Cited by 212Cervical Cancer and HPV ResearchWomen's cancer prevention and managementHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life

Cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening methods in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review: Cervical cancer in LMICs

Open access
Mezei, Alex K., Armstrong, Heather L., Pedersen, Heather N., Campos, Nicole G., Mitchell, Sheona M., Sekikubo, Musa, Byamugisha, Josaphat K., Kim, Jane J. +2 more·2017·International Journal of Cancer

Abstract

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.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/ijc.30695

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • HPV testing has been shown to be cost-effective in spite of its initial higher cost when compared to cytology or visual inspection of the cervix with 5% acetic acid (VIA).

    “HPV testing has been shown be cost-effective in spite of its initial higher cost when compared to cytology or visual inspection of the cervix with 5% acetic acid (VIA) [19], it is still expensive and not adapted in most of the low- and middle-income countries.”

    From Performance of HPV Self-Sample Collected by a Novel Kit in Comparison with Clinician Collected Sample for Cervical Cancer Screening (2024) · cites this paper as [19]

    The Discussion says HPV testing is generally more costly than VIA but often worth the extra investment. The Cost-effectiveness section says which is more efficient depends on test costs and performance; it also reports that cytology programs generally had higher costs, so the claim that HPV testing has a higher cost than cytology is not consistently supported. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • A systematic review of economic evaluations on cervical cancer screening conducted across low and middle income countries (LMIC) concluded that VIA or HPV are the most efficient alternatives for screening and cytology based screening was shown to be the least effective and more costly screening method.

    “A systematic review of economic evaluations on cervical cancer screening conducted across low and middle income countries (LMIC), also concluded that VIA or HPV are the most efficient alternatives for screening and cytology based screening was shown to be the least effective and more costly screening method. [49]”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 33 · Cited by 212

Research works printed but not linked: 33

  1. V C 2017 UICC 10970215, 2017, 3, Cervical cancer in LMICs Int. J. Cancer: 141, 437-446 (2017) · DOI
  2. V C 2017 UICC 10970215, 2017, 3, · DOI
  3. Bruni L, Diaz M, Barrionuevo-Rosas L, et al. Glob- al estimates of human papillomavirus vaccination coverage by region and income level: a pooled analysis. Lancet Glob Health 2016;4:e453-63.
  4. Bertram MY, Lauer JA, De Joncheere K, et al. Cost-effectiveness thresholds: pros and cons. Bull World Health Organ 2016;94:925-30.
  5. Sankaranarayanan R, Nene BM, Shastri SS, et al. HPV screening for cervical cancer in rural India. N Engl J Med 2009;360:1385-94.
  6. Jeronimo J, Bansil P, Lim J, et al. A multicountry evaluation of careHPV testing, visual inspection with acetic acid, and papanicolaou testing for the detection of cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2014;24:576-85.
  7. Ditzian LR, David-West G, Maza M, et al. Cervi- cal cancer screening in low-and middle-income countries. Mt Sinai J Med 2011;78:319-26.
  8. Mendes D, Bains I, Vanni T, et al. Systematic review of model-based cervical screening evalua- tions. BMC Cancer 2015;15:334.
  9. Holmes J, Hemmett L, Garfield S. The cost- effectiveness of human papillomavirus screening for cervical cancer. A review of recent modelling studies. Eur J Health Econ 2005;6:30-7.
  10. Nahvijou A, Hadji M, Marnani AB, et al. A sys- tematic review of economic aspects of cervical cancer screening strategies worldwide: discrepan- cy between economic analysis and policymaking. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2014;15:8229-37.
  11. Berkhof J, Bogaards JA, Demirel E, et al. Cost- effectiveness of cervical cancer prevention in Cen- tral and Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Vac- cine 2013;31:H71-H9.
  12. Campos NG, Kim JJ, Castle PE, et al. Health and economic impact of HPV 16/18 vaccination and cervical cancer screening in Eastern Africa. Int J Cancer 2012;130:2672-84.
  13. Campos NG, Maza M, Alfaro K, et al. The com- parative and cost-effectiveness of HPV-based cer- vical cancer screening algorithms in El Salvador. Int J Cancer 2015;137:893-902. Int. J. Cancer: 141, 437-446 (2017)
  14. V C 2017 UICC 10970215, 2017, 3, · DOI
  15. Campos NG, Tsu V, Jeronimo J, et al. When and how often to screen for cervical cancer in three low-and middle-income countries: A cost- effectiveness analysis. Papillomavirus Res 2015;1: 38-58.
  16. Campos NG, Castle PE, Wright TC, Jr., et al. Cervical cancer screening in low-resource settings: a cost-effectiveness framework for valuing trade- offs between test performance and program cov- erage. Int J Cancer 2015;137:2208-19.
  17. Ginsberg GM, Edejer TT-T, Lauer JA, et al. Screening, prevention and treatment of cervical cancer -a global and regional generalized cost- effectiveness analysis. Vaccine 2009;27:6060-79.
  18. Goldie SJ, Kuhn L, Denny L, et al. Policy analysis of cervical cancer screening strategies in low- resource settings: clinical benefits and cost-effec- tiveness. JAMA 2001;285:3107-15.
  19. Goldie SJ, Gaffikin L, Goldhaber-Fiebert JD, et al. Cost-effectiveness of cervical-cancer screening in five developing countries. N Engl J Med 2005;353: 2158-68.
  20. Kim JJ, Kobus KE, Diaz M, et al. Exploring the cost-effectiveness of HPV vaccination in Vietnam: insights for evidence-based cervical cancer pre- vention policy. Vaccine 2008;26:4015-24.
  21. Kim JJ, Campos NG, O'Shea M, et al. Model- based impact and cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer prevention in sub-saharan Africa. Vaccine 2013;31:F60-F72.
  22. Levin CE, Sellors J, Shi J-F, et al. Cost-effective- ness analysis of cervical cancer prevention based on a rapid human papillomavirus screening test in a high-risk region of China. Int J Cancer 2010; 127:1404-11.
  23. Mandelblatt JS, Lawrence WF, Gaffikin L, et al. Costs and benefits of different strategies to screen for cervical cancer in less-developed countries. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94:1469-83.
  24. Perkins RB, Langrish SM, Stern LJ, et al. Impact of patient adherence and test performance on the cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening in developing countries. The case of Honduras. Women's Health Issues 2010;20:35-42.
  25. Praditsitthikorn N, Teerawattananon Y, Tantivess S, et al. Economic evaluation of policy options for prevention and control of cervical cancer in Thailand. PharmacoEconomics 2011;29:781-806.
  26. Sharma M, Ortendahl J, van der Ham E, et al. Cost-effectiveness of human papillomavirus vacci- nation and cervical cancer screening in Thailand. BJOG 2012;119:166-76.
  27. Shi J-F, Canfell K, Lew J-B, et al. Evaluation of primary HPV-DNA testing in relation to visual inspection methods for cervical cancer screening in rural China: an epidemiologic and cost- effectiveness modelling study. BMC Cancer 2011; 11:239.
  28. Suba EJ, Nguyen CH, Nguyen BD, et al.; Viet/ American Cervical Cancer Prevention P. De novo establishment and cost-effectiveness of Papanicolaou cytology screening services in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Cancer 2001;91: 928-39.
  29. Kim JJ, Kuntz KM, Stout NK, et al. Multiparame- ter calibration of a natural history model of cervi- cal cancer. Am J Epidemiol 2007;166:137-50.
  30. Campos NG, Burger EA, Sy S, et al. An updated nat- ural history model of cervical cancer: Derivation of model parameters. Am J Epidemiol 2014;180:545-55.
  31. Goldhaber-Fiebert JD, Denny LE, De Souza M, et al. The costs of reducing loss to follow-up in South African cervical cancer screening. Cost Eff Resour Alloc 2005;3:11.
  32. Teng FF, Mitchell SM, Sekikubo M, et al. Under- standing the role of embarrassment in gynaeco- logical screening: a qualitative study from the ASPIRE cervical cancer screening project in Uganda. BMJ Open 2014;4:e004783.
  33. Moses E, Pedersen HN, Mitchell SM, et al. Uptake of community-based, self-collected HPV testing vs. visual inspection with acetic acid for cervical cancer screening in Kampala, Uganda: preliminary results of a randomised controlled trial. Trop Med Int Health 2015;20:1355-67.

Authors
Mezei, A. K., Armstrong, H. L., Pedersen, H. N., Campos, N. G., Mitchell, S. M., Sekikubo, M., Byamugisha, J. K., Kim, J. J., Bryan, S., & Ogilvie, G. S.
Affiliations
  • University of British Columbia (CA)
  • Women's Health Research Institute (CA)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Mulago Hospital (UG)
  • Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute (CA)
Corresponding author
Ogilvie, Gina S.
Venue
International Journal of Cancer
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-04-03
Volume
141
Issue
3
Pages
437-446
ISSN
0020-7136 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2598689477
Cited by
212
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 45 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 7
FWCI
1.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Cancer (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Cervical Cancer and HPV Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Women's cancer prevention and management
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Keywords
cervical cancer screening, cost-effectiveness, low- and middle-income countries, HPV testing, self-collected HPV testing, visual inspection with acetic acid, cytology-based screening, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, screening coverage, loss to follow-up
MeSH terms
Uterine Cervical Neoplasms, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Developing Countries, Female, Humans, Early Detection of Cancer

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review