Search

The incidence of cervical cancer in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is five times higher than that observed in high-income countries (HICs). This discrepancy is largely attributed to the implementation of cytology-based screening programmes in HICs. However, due to reduced health system infrastructure requirements, HPV testing (self- and provider-collected) and visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) have been proposed as alternatives that may be better suited to LMICs. Knowing the relative value of different screening options can inform policy and the development of sustainable prevention programs. We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for English language publications detailing model-based cost-effectiveness analyses of cervical cancer screening methods in LMICs from 2000 to 2016. The main outcome of interest was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Quantitative data were extracted to compare commonly evaluated screening methods and a descriptive review was conducted for each included study. Of the initial 152 articles reviewed, 19 met inclusion criteria. Generally, cytology-based screening was shown to be the least effective and most costly screening method. Whether provider-collected HPV testing or VIA was the more efficient alternative depended on the cost of the HPV test, loss to follow-up and VIA test performance. Self-collected HPV testing was cost-effective when it yielded population coverage gains over other screening methods. We conclude that HPV testing and VIA are more cost-effective screening methods than cytology in LMICs. Policy makers should consider HPV testing with self-collection of samples if it yields gains in population coverage.

Background Cervical cancer is the leading cause of cancer death for women in Uganda, despite the potential for prevention through organised screening. Community-based self-collected human papillomavirus (HPV) testing has been proposed to reduce barriers to screening. Objective Our objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the Advances in Screening and Prevention of Reproductive Cancers (ASPIRE) trial, conducted in Kisenyi, Uganda in April 2014 (n=500). The trial compared screening uptake and compliance with follow-up in two arms: (1) community-based (ie, home or workplace) self-collected HPV testing (facilitated by community health workers) with clinic-based visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) triage of HPV-positive women (‘HPV-VIA’) and (2) clinic-based VIA (‘VIA’). In both arms, VIA was performed at the local health unit by midwives with VIA-positive women receiving immediate treatment with cryotherapy. Design We informed a Monte Carlo simulation model of HPV infection and cervical cancer with screening uptake, compliance and retrospective cost data from the ASPIRE trial; additional cost, test performance and treatment effectiveness data were drawn from observational studies. The model was used to assess the cost-effectiveness of each arm of ASPIRE, as well as an HPV screen-and-treat strategy (‘HPV-ST’) involving community-based self-collected HPV testing followed by treatment for all HPV-positive women at the clinic. Outcome measures The primary outcomes were reductions in cervical cancer risk and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), expressed in dollars per year of life saved (YLS). Results HPV-ST was the most effective and cost-effective screening strategy, reducing the lifetime absolute risk of cervical cancer from 4.2% (range: 3.8%–4.7%) to 3.5% (range: 3.2%–4%), 2.8% (range: 2.4%–3.1%) and 2.4% (range: 2.1%–2.7%) with ICERs of US$130 (US$110–US$150) per YLS, US$240 (US$210–US$280) per YLS, and US$470 (US$410–US$550) per YLS when performed one, three and five times per lifetime, respectively. Findings were robust across sensitivity analyses, unless HPV costs were more than quadrupled. Conclusions Community-based self-collected HPV testing followed by treatment for HPV-positive women has the potential to be an effective and cost-effective screening strategy.