Correction: Chua et al. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of HPV Extended versus Partial Genotyping for Cervical Cancer Screening in Singapore. Cancers 2023, 15, 1812
by
, ,
Brandon Chua
1,2
,
Li Min Lim
3,
Joseph Soon Yau Ng
3,
Yan Ma
2,
Hwee Lin Wee
1,4,* and
J. Jaime Caro
1,5,6,7 1
Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, 12 Science Drive 2, Singapore 117549, Singapore
2
Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Becton Dickinson Holdings Pte. Ltd., 2 International Business Park Road, The Strategy #08-08, Singapore 609930, Singapore
3
Division of Gynaecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, National University Hospital, 5 Lower Kent Ridge Rd., Singapore 119074, Singapore
4
Department of Pharmacy, National University of Singapore, 18 Science Drive 4, Singapore 117543, Singapore
5
School of Global and Population Health, McGill University, Suite 1200, 2001 McGill College Avenue, Montréal, QC H3A 1G1, Canada
6
Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE, UK
7
Evidera, 500 Totten Pond Rd., Waltham, MA 02451, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Cancers 2023, 15(18), 4658; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15184658
Submission received: 25 July 2023
/
Accepted: 8 August 2023
/
Published: 21 September 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Prevention and Screening in Gynaecological Cancers)
The authors wish to revise two words in Table 1 row 3, and the first paragraph of Section 2.3 of this article [1] that were overlooked in the final proofreading.
Table 1 row 3: “follow-up adherence” should be read as “follow-up non-adherence”; Section 2.3: the gross domestic product per capita in Singapore in 2021 should read “SGD 97,798” instead of “USD 97,798”.
This is the corrected paragraph:
Table 1.
Inputs for the model.
| Input | Base Case | Lower Limit | Upper Limit | Distribution | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number eligible | 1,037,598 | - | - | - | [27,28] |
| Screening coverage | 48.2% | 45.8% | 50.7% | Beta | [30] |
| Follow-up non-adherence * | 25.0% | 0% | 40% | - | [28] † |
| Clinical inputs | |||||
| hrHPV | |||||
| Prevalence | 9.2% | 7.9% | 10.5% | Beta | [28] |
| % non-HPV16/18 | 80.8% | 70.3% | 83.0% | Beta | [28] |
| % Group B | 56.6% | 51.0% | 61.0% | Beta | [41] |
| % NILM | 56.1% | - | - | - | [42] |
| ASCUS among: | |||||
| Group B | 31.8% | - | - | - | [42] |
| Group A | 40.6% | - | - | - | [42] |
| CIN1 regressing in 1 year | 60.0% | 45.0% | 73.0% | Beta | [43] |
| Cancers among: | |||||
| CIN2+ diagnosis | 2.6% | 2.3% | 2.9% | Beta | [44] |
| CIN2+ of Group B with ASCUS | 2.6% | 0.0% | 10.0% | - | [44,45,46,47] |
| CIN2+ risk with: | |||||
| Group B with ASCUS | 6.1% | 2.6% | 9.5% | Beta | [45,46,47,48] |
| Group A with ASCUS | 14.2% | - | - | - | [48] |
| HPV16/18 | 21.9% | - | - | - | [48] |
| Non-HPV16/18 with LSIL+ | 16.4% | - | - | - | [48] |
| PSGI at repeat screening | 57.1% | 54.2% | 60.1% | Beta | [49,50,51] |
| hrHPV 1 yr persistence | 43.3% | 41.8% | 44.8% | Beta | [52] |
| HSIL/ASC-H 1 year post CIN1/negative for CIN | 6.7% | 5.7% | 7.7% | Beta | [53] |
| ASCUS+/HPV+ 2 years post CIN1/negative for CIN | 15.4% | 13.8% | 17.1% | Beta | [28] |
| Proportion stage I cancer | 40.8% | - | - | - | [54] |
| Proportion stage II cancer | 24.4% | - | - | - | [54] |
| Proportion stage III cancer | 18.1% | - | - | - | [54] |
| Proportion stage IV cancer | 16.7% | - | - | - | [54] |
| 10-year cancer survival | 45.4% | - | - | - | [40] |
| XGT repeat screenings | 2 | 1 | 5 | - | † |
| Annualized CIN2+ risk for | |||||
| HPV genotype persistence | |||||
| Same | 5.7% | - | - | - | [55] |
| Change | 1.9% | - | - | - | [55] |
| Regardless of genotype | 3.3% | - | - | - | [55] |
| Multiplier for CIN2+ risk | 1 | 0.7 | 1.38 | Normal | † |
| Annualized CIN2+ risk for CIN1/negative for CIN | |||||
| 1 negative pap smear | 1.1% | - | - | - | [56] |
| ASCUS/LSIL upon follow-up | 2.1% | - | - | - | [56] |
| ASC-H upon follow-up | 5.3% | - | - | - | [56] |
| HSIL+ upon follow-up | 3.4% | - | - | - | [56] |
| Cost inputs SGD (USD) | |||||
| Clinic visit | 75 (89) | 37 (44) | 113 (134) | Normal | [34] |
| Cytology | 79 (94) | 39 (46) | 119 (141) | Normal | [34] |
| HPV DNA (PGT) | 115 (137) | 57 (68) | 173 (206) | Normal | [34] |
| CIN2/3 treatment | 3662 (4354) | 1832 (2178) | 5492 (6530) | Normal | [34] |
| Colposcopy | 350 (416) | 174 (207) | 526 (625) | Normal | [34] |
| Biopsy | 500 (595) | 250 (297) | 750 (892) | Normal | [34] |
| Colposcopies with biopsies | 8% | - | - | - | † |
| Stage I cancer treatment | 28,350 (33,710) | 14,176 (16,856) | 42,524 (50,564) | - | [34] |
| Stage II cancer treatment | 34,568 (41,103) | 17,284 (20,552) | 51,852 (61,655) | - | [34] |
| Stage III cancer treatment | 34,568 (41,103) | 17,284 (20,552) | 51,852 (61,655) | - | [34] |
| Stage IV cancer line 1 treatment | 43,016 (51,149) | 21,508 (25,574) | 64,524 (76,723) | - | [34] |
| Stage IV cancer line 2 treatment | 75,552 (89,836) | 37,776 (44,918) | 113,328 (134,754) | - | [34] |
| Cancer treatment ‡ | 37,227 (44,265) | 29,781 (35,412) | 44,672 (53,118) | Normal | Calculated |
| XGT cost factor | 1.15 | 1.00 | 1.30 | - | † |
| Utility | |||||
| Screening | 0.980 | 0.970 | 0.990 | - | [34] |
| Colposcopy normal results | 0.950 | 0.924 | 0.976 | - | [34] |
| CIN1 | 0.910 | 0.888 | 0.954 | - | [34] |
| CIN2/3 | 0.870 | 0.804 | 0.936 | - | [34] |
| Cancer Stage I | 0.650 | 0.490 | 0.810 | - | [34] |
| Cancer Stage II/III | 0.560 | 0.420 | 0.700 | - | [34] |
| Cancer Stage IV | 0.480 | 0.360 | 0.600 | - | [34] |
| Cancer stage I survivor | 0.970 | 0.730 | 0.990 | - | [34] |
| Cancer stage II/III survivor | 0.900 | 0.680 | 0.990 | - | [34] |
| Cancer stage IV survivor | 0.620 | 0.470 | 0.780 | - | [34] |
| QALY loss | |||||
| Screening | 0.000769 | 0.000384 | 0.00115 | Normal | Calculated |
| CIN1 or negative for CIN1 | 0.00538 | 0.00269 | 0.00723 | Normal | Calculated |
| CIN2/3 | 0.0200 | 0.00985 | 0.0302 | Normal | Calculated |
| Cancer treatment ‡ | 0.0930 | 0.0640 | 0.121 | Normal | Calculated |
| Average lifetime QALY loss for cancer ‡ | 18.7 | 14.9 | 22.4 | Normal | Calculated |
* repeat screening, post-colposcopy for CIN1/negative for CIN; † assumption; ‡ weighted by stage. Abbreviations: ASCUS: atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance; ASC-H: atypical squamous cells cannot exclude high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion; CIN: cervical intraepithelial neoplasia; hrHPV: human papillomavirus genotypes; HSIL: high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion; PGT: HPV partial genotyping; NILM: negative for intraepithelial lesion or malignancy; XGT: HPV extended genotyping.
The total cost and QALY loss with XGT were compared to PGT. The difference in costs divided by the difference in QALY loss provided the incremental cost-effective ratio (ICER). All costs and QALY losses were discounted at 3.0% annually, in line with ACE recommendations [57]. The cost-effectiveness threshold was taken as SGD 100,000 (USD 118,906), comparable to the gross domestic product per capita in Singapore in 2021 (SGD 97,798) [58].
The authors apologize for any inconvenience caused and state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. The original article has been updated.
Reference
- Chua, B.; Lim, L.M.; Ng, J.S.Y.; Ma, Y.; Wee, H.L.; Caro, J.J. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of HPV Extended versus Partial Genotyping for Cervical Cancer Screening in Singapore. Cancers 2023, 15, 1812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Chua, B.; Lim, L.M.; Ng, J.S.Y.; Ma, Y.; Wee, H.L.; Caro, J.J. Correction: Chua et al. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of HPV Extended versus Partial Genotyping for Cervical Cancer Screening in Singapore. Cancers 2023, 15, 1812. Cancers 2023, 15, 4658. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15184658
AMA Style
Chua B, Lim LM, Ng JSY, Ma Y, Wee HL, Caro JJ. Correction: Chua et al. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of HPV Extended versus Partial Genotyping for Cervical Cancer Screening in Singapore. Cancers 2023, 15, 1812. Cancers. 2023; 15(18):4658. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15184658
Chicago/Turabian StyleChua, Brandon, Li Min Lim, Joseph Soon Yau Ng, Yan Ma, Hwee Lin Wee, and J. Jaime Caro. 2023. "Correction: Chua et al. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of HPV Extended versus Partial Genotyping for Cervical Cancer Screening in Singapore. Cancers 2023, 15, 1812" Cancers 15, no. 18: 4658. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15184658
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
