Explore the vast range of titles available.

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).

To estimate the financial and economic costs and the cost-effectiveness of thermal ablation compared to cryotherapy and loop diathermy within a screen-and-treat approach to cervical cancer screening in Zambia. We analysed costs within a randomized controlled trial in which women eligible for ablative treatment after cervical cancer screening were assigned to one of three treatment arms: thermal ablation, cryotherapy or loop diathermy. We used a microcosting approach to calculate programme, personnel, equipment and consumable costs for two groups: women treated without follow-up (screened-and-treated) and women who completed follow-up (follow-up-completed). We also estimated trial costs and projected costs if the screen-and-treat approach were to be integrated into routine cervical cancer services. To assess how cost-effective the treatments were, we used a decision tree model. Out of the 3124 women who were screened-and-treated, 2386 (76.4%) completed follow-up. In the trial scenario, costs for thermal ablation were lower than cryotherapy and loop diathermy, both per screened-and-treated woman (39.6 United States dollars (US$) versus US$ 42.3 and US$ 50.6, respectively) and per follow-up-completed woman (US$ 55.1 versus US$ 57.9 and US$ 66.2, respectively). In the routine scenario, costs for thermal ablation were also lower than for other treatments (US$ 12.7 versus US$ 15.6 and US$ 34.9, respectively, for screen-and-treat) due to significantly lower personnel costs. Thermal ablation was cost-effective compared to cryotherapy and loop diathermy. Our study suggests that thermal ablation is a cost-effective option for the screen-and-treat approach to cervical cancer screening compared with cryotherapy and loop diathermy.

Immunotherapy has made significant advancements in cervical cancer (CC) treatment; however, its efficacy remains limited in programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1)-negative patients. Cadonilimab, the first bispecific antibody targeting both programmed death 1 (PD-1) and cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen-4 (CTLA-4), demonstrated superior efficacy and manageable safety as a first-line treatment for persistent, recurrent, or metastatic CC (p/r/m CC) in the phase III COMPASSION-16 trial. Notably, it showed significant survival benefits in PD-L1-negative patients. This study aimed to evaluate its cost-effectiveness from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. A partitioned survival model was developed based on data derived from the COMPASSION-16 trial. The model utilized a 3-week cycle length and a 10-year time horizon. The primary outcomes included costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), incremental net monetary benefit (INMB), and incremental net health benefit (INHB). Additionally, sensitivity analyses, scenario analyses, and subgroup analyses were performed. The cadonilimab plus chemotherapy regimen provided an additional 0.61 QALYs compared to chemotherapy alone, at an incremental cost of $42,486.54. This yielded an ICER of $70,220.88/QALY, exceeding the willingness-to-pay threshold of $38,042/QALY. The corresponding INMB and INHB were -$19,469.55 and -0.51 QALYs, respectively. Consequently, cadonilimab plus chemotherapy was not deemed to be cost-effective. Sensitivity analyses showed that the results remained consistent when each parameter varied within the predetermined range, indicating the model's robustness. Subgroup analyses demonstrated no significant positive correlation between economic outcomes and PD-L1 expression levels. Notably, in the subgroup of patients who did not receive bevacizumab, cadonilimab plus chemotherapy emerged as a cost-effective alternative. In China, cadonilimab plus chemotherapy is not considered cost-effective compared to standard chemotherapy as a first-line treatment for the general p/r/m CC population. However, it represents a cost-effective option for patients ineligible for bevacizumab therapy.

Background The aim of the study is to carry out a cost-effectiveness analysis of three different interventions to promote the uptake of screening for cervical cancer in general practice in the county of Valles Occidental, Barcelona, Spain. Methods Women aged from 30 to 70 years ( n  = 15,965) were asked to attend a general practice to be screened. They were randomly allocated to one of four groups: no intervention group (NIG); one group where women received an invitation letter to participate in the screening (IG1); one group where women received an invitation letter and informative leaflet (IG2); and one group where women received an invitation letter, an informative leaflet and a phone call reminder (IG3). Clinical effectiveness was measured as the percentage increase in screening coverage. A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from the perspective of the public health system with a time horizon of three to five years – the duration of the randomised controlled clinical trial. In addition, a deterministic sensitivity analysis was performed. Results are presented according to different age groups. Results The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for the most cost-effective intervention, IG1, compared with opportunistic screening was € 2.78 per 1% increase in the screening coverage. The age interval with the worst results in terms of efficiency was women aged < 40 years. Conclusions In a population like Catalonia, with around 2 million women aged 30 to 70 years and assuming that 40% of these women were not attending general practice to be screened for cervical cancer, the implementation of an intervention to increase screening coverage which consists of sending a letter would cost on average less than € 490 for every 1000 women. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01373723 .

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.

Purpose: Cervical cancer screening with liquid-based cytology (LBC) has been developed as an alternative to the conventional Papanicolaou (CP) smear. Cost-effectiveness is one of the issues when evaluating LBC. Based on the results of a Dutch randomised controlled trial, we conducted cost-effectiveness threshold analyses to investigate under what circumstances manually screened ThinPrep LBC is cost-effective for screening. Methods: The MISCAN-Cervix microsimulation model and data from the Dutch NETHCON trial (including 89,784 women) were used to estimate the costs and (quality-adjusted) life years ((QA)LYs) gained for EU screening schedules, varying cost-effectiveness threshold values. Screening strategies were primary cytological screening with LBC or CP, and triage with human papillomavirus (HPV) testing. Results: Threshold analyses showed that screening with LBC as a primary test can be cost-effective if LBC is less than €3.2 more costly per test than CP, if the sensitivity of LBC is at least 3-5 % points higher than CP, if the quality of life for women in triage follow-up is only 0.39, or if the rate of inadequate CP smears is at least 16.2 %. Conclusions: Regarding test characteristics and costs of LBC and CP, only under certain conditions will a change from CP to manually screened ThinPrep LBC be cost-effective. If none of these conditions are met, implementation of manually screened ThinPrep LBC seems warranted only if there are advantages other than cost-effectiveness. Further research is needed to establish whether other LBC systems will be more favorable with regard to cost-effectiveness.

We use the 1997-2008 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) and variation in the timing of state mandates for coverage of colorectal, cervical, and prostate cancer screenings to investigate the behavioral and financial effects of mandates on privately insured adults. We find that state mandates did not result in increased rates of cancer screening. However, coverage of preventive care, whether mandated or not, moves the cost of care from the consumer's out-of-pocket expense to the premium, resulting in a cross-subsidy of users of the service by non-users. While some cross-subsidies are intentional, others may be unintentional. We find that users of cancer screening have higher levels of income and education, while non-users tend to be racial minorities, lack a usual source of care, and live in communities with fewer physicians per capita. These results suggest that coverage of preventive care may transfer resources from more advantaged individuals to less advantaged individuals.

Cervical cancer remains the leading cause of cancer death among women in sub-Saharan Africa and is more severe in high HIV-burdened countries due to persistent high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV). In 2021, the World Health Organization recommended primary hrHPV testing for cervical cancer screening; however, optimal triage strategies following positive hrHPV tests remain unclear. We conducted a prospective cost analysis of triage methods for positive hrHPV results among women living with and without HIV in Gaborone, Botswana. We used a micro-costing approach from the perspective of the healthcare provider. The main outcomes were the implementation costs associated with three triage strategies following hrHPV testing: 8-type HPV genotype restriction, visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA), and colposcopy. We also compared the strategies by measuring the change in costs divided by the change in number of true cases of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2 or worse (CIN2+) identified, based on the results of a prospective cohort study. Results indicated that the 8-type HPV genotype restriction strategy was the most cost-efficient, requiring no additional costs beyond hrHPV testing and identifying the highest number of true CIN2 + cases. VIA and colposcopy triage identified fewer true cases of CIN2+ and incurred additional costs, with colposcopy being the most expensive. Results were consistent in women with and without HIV. Sensitivity analysis highlighted personnel and hrHPV test kit cartridge costs as significant drivers of overall costs. Post-hoc analysis incorporating average treatment costs for precancer demonstrated that genotyping remained dominant at lower treatment costs but became less favorable as treatment costs increased. We found that 8-type genotype restriction was optimal compared to hrHPV screening combined with VIA or colposcopy. Cost estimates can inform future studies that examine the long-term costs and health outcomes of HPV-based two-stage screening algorithms.

Objective To assess and compare the accuracy of visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA), visual inspection with Lugol’s iodine (VILI), and human papillomavirus (HPV) testing as alternative standalone methods for primary cervical cancer screening in sub-Saharan Africa. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies.Data sources Systematic searches of multiple databases including Medline, Embase, and Scopus for studies published between January 1994 and June 2014.Review methods Inclusion criteria for studies were: alternative methods to cytology used as a standalone test for primary screening; study population not at particular risk of cervical cancer (excluding studies focusing on HIV positive women or women with gynaecological symptoms); women screened by nurses; reference test (colposcopy and directed biopsies) performed at least in women with positive screening results. Two reviewers independently screened studies for eligibility and extracted data for inclusion, and evaluated study quality using the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies 2 (QUADAS-2) checklist. Primary outcomes were absolute accuracy measures (sensitivity and specificity) of screening tests to detect cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or worse (CIN2+).Results 15 studies of moderate quality were included (n=61 381 for VIA, n=46 435 for VILI, n=11 322 for HPV testing). Prevalence of CIN2+ did not vary by screening test and ranged from 2.3% (95% confidence interval 1.5% to 3.3%) in VILI studies to 4.9% (2.7% to 7.8%) in HPV testing studies. Positivity rates of VILI, VIA, and HPV testing were 16.5% (9.8% to 24.7%), 16.8% (11.0% to 23.6%), and 25.8% (17.4% to 35.3%), respectively. Pooled sensitivity was higher for VILI (95.1%; 90.1% to 97.7%) than VIA (82.4%; 76.3% to 87.3%) in studies where the reference test was performed in all women (P<0.001). Pooled specificity of VILI and VIA were similar (87.2% (78.1% to 92.8%) v 87.4% (77.1% to 93.4%); P=0.85). Pooled sensitivity and specificity were similar for HPV testing versus VIA (both P≥0.23) and versus VILI (both P≥0.16). Accuracy of VIA and VILI increased with sample size and time period.Conclusions For primary screening of cervical cancer in sub-Saharan Africa, VILI is a simple and affordable alternative to cytology that demonstrates higher sensitivity than VIA. Implementation studies are needed to assess the effect of these screening strategies on the incidence and outcomes of cervical cancer in the region.

► We estimated the annual direct medical costs attributable to HPV in the USA. ► The overall annual direct medical cost burden was estimated to be $8.0 billion. ► Most of this cost was for cervical cancer screening and follow-up ($6.6 billion). Estimates of the direct medical costs attributable to human papillomavirus (HPV) can help to quantify the economic burden of HPV and to illustrate the potential benefits of HPV vaccination. The purpose of this report was to update the estimated annual direct medical costs of the prevention and treatment of HPV-associated disease in the United States, for all HPV types. We included the costs of cervical cancer screening and follow-up and the treatment costs of the following HPV-associated health outcomes: cervical cancer, other anogenital cancers (anal, vaginal, vulvar and penile), oropharyngeal cancer, genital warts, and recurrent respiratory papillomatosis (RRP). We obtained updated incidence and cost estimates from the literature. The overall annual direct medical cost burden of preventing and treating HPV-associated disease was estimated to be $8.0 billion (2010 U.S. dollars). Of this total cost, about $6.6 billion (82.3%) was for routine cervical cancer screening and follow-up, $1.0 billion (12.0%) was for cancer (including $0.4 billion for cervical cancer and $0.3 billion for oropharyngeal cancer), $0.3 billion (3.6%) was for genital warts, and $0.2 billion (2.1%) was for RRP.