Cost-effectiveness evaluation of HPV self-testing offered to non-attendees in cervical cancer screening in Switzerland

Systematic review of cost-effectiveness studies on cervical cancer screening across Europe

INTRODUCTION

Cervical cancer (CC) is a type of cancer with poor prognosis when diagnosed in advanced stage with a big socioeconomic burden. The incidence rates have wide variations among European countries depending on the implementation or not of screening, vaccination programs and the human development index (HDI). Most studies on cost-effectiveness of CC screening programs are carried out in countries with a high HDI, however more recent reviews of screening approaches are coming from countries with lower HDI aiming to identify the best screening strategies. Our study aims to identify which are the currently applied and most cost-effective strategies of CC screening in Europe.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a systematic review conducted in three different databases (PubMed, Scopus and ScienceDirect) and reported following the PRISMA guidelines. General key terms for all databases were the following: cost-effectiveness, cervical cancer, screening, Europe. We included studies in English, Italian, Spanish and Bulgarian, published in the last 25 years, reporting data on cost-effectiveness of CC screening, costs and outcome measures. The methodological quality of the articles was evaluated with a standardized tool.

RESULTS

A total of 262 studies were identified and 22 studies were included in the final analysis. In 90.1 % of the economic studies, the new screening strategy was shown to be more cost-effective compared to the current one or compared to no screening. The optimal strategy mostly involved primary HPV testing, combined with cytology or as stand-alone screening technique. Several scenarios differing on starting age and periodicities for CC screening, combination of techniques and triage, were found to be cost-effective and below the willingness to pay (WTP) threshold. The methodology of all included studies was assessed from 10 to 11 on the JBI standardized tool and Drummond 11-point checklist.

CONCLUSION

Numerous cost-effective options for CC screening in different European countries were identified in this systematic review. HPV testing, with or without cytology, mainly starting at 30 years of age and repeated every 5 years or more was the most cost-effective technique. Future studies should focus on the most appropriate CC screening approach for each context and setting, also considering HPV vaccination in Europe.

A systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of interventions to increase cervical cancer screening among underserved women in Europe

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to conduct a systematic review of the cost-effectiveness studies of interventions to increase cervical cancer screening uptake rates in underserved women in Europe.

METHODS

A search of Embase, Medline, Global Health, PsychINFO, and NHS Economic Evaluation Database was conducted for studies published between January 2000 and September 2022. Studies were eligible if they analysed the cost-effectiveness of any interventions to improve participation in cervical cancer screening among underserved women of any age eligible to participate in cervical cancer screening in European countries, in any language. Study characteristics and cost-effectiveness results were summarised. Study quality was assessed using the Drummond Checklist, and methodological choices were further compared.

RESULTS

The searches yielded 962 unique studies, with 17 of these (from twelve European countries) meeting the eligibility criteria for data extraction. All studies focused on underscreened women as an overarching group, with no identified studies focusing on specific subgroups of underserved women. Generally, self-HPV testing and reminder interventions were shown to be cost-effective to increase the uptake rates. There was also research showing that addressing access issues and adopting different screening modalities could be economically attractive in some settings, but the current evidence is insufficient due to the limited number of studies.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review has revealed a gap in the literature on the cost-effectiveness of interventions to improve uptake rates of cervical cancer screening through tailored provision for specific groups of underserved women.

Cost-utility and budget impact analyses of cervical cancer screening using self-collected samples for HPV DNA testing in Thailand

INTRODUCTION

Cervical cancer ranks as the third most prevalent cancer among women in Thailand. However, the effectiveness of cervical cancer screening programs is limited by several factors that impede the screening rate. The utilization of self-collected samples for screening purposes has the potential to alleviate barriers to screening in Thai women. This study assessed the cost-utility and budget impact of implementing cervical cancer screening using self-collected samples for human papillomavirus (HPV) deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing in Thailand.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We employed a decision tree integrated with a Markov model to estimate the lifetime costs and health benefits associated with the cervical cancer screening program for women aged 25-65. The analysis was conducted from a societal perspective. Four screening policy options were compared: (1) additional self-collected samples for HPV DNA testing, (2) clinician-collected samples for HPV DNA testing only, (3) clinician-collected samples for cytology test (i.e., status quo), and (4) no screening. The model inputs were based on unvaccinated women. The screening strategies and management in those with positive results were assumed followed to the Thai clinical practice guideline. Costs were reported in 2022 Thai baht. Sensitivity analyses were conducted. The ten-year budget impacts of the additional self-collected samples for HPV DNA testing were calculated from a payer perspective.

RESULTS

All screening policies were cost-saving compared to no screening. When comparing the additional self-collected samples for HPV DNA testing with the clinician-collected samples policy, it emerged as the dominant strategy. The incremental benefit in cervical cancer prevention achieved by incorporating self-collected samples for screening was observed at any additional screening rate that could be achieved through their use. Sensitivity analyses yielded consistently favorable results for the screening policies. The average annual budget impact of the additional self-collected samples for screening policy amounted to 681 million Thai baht. This budget allocation could facilitate cervical cancer screening for over 10 million women.

CONCLUSIONS

An addition of self-collected samples for HPV DNA testing into the cervical cancer screening program is cost-saving. The benefits of this screening policy outweigh the associated incremental costs. Policymakers should consider this evidence during the policy optimization process.

Clinical Performance of the RealTime High Risk HPV Assay on Self-Collected Vaginal Samples within the VALHUDES Framework

The VALHUDES framework (NCT03064087) was established to evaluate the clinical accuracy of HPV testing on self-samples compared with HPV testing on matched clinician-taken cervical samples. Women referred to colposcopy due to previous cervical abnormalities were recruited at five Belgian colposcopy centers. A total of 486 pairs of matched cervical samples and vaginal self-samples were included in the analysis (228 collected with Evalyn Brush and 258 with Qvintip). The dry vaginal brushes were transferred into 20 mL ThinPrep PreservCyt solution. All specimens were tested with the Abbott RealTime High Risk HPV assay (Abbott RT). Testing on vaginal and cervical specimens was considered the index and comparator tests, respectively, and colposcopy and histology as the reference standard. The clinical sensitivity for CIN2+ of Abbott RT (cutoff ≤32 cycle number [CN]) on vaginal self-samples (Evalyn Brush and Qvintip combined) was 8% lower than on the cervical clinician-collected samples (ratio = 0.92 [95% CI, 0.87 to 0.98]), while the specificity was similar (ratio = 1.04 [95% CI, 0.97 to 1.12]). Sensitivity (ratio = 0.95 [95% CI, 0.89 to 1.02]) and specificity (ratio = 1.11 [95% CI, 0.995 to 1.23]) on Evalyn Brush samples was similar to cervical, while on Qvintip samples, the sensitivity was 12% lower than cervical samples (ratio = 0.88 [95% CI, 0.78 to 0.998]) with similar specificity (0.99 [95% CI, 0.90 to 1.10]). Exploratory cutoff optimization (cutoff ≤35 CN) resulted in an improvement of the relative sensitivity (self-sampling versus clinician sampling: ratio = 0.96 [95% CI, 0.91 to 1.02]) but yielded a loss in relative specificity (ratio = 0.92 [0.85 to 1.00]). The clinical accuracy of Abbott RT differed from the self-sampling device. However, after cutoff optimization, the sensitivity on self-samples taken with either of two vaginal brushes became similar to clinician-collected samples. IMPORTANCE Self-samples are becoming a crucial part of HPV-based cervical cancer screening programs to reach nonattendee women and increase screening coverage. Therefore, the VALHUDES framework was established to validate and evaluate HPV tests and devices on self-samples. Here, in the present manuscript, we evaluated the accuracy of the RealTime High Risk HPV assay (Abbott RT) on two different vaginal devices to detect cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade two or higher (CIN2+). The study results demonstrated that the Abbott RT assay is similarly accurate on vaginal self-samples as on matched clinician-taken cervical samples after adjusting cutoff values. Moreover, we observed that some vaginal devices perform better than others in CIN2+ detection. We also underline the necessity of standardization and validation of general workflow and sample handling procedures for vaginal self-samples.

Harms and benefits of cervical cancer screening among non-attenders in Switzerland: The transition towards HPV-based screening

•

We evaluate the expected benefits and harms of cervical cancer screening strategies.

•

Primary self-sampling with HPV was associated with a lower cancer incidence and mortality compared to cytology.

•

Primary self-sampling with HPV resulted in a reduction of screening and follow-up visits.

•

Primary self-sampling with HPV has a reasonable balance of harms and benefits when performed every 5 years.

Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing is replacing cytological screening for cervical cancer. Our aim was to assess the expected benefits and harms of different cervical screening strategies. This study is sub-analysis of a previous cost-effectiveness study with a target population of unscreened women without cervical cancer aged ≥ 25 years. A recursive decision-tree with one-year cycles was used to model the life-long natural HPV history. Markov cohort simulations were used to assess the expected outcomes from the model. The outcomes of three strategies were compared with the absence of screening: HPV-testing on self-collected vaginal samples (Self-HPV) followed by colposcopy (Self-HPV/colpo), Self-HPV and triage with cytology (Self-HPV/PAP), cytology and triage with HPV (PAP/HPV). All screening strategies resulted in reductions in cancer cases and deaths. Self-HPV strategies were associated with a lower cancer incidence and mortality life-long, not only when performed every 3 years but also when Self-HPV was performed every 5 years vs cytology every 3 years. The gain in life expectancy obtained was 82 days with Self-HPV/colpo, 81 days with Self-HPV/PAP and 75 days with PAP/HPV compared to no screening. The number of lifetime total visits was greater with PAP/HPV compared with the Self-HPV strategies (13.13 vs < 3). The number of conizations remained relatively stable with the change of screening frequency and strategy. Self-HPV may represent a reasonable balance of harms and benefits when performed every 5 years compared to cytology every 3 years. Self-HPV/PAP yielded the most efficient harm to benefit ratio when using colposcopy as a proxy for harms.

Secondary Prevention of Cervical Cancer: ASCO Resource-Stratified Guideline Update

PURPOSE

To update resource-stratified, evidence-based recommendations on secondary prevention of cervical cancer globally.

METHODS

American Society of Clinical Oncology convened a multidisciplinary, multinational Expert Panel to produce recommendations reflecting four resource-tiered settings. A review of existing guidelines, formal consensus-based process, and modified ADAPTE process to adapt existing guidelines was conducted. Other experts participated in formal consensus.

RESULTS

This guideline update reflects changes in evidence since the previous update. Five existing guidelines were identified and reviewed, and adapted recommendations form the evidence base. Cost-effectiveness analyses provided indirect evidence to inform consensus, which resulted in ≥ 75% agreement.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing is recommended in all resource settings; visual inspection with acetic acid may be used in basic settings. Recommended age ranges and frequencies vary by the following setting: maximal: age 25-65 years, every 5 years; enhanced: age 30-65 years, if two consecutive negative tests at 5-year intervals, then every 10 years; limited: age 30-49 years, every 10 years; basic: age 30-49 years, one to three times per lifetime. For basic settings, visual assessment is used to determine treatment eligibility; in other settings, genotyping with cytology or cytology alone is used to determine treatment. For basic settings, treatment is recommended if abnormal triage results are obtained; in other settings, abnormal triage results followed by colposcopy is recommended. For basic settings, treatment options are thermal ablation or loop electrosurgical excision procedure; for other settings, loop electrosurgical excision procedure or ablation is recommended; with a 12-month follow-up in all settings. Women who are HIV-positive should be screened with HPV testing after diagnosis, twice as many times per lifetime as the general population. Screening is recommended at 6 weeks postpartum in basic settings; in other settings, screening is recommended at 6 months. In basic settings without mass screening, infrastructure for HPV testing, diagnosis, and treatment should be developed.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/resource-stratified-guidelines.

A systematic review of economic evaluations of cervical cancer screening methods

OBJECTIVE

The aims of this systematic review were to (1) identify primary- and model-based economic evaluations of cervical cancer screening methods and to (2) provide a contextual summary of valuation outcomes associated with three types of cervical cancer screening tests: visual inspection with acetic acid, human papillomavirus deoxyribonucleic acid, and Papanicolaou smear.

INTRODUCTION

Cervical cancer screening is an important public health priority with the potential to improve the detection of precancerous lesions in high-risk females for early intervention and disease prevention. Test performance and cost-effectiveness differ based on the specific screening method used across different platforms. There is a need to appraise existing economic evaluations of cervical cancer screening methods.

METHODS

This review considered primary-based and model-based full economic evaluations of cervical cancer screening methods. The evaluation methods of interest included cost-effectiveness analysis, cost-utility analysis, cost-minimization analysis, cost-benefit analysis, and cost-consequence analysis. We searched Scopus, PubMed, National Health Economic Evaluation Database (NH EED), Cochrane, and the Health Economic Evaluation Database for full economic evaluations of cancer screening methods. No formal date restrictions were applied. Model-based and primary-based full economic evaluations were included. A critical appraisal of included studies was performed by the main investigator, while a second independent reviewer assessed critical appraisal findings for any inconsistencies. Data were extracted using a standardised data extraction tool for economic evaluations. The ultimate outcomes of costs, effectiveness, benefits, and utilities of cervical cancer screening modalities were extracted from included studies, analysed, and summarised.

RESULTS

From a total of 671 screened studies, 44 studies met the study inclusion criteria. Forty-three studies were cost-effectiveness analyses, one study reported both cost-utility and cost-effectiveness outcomes, and another study reported cost utilities of cervical cancer screening methods only. Human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing was reported as a dominant stand-alone screening test by 14 studies, while five studies reported visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) as a dominant stand-alone screening test. Primary HPV screening strategies were dominant in 21 studies, while three studies reported cytology-based screening strategies as the dominant screening method.

CONCLUSIONS

Existing evidence indicates that HPV-based and VIA testing strategies are cost-effective, but this is dependent on setting. Our review suggests the limited cost-effectiveness of cytology-based testing, which may be due in part to the need for specific infrastructures and human resources.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42020212454 .

Clinical performance and acceptability of self-collected vaginal and urine samples compared with clinician-taken cervical samples for HPV testing among women referred for colposcopy. A cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

To increase effectiveness of the cervical cancer screening program, self-sampling can be an option. Both self-collected vaginal samples (SCV) and urine samples may be useful alternatives to clinician-taken cervical samples (CS).

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING

Colposcopy clinic.

PARTICIPANTS

Women (n=305) referred to colposcopy after abnormal cervical screening result or conditions like postcoital bleeding.

INTERVENTION

All women self-collected a urine and a vaginal sample prior to colposcopy, where a CS and biopsies were taken. All samples were tested for high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) using the Cobas HPV assay. The gold standard was histology diagnoses (CIN2+/CIN3+) from biopsies obtained at the same examination.

PRIMARY OUTCOME

Absolute and relative sensitivity and specificity of HPV testing on SCV and urine to detect CIN2+/CIN3+ compared with the CS.

SECONDARY OUTCOME

The acceptability by women of self-sampling.

RESULTS

Both the vaginal and urine sample were comparable to the CS in identifying severe intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN2+/CIN3+). Absolute sensitivity ranged from 93% for urine samples to 96% for SCV for detecting CIN2+, which is comparable to the sensitivity of CS (overlapping 95% CI).The relative sensitivity for detecting CIN2+ was 1.00 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.04) for SCV and 0.96 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.03) for urine samples. At CIN3+, the relative sensitivity was 1.00 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.08) and 0.97 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.07) for SCV and urine samples, respectively. There were no statistical differences between the self-collected samples and the CS (McNemar's test >0.05). The relative specificity was also similar (1.03 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.12) for SCV and 0.98 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.09) for urine samples) (McNemar's test >0.05).The acceptability of self-sampling was evaluated by questionnaire. The women found the instructions on sample collection easy to understand and were positive about self-sampling with a preference for the urine sample.

CONCLUSION

Self-sampling by SCV and urine is a clinically safe alternative to CS with a high degree of acceptability.

Current Status and Future Perspectives of Molecular Prevention Strategies for Cervical Cancers

Cervical cancer continues to be a global health problem; despite the potential for prevention through organised screening programmes that can detect and treat pre-cancerous lesions and also more recently, the availability of HPV (Human Papilloma Virus) vaccines. While routine screening with Pap smear testing has reduced the burden of cervical cancer in the high-income countries, the implementation of organised Pap-based screening programmes has not been found feasible in low-resource settings due to a lack of health care delivery infrastructure and limited health budgets. The well-established causal relationship between cervical cancer development and high-risk-HPV (HR-HPV) infection and the subsequent appreciation of the greater sensitivity of HPV testing over Pap smear cytology eventually lead to HPV testing being incorporated in the primary cervical cancer prevention programmes. An organised cervical cancer screening programme incorporating HR-HPV testing and HPV vaccine administration are currently considered to be the two major interventions for a comprehensive cervical cancer control programme worldwide. However, there are concerns that the requirement of a sophisticated infrastructure with its associated costs may make cervical cancer screening using molecular prevention by HPV testing impracticable to be implemented, especially in resource-poor, low-income countries. Visual Inspection with Acetic acid (VIA) represents one of the alternative methods for cervical cancer screening proposed for the countries with low- to middle-income resources and has gained popularity in India following the successful completion of two randomised controlled trials, but this method but has low sensitivity to detect cervical pre-cancers. More recently, the cost-effectiveness analysis of many studies including randomised controlled trials, even from the low-resource settings, has found that HPV testing is followed by treatment for HPV-positive women to be an effective and cost-effective screening strategy as compared to other screening methods including VIA. The incorporation of self-sampling and HPV testing by partial genotyping has the potential to significantly add to the effectiveness and the cost-effectiveness. The current status and future perspectives of molecular prevention strategies for cervical cancer prevention is further discussed.

The advent of human papillomavirus detection for cervical screening

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review updates progress in the human papillomavirus (HPV)-based revolution in cervical screening and vaccination predicted to eventually eliminate cervical cancer.

RECENT FINDINGS

HPV PCR, patented by the author in 1987, has recently begun to replace cytology for primary cervical screening. I highlight the findings from large randomized clinical trials that have brought about this change, and progress with implementation. Australia was the first to introduce a national, publicly-funded HPV PCR-based program of primary screening, on 1 December 2017. The United Kingdom is set to follow, as are other countries. The widespread preference of self-sampling by under-screened women in particular will increase the effectiveness of population screening when using HPV tests. Coupled with improved vaccination now that more effective (nonavalent) HPV vaccines are being introduced, recent modeling predicts that cervical cancer will be markedly reduced, or even eliminated, in coming decades.

SUMMARY

The recent or pending change to more accurate cervical screening by HPV detection using PCR in various countries means less frequent screening for women. Women with an aversion to having their sample collected by a physician can collect their sample themselves, either at the doctor's rooms or at home, the sample then being mailed to the testing laboratory.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of repeated self-sampling for HPV testing in primary cervical screening: a randomized study

BACKGROUND

Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing is recommended in primary cervical screening to improve cancer prevention. An advantage of HPV testing is that it can be performed on self-samples, which could increase population coverage and result in a more efficient strategy to identify women at risk of developing cervical cancer. Our objective was to assess whether repeated self-sampling for HPV testing is cost-effective in comparison with Pap smear cytology for detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or more (CIN2+) in increasing participation rate in primary cervical screening.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) was performed on data from a previously published randomized clinical study including 36,390 women aged 30-49 years. Participants were randomized either to perform repeated self-sampling of vaginal fluid for HPV testing (n = 17,997, HPV self-sampling arm) or to midwife-collected Pap smears for cytological analysis (n = 18,393, Pap smear arm).

RESULTS

Self-sampling for HPV testing led to 1633 more screened women and 107 more histologically diagnosed CIN2+ at a lower cost vs. midwife-collected Pap smears (€ 229,446 vs. € 782,772).

CONCLUSIONS

This study resulted in that repeated self-sampling for HPV testing increased participation and detection of CIN2+ at a lower cost than midwife-collected Pap smears in primary cervical screening. Offering women a home-based self-sampling may therefore be a more cost-effective alternative than clinic-based screening.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Not registered since this trial is a secondary analysis of an earlier published study (Gustavsson et al., British journal of cancer. 118:896-904, 2018).

Cost-effectiveness studies of HPV self-sampling: A systematic review

HPV self-sampling (HPV-SS) can increase cervical cancer screening participation by addressing barriers in high- and low- and middle-income settings. Successful implementation of HPV-SS programs will depend on understanding potential costs and health effects. Our objectives were to summarize the methods and results of published HPV-SS cost and cost-effectiveness studies, present implications of these results for HPV-SS program implementation, and identify knowledge gaps. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. One reviewer searched online databases for articles published through June 12, 2019, identified eligible studies, and extracted data; a second reviewer checked extracted data for accuracy. Eligible studies used an economic model to compare HPV-SS outreach strategies to standard-of-care tests. Of 16 eligible studies, 14 reported HPV-SS could be a cost-effective strategy. Studies differed in model type, HPV-SS delivery methods, triage strategies for positive results, and target populations. Most (9/16) modeled HPV-SS in European screening programs, 6/16 targeted women who were underscreened for cervical cancer, and 5/16 modeled HPV-SS in low- and middle-income countries. The most commonly identified driver of HPV-SS cost-effectiveness was the level of increase in cervical cancer screening attendance. Lower HPV-SS material and testing costs, higher sensitivity to detect cervical precancer, and longer duration of underscreening among HPV-SS users were also associated with increased cost-effectiveness. Future HPV-SS models in high-income settings should explore the effect of widespread vaccination and new triage strategies such as partial HPV genotyping. Knowledge gaps remain about the cost-effectiveness of HPV-SS in low- and middle-income settings.

The Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Cervical Cancer Screening Using a Systematic Invitation System in Lithuania

In Lithuania, cytological screening of cervical cancer (CC) is largely opportunistic. Absence of standardized systematic invitation practice might be the reason for low participation rates. The study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of systematic invitation approach in CC screening programme from the perspective of a healthcare provider. A decision tree was used to compare an opportunistic invitation by a family doctor, a personal postal invitation letter with appointment time and place, and a personal postal invitation letter with appointment time and place with one reminder letter. Cost-effectiveness was defined as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per one additionally screened woman and per one additional abnormal Pap smear test detected. The ICER of one personal postal invitation letter was €9.67 per one additionally screened woman and €55.21 per one additional abnormal Pap smear test detected in comparison with the current screening practice. The ICER of a personal invitation letter with an additional reminder letter compared to one invitation letter was €13.47 and €86.88 respectively. Conclusions: A personal invitation letter approach is more effective in increasing the participation rate in CC screening and the number of detected abnormal Pap smears; however, it incurs additional expenses compared with current invitation practice.