ABSTRACT
While the incidence of cervical cancer has dropped in high-income countries due to organized cytology-based screening programs, it remains the leading cause of cancer death among women in Eastern Africa. Therefore, the World Health Organization (WHO) now urges providers to transition from widely prevalent but low-performance visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) screening to primary human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing. Due to high HPV prevalence, effective triage tests are needed to identify those lesions likely to progress and so avoid over-treatment. To identify the optimal cost-effective strategy, we compared the VIA screen-and-treat approach to primary HPV DNA testing with p16/Ki67 dual-stain cytology or VIA as triage. We used a Markov model to calculate the budget impact of each strategy with incremental quality-adjusted life years and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) as the main outcome. Deterministic cost-effectiveness analyses show that the screen-and-treat approach is highly cost-effective (ICER 2469 Int$), while screen, triage, and treat with dual staining is the most effective with favorable ICER than triage with VIA (ICER 9943 Int$ compared with 13,177 Int$). One-way sensitivity analyses show that the results are most sensitive to discounting, VIA performance, and test prices. In the probabilistic sensitivity analyses, the triage option using dual stain is the optimal choice above a willingness to pay threshold of 7115 Int$ being cost-effective as per WHO standards. The result of our analysis favors the use of dual staining over VIA as triage in HPV-positive women and portends future opportunities and necessary research to improve the coverage and acceptability of cervical cancer screening programs.
