Journal of Public Health

, Volume 18, Issue 1, pp 3–13 | Cite as

HPV-vaccination for the prevention of cervical cancer in Austria: a model based long-term prognosis of cancer epidemiology

  • Ingrid Zechmeister
  • Birgitte Freiesleben de Blasio
  • Geoff Garnett
Original Article

Abstract

Aim

Cervical cancer incidence and mortality have decreased for the last 20 years in Austria; however, they remain relatively high in comparison to other European countries. Screening quality has been suboptimal. In this paper we aim to predict the population-wide long-term effects on cervical cancer morbidity and mortality after introducing an HPV vaccination for 12-year-old girls (and boys) in addition to current screening in comparison with screening only.

Methods

Health effects are predicted by a dynamic transmission model that was previously applied in the UK and the Norwegian contexts and validated for Austria. Outcomes analyzed are restricted to cervical cancer mortality and morbidity, which are predicted until 2060 assuming a coverage rate between 65% and 85%, a duration of protection between 10 years and lifelong, and a vaccine efficacy between 80% and 100% in the base case and best case, respectively. Additionally, implications for cancer epidemiology until 2088 are estimated.

Results

Compared to screening only, screening plus vaccination of 12-year-old girls (and boys) would result in a median reduction of 10% (15%) fewer new cancer cases and 13% (20%) fewer cervical cancer deaths under best case assumptions over 52 years in the overall female population. In 2060, female population-based incidence and mortality would decrease by 27% and 43%, respectively, when vaccinating girls only and by 37% and 45% when additionally vaccinating boys. After 2060, a continuous further decrease in incidence and mortality can be expected with a maximum of minus 43% and 53%, respectively, in 2088 when vaccinating girls only.

Conclusion

Although a constant decrease in cervical cancer incidence and mortality is to be expected after introducing a population-wide HPV vaccination program in Austria, the reduction predicted by this model is lower than expected from clinical trials. This is due to several factors, such as low coverage rate and the long time horizon required for generating the maximum benefit of the vaccination in the overall population. In the context of limited resources, for further reducing cervical cancer in Austria, HPV vaccination programs need to be weighed against other public health alternatives such as improving screening quality.

Keywords

HPV vaccination Cervical carcinoma incidence Cervical carcinoma mortality Austria 

References

  1. Barnabas RV, Garnett GP (2005) The potential public health impact of vaccines against human papillomavirus. In: Prendiville W, Davies P (eds) The health professionals HPV handbook. Taylor & Francis, AbingdonGoogle Scholar
  2. Bergeron C, Largeron N, McAllister R, Mathevet P, Remy V (2008) Cost-effectiveness analysis of the introduction of a quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine in France. International Journal of Health Technology Assessment in Health Care 24:10–19Google Scholar
  3. Brisson M, Van der Velde N, De Wals P, Boily M-C (2007) The potential cost-effectiveness of prophylactic human papillomavirus vaccines in Canada. Vaccine 25:5399–5408CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bundesministerium für Gesundheit Familie und Jugend (BMGFJ) (2007) Impfstatistik. In. Bundesministerium für Gesundheit, Familie und Jugend; Abteilung Infektionskrankheiten, Seuchenbekämpfung und Krisenmanagement, WienGoogle Scholar
  5. Coste J, Cochand-Priollet B, de Cremoux P, Le Galés C, Cartier I, Molinié V, Labbé S, Vacher-Lavenu M-C, Vielh P (2003) Cross sectional study of conventional cervical smear, monolayer cytology, and human papillomavirus DNA testing for cervical cancer screening. Br Med J 326:733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dasbach EJ, Insinga R, Elbahsa EH (2008) The epidemiological and economic impact of a quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine (6/11/16/18) in the UK. BJOG. An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 115:947–956CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Elbasha EH, Dasbach EJ, Insinga RP (2007) Model for assessing human papillomavirus vaccination strategies. Emerg Infect Dis 13:28–41CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Ferlay J, Bray F, Pisani P, Parkin DM (2004) GLOBCAN 2002 cancer incidence. mortality and prevalence worldwide. In: IARC CancerBase No. 5 version 2.0. IARC Press, LyonGoogle Scholar
  9. French KM, Barnabas RV, Lehtinen M, Kontula O, Pukkala E, Dillner J, Garnett GP (2007) Strategies for the introduction of human papillomavirus vaccination: modelling the optimum age- and sex-specific pattern of vaccination in Finland. Br J Cancer 96:514–518CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Garnett GP (2005) Role of herd immunity in determining the effect of vaccines against sexually transmitted disease. J Infect Dis 191:s97–s106CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Garnett GP, Kim JJ, French K, Goldie SJ (2006) Modelling the impact of HPV vaccines on cervical cancer and screening programmes. Vaccine 24S3:178–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goldie SJ, Kohli M, Grima D, Weinstein MC, Wright TC, Bosch FX, Franco E (2004) Projected clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness of a human papillomavirus 16/18 vaccine. J Natl Cancer Inst 96:604–615PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goldie SJ, Kim JJ, Kobus K, Goldhaber-Fiebert JD, Salomon J, O’Shea MKH, Bosch X, de Sanjosé S, Franco E (2007) Cost-effectiveness of HPV 16, 18 vaccination in Brazil. Vaccine 25:6257–6270CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Hackl M (2007) Krebsstatistik. Sonderauswertung. In: Statistik Austria, WienGoogle Scholar
  15. Hauptverband der österreichischen Sozialversicherungsträger (2007) Datenerhebung Pap-Abstrich. In: Hauptverband der österreichischen Sozialversicherungsträger, WienGoogle Scholar
  16. Ho GY, Bierman R, Beardsley L, Chang CJ, Burk RD (1998) Natural history of cervicovaginal papillomavirus infection among cytologically normal women. N Eng J Med 338:423–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hughes JP, Garnett GP, Koutsky LA (2002) The theoretical population-level impact of a phrophylactic human papilloma virus vaccine. Epidemiology 13:631–639CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Insinga R, Dasbach EJ, Elbahsa EH, Puig A, Reynales-Shigematsu LM (2007) Cost-effectiveness of quadrivalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination in Mexico: a transmission dynamic model-based evaluation. Vaccine 26:128–139CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Jit M, Choi YH, Edmunds WJ (2008) Economic evaluation of human papillomavirus vaccination in the United Kingdom. Br Med J 337:a769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kim J, Goldie S (2008) Health and economic implications of HPV vaccination in the United States. N Eng J Med 359:821–832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kim JJ, Kuntz KM, Stout NK, Mahmud S, Villa LL, Franco E, Goldie S (2007) Multiparameter calibration of a natural history model of cervical cancer. Am J Epidemiol 166:137–150CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Kohli M, Ferko N, Martin A, Franco E, Jenkins D, Gallivan S, Sherlaw-Johnson C, Drummond M (2007) Estimating the long-term impact of a prophylactic human papillomavirus 16/18 vaccine on the burden of cervical cancer in the UK. Br J Cancer 96:143–150CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Kulasingam SL, Myers ER (2003) Potential health and economic impact of adding a human papillomavirus vaccine to screening programs. J Am Med Assoc 290:781–789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kulasingam SL, Benard S, Barnabas RV, Largeron N, Myers ER (2008) Adding a quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine to the UK cervical cancer screening programme: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation 6:4CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Muñoz N, Bosch F, Castellasague X, Díaz M, de Sanjose S, Hammouda D, Shah K, Meijer C (2004a) Against which human paillomavirus types shall we vaccinate and screen? Int J Cancer 111:278–285CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Muñoz N, Mendez F, Posso H, Molano M, van den Brule AJ, Ronderos M, Meijer C, Munoz A (2004b) Incidence, duration, and determination of cervical human papillomavirus infection in a cohort of Columbian women with normal cytological results. J Infect Dis 190:2077–2087CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. National Board of Health, Danish Centre for Health Technology Assessement (2007) Reduction in the risk of cervical cancer by vaccination against human papillomavirus (HPV) - a health technology assessment. In: National Board of Health, Danish Centre for Health Technology Assessment, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  28. Neilson A, Freiesleben de Blasio B (2007) Economic evaluation of the human papillomavirus (HPV)-vaccination in Norway. In: Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, OsloGoogle Scholar
  29. Nielsen E, Alfsen GC, Feiring B, Skjeldestad FE, Steen R, Saeterdal I (2007) Prophylactic vaccines against human papillomavirus. In: Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, OsloGoogle Scholar
  30. Piso B, Wild C (2008) Rational vaccination policy - decision support. Review of international literature for ‘rational’ vaccination policies. In: Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Health Technology Assessment, WienGoogle Scholar
  31. Roberts C, Tadesse A, Sands J, Halvorsen T, Schonfield T, Dalen A, Skjeldestad F, Jansen K (2006) Detection of HPV in Norwegian cervical biopsy specimens with type-specific PCR and reverse line blot assays. Clinical Virology 36:277–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sanders G, Taira AV (2003) Cost effectiveness of a potential vaccine for human papillomavirus. Emerg Infect Dis 9:37–48PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Statistik Austria (2007a) Bevölkerungsstatistik. Einzelauswertung. In: Statistik Austria, WienGoogle Scholar
  34. Statistik Austria (2007b) Jahrbuch der Gesundheitsstatistik 2005. In: Statistik Austria, WienGoogle Scholar
  35. Taira AV, Neukermans CP, Sanders GD (2004) Evaluating human papillomavirus vaccination programs. Emerg Infect Dis 10:1915–1923PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Thiry N, Lambert M-L, Cleemput I, Huybrechts M, Neyt M, Hulstaert F, De Laet C (2007) HPV vaccination for the prevention of cervical cancer in Belgium: health technology assessment. In: Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE), BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  37. Vutuc C, Haidinger G, Waldhoer T, Ahmad F, Breitenecker G (1999) Prevalence of self-reported cervical cancer screening and impact on cervical cancer mortality in Austria. Wien Klin Wochenschr 111:354–359PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Zechmeister I, Freiesleben de Blasio B, Garnett G, Neilson A, Siebert U (2009) Cost-effectiveness analysis of human papillomavirus-vaccination programs to prevent cervical cancer in Austria. Vaccine 27:5133–5141CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ingrid Zechmeister
    • 1
  • Birgitte Freiesleben de Blasio
    • 2
  • Geoff Garnett
    • 3
  1. 1.Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Health Technology AssessmentViennaAustria
  2. 2.Institute of Medical SciencesUniversity of OsloBlindernNorway
  3. 3.Imperial CollegeInstitute of Microparasite EpidemiologyLondonUK

Personalised recommendations