Chua et al. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of HPV Extended versus Partial Genotyping for Cervical Cancer Screening in Singapore. <i>Cancers</i> (vol <i>15</i>, 1812, 2023)

Abstract

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: Inputs for the model. * 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.