Person:

Kim, Jane

Abstract With the availability of a low-cost HPV DNA test that can be administered by either a healthcare provider or a woman herself, programme planners require information on the costs and cost-effectiveness of implementing cervical cancer screening programmes in low-resource settings under different models of healthcare delivery. Using data from the START-UP demonstration project and a micro-costing approach, we estimated the health and economic impact of once-in-a-lifetime HPV self-collection campaign relative to clinic-based provider-collection of HPV specimens in Uganda. We used an individual-based Monte Carlo simulation model of the natural history of HPV and cervical cancer to estimate lifetime health and economic outcomes associated with screening with HPV DNA testing once in a lifetime (clinic-based provider-collection vs a self-collection campaign). Test performance and cost data were obtained from the START-UP demonstration project using a micro-costing approach. Model outcomes included lifetime risk of cervical cancer, total lifetime costs (in 2011 international dollars [I$]), and life expectancy. Cost-effectiveness ratios were expressed using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). When both strategies achieved 75% population coverage, ICERs were below Uganda’s per capita GDP (self-collection: I$80 per year of life saved [YLS]; provider-collection: I$120 per YLS). When the self-collection campaign achieved coverage gains of 15–20%, it was more effective than provider-collection, and had a lower ICER unless coverage with both strategies was 50% or less. Findings were sensitive to cryotherapy compliance among screen-positive women and relative HPV test performance. The primary limitation of this analysis is that self-collection costs are based on a hypothetical campaign but are based on unit costs from Uganda. Once-in-a-lifetime screening with HPV self-collection may be very cost-effective and reduce cervical cancer risk by > 20% if coverage is high. Demonstration projects will be needed to confirm the validity of our logistical, costing and compliance assumptions.

World Health Organization guidelines recommend that cervical cancer screening programs should prioritize screening coverage in women aged 30 to 49 years. Decisions about target ages and screening frequency depend upon local burden of disease, costs, and capacity. We used cost and test performance data from the START-UP demonstration projects in India, Nicaragua, and Uganda to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of screening at various start ages, intervals, and frequencies. We calibrated a mathematical simulation model of cervical carcinogenesis to each country and compared screening with careHPV (cervical and vaginal sampling), visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA), and cytology between the ages of 25 and 50 years, at frequencies of once to three times in a lifetime, at 5- and 10-year intervals. Screening with careHPV (cervical sampling) was the most effective and cost-effective strategy in all settings; careHPV (vaginal sampling) was only slightly less effective. The most critical ages for screening are between ages 30 and 45 years. Within this age range, screening at certain ages may be relatively more cost-effective, but cancer risk reductions are similar for a given screening test and interval. Screening three times between 30 and 45 years was very cost-effective and reduced cancer risk by ~50%.

Background: Where resources are available, the World Health Organization recommends cervical cancer screening with human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing and subsequent treatment of HPV-positive women with timely cryotherapy. Newer technologies may facilitate a same-day screen-and-treat approach, but these testing systems are generally too expensive for widespread use in low-resource settings. Methods: To assess the value of a hypothetical point-of-care HPV test, we used a mathematical simulation model of the natural history of HPV and data from the START-UP multi-site demonstration project to estimate the health benefits and costs associated with a shift from a 2-visit approach (requiring a return visit for treatment) to 1-visit HPV testing (i.e., screen-and-treat). We estimated the incremental net monetary benefit (INMB), which represents the maximum additional lifetime cost per woman that could be incurred for a new point-of-care HPV test to be cost-effective, depending on expected loss to follow-up between visits (LTFU) in a given setting. Results: For screening three times in a lifetime at 100% coverage of the target population, when LTFU was 10%, the INMB of the 1-visit relative to the 2-visit approach was I$13 in India, I$36 in Nicaragua, and I$17 in Uganda. If LTFU was 30% or greater, the INMB values for the 1-visit approach in all countries was equivalent to or exceeded total lifetime costs associated with screening three times in a lifetime. At a LTFU level of 70%, the INMB of the 1-visit approach was I$127 in India, I$399 in Nicaragua, and I$121 in Uganda. Conclusions: These findings indicate that point-of-care technology for cervical cancer screening may be worthy of high investment if linkage to treatment can be assured, particularly in settings where LTFU is high. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12885-017-3786-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Cervical cancer is a leading cause of cancer death worldwide, with 85% of the disease burden residing in less developed regions. To inform evidence‐based decision‐making as cervical cancer screening programs are planned, implemented, and scaled in low‐ and middle‐income countries, we used cost and test performance data from the START‐UP demonstration project in Uganda and a microsimulation model of HPV infection and cervical carcinogenesis to quantify the health benefits, distributional equity, cost‐effectiveness, and financial impact of either (1) improving access to cervical cancer screening or (2) increasing the number of lifetime screening opportunities for women who already have access. We found that when baseline screening coverage was low (i.e., 30%), expanding coverage of screening once in a lifetime to 50% can yield comparable reductions in cancer risk to screening two or three times in a lifetime at 30% coverage, lead to greater reductions in health disparities, and cost 150 international dollars (I$) per year of life saved (YLS). At higher baseline screening coverage levels (i.e., 70%), screening three times in a lifetime yielded greater health benefits than expanding screening once in a lifetime to 90% coverage, and would have a cost‐effectiveness ratio (I$590 per YLS) below Uganda's per capita GDP. Given very low baseline coverage at present, we conclude that a policy focus on increasing access for previously unscreened women appears to be more compatible with improving both equity and efficiency than a focus on increasing frequency for a small subset of women.

Abstract Women in developing countries disproportionately bear the burden of cervical cancer. The availability of prophylactic vaccines against human papillomavirus (HPV) types 16 and 18, which cause approximately 70% of cervical cancers, provides reason for optimism as roll‐out begins with support from Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance. However, for the hundreds of millions of women beyond the target age for HPV vaccination, cervical cancer screening to detect and treat precancerous lesions remains the only form of prevention. Here we describe the challenges that confront screening programs in low‐resource settings, including (1) optimizing screening test effectiveness; (2) achieving high screening coverage of the target population; and (3) managing screen‐positive women. For each of these challenges, we summarize the tradeoffs between resource utilization and programmatic attributes. We then highlight opportunities for efficient and equitable programming, with supporting evidence from recent mathematical modeling analyses informed by data from the PATH demonstration projects in India, Nicaragua, and Uganda.

Objectives: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing (versus Papanicolaou (Pap)-based screening) for cervical cancer screening in Nicaragua. Design: A previously developed Monte Carlo simulation model of the natural history of HPV infection and cervical cancer was calibrated to epidemiological data from Nicaragua. Cost data inputs were derived using a micro-costing approach in Carazo, Chontales and Chinandega departments; test performance data were from a demonstration project in Masaya department. Setting: Nicaragua’s public health sector facilities. Participants: Women aged 30–59 years. Interventions Screening strategies included (1) Pap testing every 3 years, with referral to colposcopy for women with an atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance or worse result (‘Pap’); (2) HPV testing every 5 years, with referral to cryotherapy for HPV-positive eligible women (HPV cryotherapy or ‘HPV-Cryo’); (3) HPV testing every 5 years, with referral to triage with visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) for HPV-positive women (‘HPV-VIA’); and (4) HPV testing every 5 years, with referral to Pap testing for HPV-positive women (‘HPV-Pap’). Outcome measures Reduction in lifetime risk of cancer and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER; 2015 US$ per year of life saved (YLS)). Results: HPV-based screening strategies were more effective than Pap testing. HPV-Cryo was the least costly and most effective strategy, reducing lifetime cancer risk by 29.5% and outperforming HPV-VIA, HPV-Pap and Pap only, which reduced cancer risk by 19.4%, 12.2% and 10.8%, respectively. With an ICER of US$320/YLS, HPV-Cryo every 5 years would be very cost-effective using a threshold based on Nicaragua’s per capita gross domestic product of US$2090. Findings were robust across sensitivity analyses on test performance, coverage, compliance and cost parameters. Conclusions: HPV testing is very cost-effective compared with Pap testing in Nicaragua, due to higher test sensitivity and the relatively lower number of visits required. Increasing compliance with recommended follow-up will further improve the health benefits and value for public health dollars.