Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Oct 6;11(10):e0164000.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0164000. eCollection 2016.

Resources Required for Cervical Cancer Prevention in Low- and Middle-Income Countries

Affiliations

Resources Required for Cervical Cancer Prevention in Low- and Middle-Income Countries

Nicole G Campos et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Background: Cervical cancer is the fourth leading cause of cancer death in women, with 85% of cases and deaths occurring in developing countries. While organized screening programs have reduced cervical cancer incidence in high-income countries through detection and treatment of precancerous lesions, the implementation of organized screening has not been effective in low-resource settings due to lack of infrastructure and limited budgets. Our objective was to estimate the cost of comprehensive primary and secondary cervical cancer prevention in low- and middle-income countries.

Methods and findings: We performed a modeling analysis to estimate 1) for girls aged 10 years, the cost of 2-dose human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination; and 2) for women aged 30 to 49 years, the cost of cervical cancer screening (with visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA), HPV testing, or cytology) and preventive treatment in 102 low- and middle-income countries from 2015 to 2024. We used an Excel-based costing and service utilization model to estimate financial costs (2013 US$) based on prevalence of HPV, prevalence of precancerous lesions, and screening test performance. Where epidemiologic data were unavailable, we extrapolated from settings with data using an individual-based microsimulation model of cervical carcinogenesis (calibrated to 20 settings) and multivariate regression. Total HPV vaccination costs ranged from US$8.6 billion to US$24.2 billion for all scenarios considered (immediate, 5-year, or 10-year roll-out; price per dose US$4.55-US$70 by country income level). The total cost of screening and preventive treatment ranged from US$5.1 billion (10-year roll-out, screening once at age 35 years) to US$42.3 billion (immediate roll-out, high intensity screening). Limitations of this analysis include the assumption of standardized protocols by country income level that did not account for the potential presence of multiple screening modalities or management strategies within a country, and extrapolation of cost and epidemiologic data to settings where data were limited.

Conclusions: The estimated cost of comprehensive cervical cancer prevention with 2-dose HPV vaccination of 10-year-old girls and screening of women aged 30 to 49 years ranges from US$13.7 billion to US$66.5 billion, depending on speed of roll-out, vaccine price per dose, and screening test and frequency. Findings demonstrate the substantial impact of vaccine price in middle-income countries that are not eligible for assistance from Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance. Replacing routine cytology with HPV-based screening may reduce total costs. Data on the health impact and relative cost-effectiveness of strategies are needed to determine the best value for public health dollars.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

NGC, MS, AC, JJK, and SCR declare support from the American Cancer Society for the submitted work. Inputs to the CERVIVAC model are described in the main text and Supporting Information. The CERVIVAC model was developed in collaboration with the Pan American Health Organization ProVac Initiative, and inquiries regarding the model can be made through ProVac. Cost projections for individual countries are not available, but rather are aggregated by region or income tier as documented in the text. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Screening and treatment costs by screening scenario, year and roll-out strategy (2013 US$, millions).
Each panel displays the cost (y-axis, 2013 US$) in each year (x-axis) associated with immediate (blue line), 5-year (red line), and 10-year (green line) roll-out in each screening and treatment scenario: Scenario 1, screening once at age 35 (panel A); Scenario 2, screening at a 10-year interval at age 30 and 40(panel B); Scenario 3, low intensity screening, with Pap testing in countries with existing cytology programs (panel C); Scenario 4, low intensity screening without Pap testing (panel D); Scenario 5, high intensity screening with Pap testing in countries with existing cytology programs (panel E); Scenario 6, high intensity screening without Pap testing (panel F); and Scenario 7, HPV-based screening in all but the lowest income tier (panel G). Roll-out assumptions are described in the Methods.
Fig 2
Fig 2. Distribution of cervical cancer screening, diagnostic, and treatment costs for Screening Scenario 1 (once in a lifetime screening) and Screening Scenario 7 (HPV-based screening in Lower-middle income tier 1 and above), immediate roll-out.
Bars display the proportion of total costs associated with each procedure for Scenario 1, screening once at age 35 (upper panel) and Scenario 7, HPV-based screening in all but the lowest income tier (lower panel): screening tests (blue); cryotherapy (red); colposcopy/biopsy (green); loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP) (dark purple), and triage tests (turquoise). The distribution of costs is presented for all countries (top bar) and by income tier.

References

    1. Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Ervik M, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, et al. (2013) GLOBOCAN 2012 v1.0, Cancer Incidence and Mortality Worldwide: IARC CancerBase No. 11 [Internet]. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer.
    1. Denny LA, Sankaranarayanan R, De Vuyst H, Kim JJ, Adefuye PO, Alemany L, et al. Recommendations for cervical cancer prevention in sub-saharan Africa. Vaccine 2013; 31 Suppl 5: F73–74. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2012.11.077 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Jeronimo J, Bansil P, Lim J, Peck R, Paul P, Amador JJ, 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: 576–585. 10.1097/IGC.0000000000000084 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Qiao YL, Sellors JW, Eder PS, Bao YP, Lim JM, Zhao FH, et al. A new HPV-DNA test for cervical-cancer screening in developing regions: a cross-sectional study of clinical accuracy in rural China. Lancet Oncol 2008; 9: 929–936. 10.1016/S1470-2045(08)70210-9 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Gavi, The Vaccine Alliance. Human papillomavirus vaccine support: Record low price agreed for HPV vaccines. Available at: http://www.gavi.org/support/nvs/human-papillomavirus/.