.
        • Lin J.S.
        • Senger C.A.
        • Burda B.U.
        Liquid-based cytology and HPV testing to screen for cervical cancer: a systematic evidence review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.
        Ann Intern Med. 2011; 155: 687-697
        • Seibers A.G.
        • Klinkhamer P.J.
        • Grefte J.M.
        • et al.
        Comparison of liquid-based cytology with conventional cytology for detection of cervical cancer precursors: a randomized controlled trial.
        JAMA. 2009; 302: 1757-1764
        • Arbyn M.
        • Bergeron C.
        • Klinkhamer P.
        • Martin-Hirsch P.
        • Siebers A.G.
        • Bulten J.
        Liquid compared with conventional cervical cytology: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 111: 167-177
      9. CDC. WISEWOMAN: Well-Integrated Screening and Evaluation for Women Across the Nation. cdc.gov/wisewoman.

        • Szarewski A.
        • Cuzick J.
        Smoking and cervical neoplasia a review off the evidence.
        J Epidemiol Biostat. 1998; 3: 229-256
        • Clarke B.
        • Chetty R.
        Postmodern cancer: the role of human immunodeficiency virus in uterine cervical cancer.
        Mol Pathol. 2002; 55: 19-24
        • Smith J.S.
        • Herrero R.
        • Bosetti C.
        • et al.
        Herpes simplex virus-2 as a human papillomavirus cofactor in the etiology of invasive cervical cancer.
        J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002; 94: 1604-1613
        • Briggs A.H.
        • Weinstein M.C.
        • Fenwick E.A.
        • et al.
        Model parameter estimation and uncertainty analysis: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force Working Group-6.
        Med Decis Making. 2012; 32: 722-732