Abstract
Objective To compare the cost and effects of three sampling strategies for human papillomavirus (HPV) primary screening.
Design Cost-consequence analysis using a decision tree in Excel.
Setting England.
Participants A cohort of 10,000 women age 25 to 65 eligible for the NHS Cervical Screening Programme (NHSCSP) (Box 1).
Methods The model was informed by the NHSCSP HPV primary screening pathway and adapted for self-sampling. It used a 3-year recall cycle with routine screening in year 1 and recall screening in years 2/3. Parameters were obtained from published studies, manufacturers, NHSCSP reports, and input from experts.
Interventions Three sampling strategies were: 1) routine clinician-collected cervical sample, 2) self-collected first-void (FV) urine; 3) self-collected vaginal swab. The hypothetical self-sampling strategies involved women being mailed a sampling kit at home.
Main outcome measures Primary outcomes: overall costs (for all screening steps to colposcopy), number of complete screens, and cost per complete screen. Secondary outcomes: number of women screened, number of women lost to follow-up, cost per colposcopy, and total screening costs for a plausible range of uptake scenarios.
Results In the base case, the average cost per complete screen was £56.81 for clinician-collected cervical sampling, £38.57 for FV urine self-sampling, and £40.37 for vaginal self-sampling. In deterministic sensitivity analysis (DSA), the variables most affecting the average cost per screen were the cost of sample collection for clinician-collected sampling and the cost of laboratory HPV testing for the self-sampling strategies. Scaled to consider routine screening in England, if uptake in non-attenders increased by 15% and 50% of current screeners converted to self-sampling, the NHSCSP would save £19.2 million (FV urine) or £16.5 million (vaginal) per year.
Conclusion Self-sampling could provide a less costly alternative to clinician-collected sampling for routine HPV primary screening and offers opportunities to expand the reach of cervical screening to under-screened women.
Strengths and limitations of the study
This is the first study to assess the cost of screening for cervical cancer using self-collected first-void urine or vaginal swab compared to the current strategy of clinician-collected cervical sampling within the context of England’s NHS Cervical Screening Programme (NHSCSP).
The cost per screen was used to calculate the total cost of the NHSSCP in England, allowing a comparison of different uptake scenarios if self-sampling was offered to non-attenders only or to all eligible women.
Limited published data were available to inform the cost of self-sampling devices and HPV laboratory testing of self-collected samples.
One pathway for self-sampling was examined. However, there are alternative pathways which could be explored, some of which are dependent on new technologies, such as DNA methylation testing, being validated and costed.
Competing Interest Statement
SH, KPS, VS, KT & EA are employed by Aquarius Population Health which received funding for this study. Aquarius Population Health works on projects related to diagnostics for different commercial and academic clients and as part of grant-funded projects. EJC is a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Advanced Fellow (NIHR300650), and her work is funded by the NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre (IS-BRC-1215-20007). AS is a Clinical Scientist employed by the NHS working within the NHSCSP in the capacity of HPV Lead Scientist and Pathway Manager.
Funding Statement
This study was funded by Novosanis, a subsidiary of OraSure Technologies Incorporated. The design, results, and interpretation of the study were generated independently by the authors. Novosanis was given the opportunity to review the manuscript for medical and scientific accuracy.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary material. The model is not publicly available.