Nature Medicine · 2023 · 96 citations · 52 references
MedicineHealth PolicyPreventive MedicineCancer ControlCancer PreventionCancer ScreeningCervical CancerCervical CytologyCervical Disease PreventionDisease ControlPopulation ScreeningPopulation-based Cancer ControlAge-standardized Cancer Incidence RatesAge-standardized Cancer MortalityCancer Mortality RatesCervical Cancer ScreeningColposcopy TriageHpv ScreeningStandardized Mortality RatesVisual Inspection
In 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) launched a strategy to eliminate cervical cancer as a public health problem. To support the strategy, the WHO published updated cervical screening guidelines in 2021. To inform this update, we used an established modeling platform, Policy1-Cervix, to evaluate the impact of seven primary screening scenarios across 78 low- and lower-middle-income countries (LMICs) for the general population of women. Assuming 70% coverage, we found that primary human papillomavirus (HPV) screening approaches were the most effective and cost-effective, reducing cervical cancer age-standardized mortality rates by 63-67% when offered every 5 years. Strategies involving triaging women before treatment (with 16/18 genotyping, cytology, visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) or colposcopy) had close-to-similar effectiveness to HPV screening without triage and fewer pre-cancer treatments. Screening with VIA or cytology every 3 years was less effective and less cost-effective than HPV screening every 5 years. Furthermore, VIA generated more than double the number of pre-cancer treatments compared to HPV. In conclusion, primary HPV screening is the most effective, cost-effective and efficient cervical screening option in LMICs. These findings have directly informed WHO's updated cervical screening guidelines for the general population of women, which recommend primary HPV screening in a screen-and-treat or screen-triage-and-treat approach, starting from age 30 years with screening every 5 years or 10 years.
52
HPV Screening for Cervical Cancer in Rural India
Rengaswamy Sankaranarayanan, Bhagwan M. Nene, Surendra S. Shastri et al. · New England Journal of Medicine · 2009 · 1.3K citations
Marc Brisson, Jane J. Kim, Karen Canfell et al. · The Lancet · 2020 · 946 citations · Full text
Cost–effectiveness thresholds: pros and cons
Melanie Bertram, Jeremy A. Lauer, Kees de Joncheere et al. · Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2016 · 788 citations · Full text
Pharmacy, Economics, Health Policy +17
Kate T. Simms, Julia Steinberg, Michael Caruana et al. · The Lancet Oncology · 2019 · 499 citations