Table 2

Base case results*

ICER (US$/YLS)Relative cervical cancer risk reduction†Absolute lifetime cervical cancer risk
No screening4.2% (3.8%–4.7%)
HPV-ST 1x130 (110–150)15.0% (13.3%–16.6%)3.5% (3.2%–4.0%)
VIA 1xDOM7.2% (6.3%–8.2%)3.9% (3.5%–4.3%)
HPV-VIA 1xDOM7.6% (6.7%–8.7%)3.9% (3.5%–4.3%)
HPV-ST 3x240 (210–280)33.0% (30.6%–35.5%)2.8% (2.4%–3.1%)
VIA 3xDOM16.9% (15.4%–18.8%)3.5% (3.1%–3.9%)
HPV-VIA 3xDOM18.4% (16.7%–20.5%)3.4% (3.0%–3.8%)
HPV-ST 5x470 (410–550)42.8% (39.8%–45.6%)2.4% (2.1%–2.7%)
VIA 5xDOM24.2% (22.0%–26.4%)3.2% (2.8%–3.5%)
HPV-VIA 5xDOM26.1% (23.9%–28.5%)3.1% (2.7%–3.4%)
  • The base case analysis compares all three screening strategies at all three screening frequencies. 1x: screening at age 39 years; 3x=screening at ages 30, 40 and 50 years; 5x=screening at ages 30, 35, 40, 45 and 50 years; DOM: more costly and less effective or having a higher ICER than equally or more effective strategies; ICER: expressed in 2014 US$ per YLS.

  • *Values indicate the mean results across the top 50 best fitting parameter sets. The minimum and maximum values across these 50 parameter sets are shown in parentheses.

  • †Relative reduction in lifetime risk of cervical cancer is compared with no screening.

  • DOM, dominated strategy; HPV, human papillomavirus; HPV-ST, community-based HPV self-collection with clinic-based cryotherapy of eligible HPV+ women; HPV-VIA, community-based HPV self-collection with clinic-based VIA triage and immediate treatment of eligible VIA+ women; ICER, incremental cost- effectiveness ratio; ST, screen-and-treat strategy; VIA, visual inspection with acetic acid; VIA, clinic-based VIA with immediate treatment of eligible VIA+ women; YLS, years of life saved.