Scholarlink

Background <p>Cervical cancer screening programs are established in most upper middle- and high-income countries (UMICs and HICs), yet many eligible women remain underscreened or unscreened. Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing by self-sampling (HPV-SS) has the potential to increase participation rates. In this study, we aim to systematically assess and synthesize the current evidence on cost-effectiveness of implementing HPV-SS in established cervical cancer screening programs in UMICs and HICs.</p> Methods <p>We searched relevant databases (until 02/2024) for studies on the cost-effectiveness of HPV-SS in cervical cancer screening in UMICs and HICs. Following PRISMA guidelines, we included empirical and decision-analytic modelling studies published in English or German reporting health-economic outcomes that can be expressed as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). We extracted key study characteristics (e.g. target population, study type) and outcomes (e.g. ICER) and summarized them in systematic evidence tables. Costs were converted to 2024 Euro for cross-country comparison.</p> Results <p>Of 612 studies, 25 studies met inclusion criteria: 16 model-based cost-effectiveness evaluations and nine economic evaluations along trials. Studies were mainly conducted in HICs. HPV-SS was compared with standard care (e.g. clinician-collected conventional cytology, Pap smear, HPV-testing) or no screening. Eight studies assessed HPV-SS for all screening-eligible women, while 17 studies focused on women not attending regular screening. ICERs were reported in stepwise incremental fashion (i.e. comparing non-dominated strategy to the next non-dominated strategy) in 13 studies, and reported comparing each strategy to a reference each in ten studies. Overall HPV-SS was reported to be cost-effective or cost-saving compared to no screening or standard of care in all but one study. In non-attendees, ICERs ranged from being cost-saving for primary HPV screening with offering HPV-SS vs. not offering HPV-SS (Netherlands) to 60,000 Euro/LYG for a combined strategy (Pap smear until age 35 followed by 5-yearly HPV-SS until age 60) vs. no screening (Sweden). HPV-SS was shown to increase screening participation in studies evaluating screening attendance.</p> Conclusion <p>Based on our results, HPV-SS can be a practical, feasible and cost-effective approach to increase screening coverage.</p> PROSPERO registration <p>CRD42024499233.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Cost-effectiveness studies evaluating HPV self-sampling for cervical cancer screening – a systematic review

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年3月28日

查看全文
  • Lára R. Hallsson,
  • Anna-Maria Hoflacher,
  • Jan Stratil,
  • Milena Muehler,
  • Lennart Koch,
  • Ellen John,
  • Peter Hillemanns,
  • Matthias Jentschke,
  • Uwe Siebert,
  • Gaby Sroczynski

摘要

Background

Cervical cancer screening programs are established in most upper middle- and high-income countries (UMICs and HICs), yet many eligible women remain underscreened or unscreened. Human papillomavirus (HPV) testing by self-sampling (HPV-SS) has the potential to increase participation rates. In this study, we aim to systematically assess and synthesize the current evidence on cost-effectiveness of implementing HPV-SS in established cervical cancer screening programs in UMICs and HICs.

Methods

We searched relevant databases (until 02/2024) for studies on the cost-effectiveness of HPV-SS in cervical cancer screening in UMICs and HICs. Following PRISMA guidelines, we included empirical and decision-analytic modelling studies published in English or German reporting health-economic outcomes that can be expressed as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). We extracted key study characteristics (e.g. target population, study type) and outcomes (e.g. ICER) and summarized them in systematic evidence tables. Costs were converted to 2024 Euro for cross-country comparison.

Results

Of 612 studies, 25 studies met inclusion criteria: 16 model-based cost-effectiveness evaluations and nine economic evaluations along trials. Studies were mainly conducted in HICs. HPV-SS was compared with standard care (e.g. clinician-collected conventional cytology, Pap smear, HPV-testing) or no screening. Eight studies assessed HPV-SS for all screening-eligible women, while 17 studies focused on women not attending regular screening. ICERs were reported in stepwise incremental fashion (i.e. comparing non-dominated strategy to the next non-dominated strategy) in 13 studies, and reported comparing each strategy to a reference each in ten studies. Overall HPV-SS was reported to be cost-effective or cost-saving compared to no screening or standard of care in all but one study. In non-attendees, ICERs ranged from being cost-saving for primary HPV screening with offering HPV-SS vs. not offering HPV-SS (Netherlands) to 60,000 Euro/LYG for a combined strategy (Pap smear until age 35 followed by 5-yearly HPV-SS until age 60) vs. no screening (Sweden). HPV-SS was shown to increase screening participation in studies evaluating screening attendance.

Conclusion

Based on our results, HPV-SS can be a practical, feasible and cost-effective approach to increase screening coverage.

PROSPERO registration

CRD42024499233.