Person:

Kim, Jane

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.