Skip to main content

Cost-effectiveness of human papillomavirus vaccination in Belgium: Do not forget about cervical cancer screening

  • Nancy Thiry (a1), Chris De Laet (a1), Frank Hulstaert (a1), Mattias Neyt (a1), Michel Huybrechts (a1) and Irina Cleemput (a1)...

Objectives: The cost-effectiveness of adding a human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination program in 12-year-old females to the recommended cervical cancer screening in Belgium is examined. Moreover, the health and economic consequences of a potential decline in screening uptake after initiation of a HPV vaccination program are investigated.

Methods: A static Markov model is developed to estimate the direct effect of vaccination on precancerous lesions and cervical cancers.

Results: Vaccination is estimated to avoid 20 percent of the cervical cancers occurring in a 12-year-old girls' cohort and to cost €32,665 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained (95 percent credibility interval [CrI]: €17,447 to €68,078), assuming a booster injection after 10 years, a limited duration of protection and discounting costs and effects at 3 percent and 1.5 percent, respectively. Assuming lifelong protection, HPV vaccination is estimated to cost €14,382 (95 percent CrI: €9,238 to €25,644) per QALY gained, while avoiding 50 percent of the cervical cancer cases. In the base-case, a 10 percent reduction in screening compliance after vaccination obliterates the effect of vaccination on cervical cancer cases avoided, whereas further declines in the level of screening compliance even turned out to be detrimental for the cohort's health, inducing a mean loss in QALYs and life-year gained compared with the situation prevaccination.

Conclusions: An HPV vaccination program should only be considered if the level of screening after vaccination can be maintained.

Hide All
1. Anonymous. Sterftetafels 2001: Verwachte levensduur, sterftekans en overlevingskans. In: FOD Economie K.M.O., Energie Middenstand en, editor. Brussels: Belgium; 2001.
2. Arveux P, Benard S, Bouee S et al. , Invasive cervical cancer treatment costs in France. Bull Cancer. 2007;94:219224.
3. Belgian Cancer Registry Foundation. Stichting Kankerregister – Fondation Registre du Cancer. Brussels: Belgium; 2007.
4. Belgisch Centrum voor Farmacotherapeutische Informatie. Gecommentarieerd geneesmiddelenrepertorium. Ghent: Belgium; 2007.
5. Bergeron C, Largeron N, McAllister R, Mathevet P, Remy V. Cost-effectiveness analysis of the introduction of a quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine in France. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:1019.
6. Beutels P, Van Damme P, Oosterhuis-Kafeja F. Effects and costs of pneumococcal conjugate vaccination of Belgian children. Health Technology Assessement (HTA). KCE reports. Brussels: Centre fédéral d'expertise des soins de santé (KCE); 2006.
7. Bilcke J, Beutels P, De Smet F et al. , Cost-effectiveness analysis of rotavirus vaccination of Belgian infants. Heath Technology Assessment (HTA). KCE reports. Brussels: Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE); 2007.
8. Boot HJ, Wallenburg I, de Melker HE et al. , Assessing the introduction of universal human papillomavirus vaccination for preadolescent girls in The Netherlands. Vaccine. 2007;25:62456256.
9. Brisson M, Edmunds WJ. Economic evaluation of vaccination programs: The impact of herd-immunity. Med Decis Making. 2003;23:7682.
10. Brisson M, Van de Velde N, De Wals P, Boily M-C. The potential cost-effectiveness of prophylactic human papillomavirus vaccines in Canada. Vaccine. 2007;25:53995408.
11. Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER). Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee – May, 18, 2006. GardasilTM: Quadrivalent Human Papillomavirus 6, 11, 16, 18 L1 VLP Vaccine. (Slide show by N. Miller). Rockville, MD: US Food and Drug Administration; 2006.
12. Chesson HW, Ekwueme DU, Saraiya M, Markowitz LE. Cost-effectiveness of human papillomavirus vaccination in the United States. Emerg Infect Dis. 2008;14:244251.
13. Cleemput I. Measuring self-reported health: An international perspective based on EQ-5D. Budapest: SpringMed Publishing; 2004.
14. Cleemput I, Van Wilder P, Vrijens F, Huybrechts M, Ramaekers D. Guidelines for pharmaco-economic evaluations in Belgium. Health Technology Assessment (HTA). In: (KCE) F.K.v.d.G., editor. KCE Reports. Brussels: Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE); 2008.
15. Conseil Supérieur dela Santé–Hoge Gezondheidsraad. Vaccination contre les infections causées par le papillomavirus humain. Bruxelles: Service Public Fédéral–Santé Publique; 2007:34.
16. Danish Centre for Health Technology Assessment. Reduction in the risk of cervical cancer by vaccination against human papillomavirus (HPV)—a health technology assessment. Copenhagen: Danish Centre for Health Technology Assessment; 2007.
17. Day N, Moss S, Berrino F, Choi N, Clarke E. Screening for squamous cervical cancer: Duration of low risk after negative results of cervical cytology and its implication for screening policies. IARC Working Group on evaluation of cervical cancer screening programmes. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1986;293:659664.
18. Elbasha EH, Dasbach EJ, Insinga RP. Model for assessing human papillomavirus vaccination strategies. Emerg Infect Dis. 2007;13:2841.
19. Fraser C, Tomassini JE, Xi L et al. , Modeling the long-term antibody response of a human papillomavirus (HPV) virus-like particle (VLP) type 16 prophylactic vaccine. Vaccine. 2007;25:43244333.
20. Future II Study Group. Quadrivalent vaccine against human papillomavirus to prevent high-grade cervical lesions. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:19151927.
21. Garland SM, Hernandez-Avila M, Wheeler CM et al. , Quadrivalent vaccine against human papillomavirus to prevent anogenital diseases. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:19281943.
22. Goldie SJ, Kohli M, Grima D et al. , Projected clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness of a human papillomavirus 16/18 vaccine. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004;96:604615.
23. Harper DM, Franco EL, Wheeler C et al. , Efficacy of a bivalent L1 virus-like particle vaccine in prevention of infection with human papillomavirus types 16 and 18 in young women: A randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2004;364:17571765.
24. Hulstaert F, Arbyn M, Huybrechts M et al. , Cervical cancer screening and human papillomavirus (HPV) testing. KCE reports 38C. Brussels: Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE); 2006.
25. International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organization. Cervix cancer screening. Lyon: IARC Press; 2005.
26. Kulasingam S, Connelly L, Conway E et al. , A cost-effectiveness analysis of adding a human papillomavirus vaccine to the Australian National Cervical Cancer Screening Program. Sex Health. 2007;4:165175.
27. Kulasingam SL, Myers ER. Potential health and economic impact of adding a human papillomavirus vaccine to screening programs. JAMA. 2003;290:781789.
28. McCrory DC, Matchar DB, Bastian L et al. , Evaluation of cervical cytology. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Summ). 1999:1–6.
29. Meijer CJ, Snijders PJ, Van Den Bruel AJ. Screening for cervical cancer: Should we test for infection with high-risk HPV? CMAJ. 2000;163:535538.
30. Merck Research Laboratories. Updated efficacy data: Gardasil®. Presentation to the American Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), National Immunization Program (NIP), from the Center for Diseases Control (CDC) (Slide show by E. Barr). Atlanta: CDC; 2007.
31. Munoz N, Bosch FX, Castellsague X et al. , Against which human papillomavirus types shall we vaccinate and screen? The international perspective. Int J Cancer. 2004;111:278285.
32. Myers ER, McCrory DC, Nanda K, Bastian L, Matchar DB. Mathematical model for the natural history of human papillomavirus infection and cervical carcinogenesis. Am J Epidemiol. 2000;151:11581171.
33. Nanda K, McCrory DC, Myers ER et al. , Accuracy of the Papanicolaou test in screening for and follow-up of cervical cytologic abnormalities: A systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2000;132:810819.
34. Neilson A, Freisleben de Blasio B. Økonomisk evaluering av humant papillomavirus (HPV) vaksinasjon i Norge. Oslo: Nasjonalt kunnskapssenter for helsetjenesten (NOKC); 2007.
35. Newall AT, Beutels P, Wood JG, Edmunds WJ, MacIntyre CR. Cost-effectiveness analyses of human papillomavirus vaccination. Lancet Infect Dis. 2007;7:289296.
36. Sanders GD, Taira AV. Cost-effectiveness of a potential vaccine for human papillomavirus. Emerg Infect Dis. 2003;9:3748.
37. Sigurdsson K, Taddeo F, Benediktsdottir K et al. , HPV genotypes in CIN 2–3 lesions and cervical cancer: A population-based study. Int J Cancer. 2007;121:26822687.
38. Smith JS, Lindsay L, Hoots B et al. , Human papillomavirus type distribution in invasive cervical cancer and high-grade cervical lesions: A meta-analysis update. Int J Cancer. 2007;121:621632.
39. Stoykova B. HPV testing matters—Findings from a time trade-off survey in England. Copenhagen: iHEA World Conference; 2007.
40. Taira AV, Neukermans CP, Sanders GD. Evaluating human papillomavirus vaccination programs. Emerg Infect Dis. 2004;10:19151923.
41. Thiry N, Lambert ML, Cleemput I et al. , HPV Vaccination for the prevention of cervical cancer in Belgium: Health technology assessment. Brussels: Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE); 2007.
42. Van Damme P, Theeten H, Hoppenbrouwers K et al. , Studie van de vaccinatiegraad bij jonge kinderen en adolescenten in Vlaanderen in 2005. Brussels: Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap. Departement Welzijn, Volksgezondheid en Cultuur Administratie Gezondheidszorg; 2006:87.
43. van Eycken L, De Wever N. Cancer incidence and survival in Flandres, 2000–2001. Brussels: Flemish Cancer Registry Network, VLK; 2006.
44. van Oortmarssen GJ, Habbema JD, van Ballegooijen M. Predicting mortality from cervical cancer after negative smear test results. BMJ. 1992;305:449451.
45. Villa LL, Costa RLR, 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. 2006;95:14591466.
46. Woodman CBJ, Collins SI, Young LS. The natural history of cervical HPV infection: Unresolved issues. Nat Rev Cancer. 2007;7:1122.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
  • ISSN: 0266-4623
  • EISSN: 1471-6348
  • URL: /core/journals/international-journal-of-technology-assessment-in-health-care
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *


Type Description Title
Supplementary Materials

Thiry supplementary materials
Supplementary tables

 Word (164 KB)
164 KB


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 1
Total number of PDF views: 19 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 145 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 19th November 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.