HPVsim: An agent-based model of HPV transmission and cervical disease ===================================================================== * Robyn M. Stuart * Jamie A. Cohen * Cliff C. Kerr * Romesh G. Abeysuriya * Marita Zimmermann * Darcy W. Rao * Mariah C. Boudreau * Daniel J. Klein ## Abstract In 2020, the WHO launched its first Global Strategy to Accelerate the Elimination of Cervical Cancer, outlining an ambitious set of targets for countries to achieve over the next decade. At the same time, new tools, technologies, and strategies are in the pipeline that may improve screening performance, expand the reach of prophylactic vaccines, and prevent the acquisition, persistence and progression of oncogenic HPV. Detailed mechanistic modeling can help identify the combinations of current and future strategies to combat cervical cancer. Open-source modeling tools are needed to shift the capacity for such evaluations in-country. Here, we introduce the Human papillomavirus simulator (HPVsim), a new, flexible agent-based model that can be parameterized with country-specific vital dynamics, structured sexual networks, co-transmitting HPV genotypes, B- and T-cell mediated immunity, and high-resolution disease natural history. HPVsim is designed with a user-first lens: it is implemented in Python, has built-in tools for simulating commonly-used interventions, includes a comprehensive set of tests and documentation, and runs quickly (seconds to minutes) on a laptop. Useful complexity was not sacrificed: the platform is flexible, allowing bespoke scenario modeling. **Author summary** Mathematical models have been integral in setting ambitious goals for cervical cancer elimination, along with determining intermediate targets for vaccination, screening, and treatment. However, given that elimination strategies encompass decade-long timelines, these targets will inevitably need updating over time as the landscape of available technologies for combating cervical cancer evolves. In this work, we introduce a new model, HPVsim, which can rapidly evaluate pathways toward elimination under complex combinations of new and existing interventions. HPVsim is a flexible agent-based model with country-specific vital dynamics, structured sexual networks, co-transmitting HPV genotypes, B- and T-cell mediated immunity, and high-resolution disease natural history. Written in Python, with easy installation and full testing and documentation, the model is designed so that analysis pipelines can be created with very little effort. By improving access to cervical cancer modeling tools, we aim to enable real-time updates and nimble adaptation of cervical cancer elimination targets in response to changing technologies providing realistic targets on the path to cervical cancer elimination. ## 1. Overview In August of 2020, the World Health Organization adopted its first ever strategy to permanently end cervical cancer as a global public health problem (1). The Global Strategy to Accelerate the Elimination of Cervical Cancer proposes targets of 90% of girls vaccinated against human papillomavirus (HPV, the virus that causes cervical cancer) by age 15, 70% of women screened by age 35 and again by 45, and 90% compliance with treatment recommendations for pre-cancer and management of invasive cancer. The ability for countries to achieve these ambitious targets was bolstered in April of 2022, when the WHO Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization (SAGE) completed a review of HPV vaccine dosing schedules and concluded that one-dose of the vaccine provides comparable efficacy to two or three-doses (2). With more doses now available, the pathway towards cervical cancer elimination has become more achievable for many countries, including those with the highest burden. Mathematical models have been instrumental in evaluating and incorporating new technologies into guidelines and health policies worldwide (3–6), and the formulation of the goal to eliminate cervical cancer and the strategies that might get us there has been informed by the results of mathematical models (7–10). HPV vaccination is among the most studied interventions in the public health economics literature, with numerous modeling studies dedicated to evaluating the health impact and cost-effectiveness of the vaccine (11). While existing, well-established models continue to provide valuable insight to guide cervical cancer elimination, most simulate progression through histologic or cytologic states. Recent shifts in our understanding of HPV epidemiology and the emergence of new biomarker-based screening tools have prompted calls for a new generation of cervical cancer models that simulate the underlying biological processes in addition to their clinical correlates (12). In addition, there is increasing demand for such models to be freely available, open-source, and reproducible (13–16). Benefits of such models include improved transparency (regarding a model’s structure, equations, parameter values, and assumptions), the ability for others to test the reproducibility of model results (only possible when model source code is publicly available), expanded accessibility and flexibility to apply models to alternative scenarios, and a more inclusive culture of collaboration across academia, industry, and decision-makers. In this paper, we introduce a new mechanistic stochastic agent-based model called the Human papillomavirus simulator (HPVsim). As an open-source model that captures the process of HPV acquisition and progression through precancer to cervical cancer, we believe HPVsim has the potential to be a useful supplement to existing tools in the field and lays the foundation for directly modeling the biologic process at higher resolution, including methylation and oncoprotein expression. HPVsim is intended to support analyses of varying complexity, and we provide two detailed use cases in Section 3 of this paper with the aim of illustrating the model’s adaptability to different users and purposes. In the first use case, we show how HPVsim could be used to compare the health impact and cost-effectiveness of different screening strategies. In the second, we illustrate the interplay between age of vaccination and sexual behavior assumptions. ## 2. Design and implementation HPVsim models agents (i.e., people) over time, simulating the transmission of HPV within sexual networks and the progression of HPV to cervical dysplasia and cervical cancer within individuals. When a simulation is created (Section 2.1), a population of agents is initialized and then maintained dynamically over time as the simulation steps forward (Section 2.2). Agents interact with each other through sexual networks (Section 2.3), transmission of multiple co-circulating HPV genotypes are modeled (Section 2.4), and persistent infections progress to cervical dysplasia followed by spontaneous regression or invasive cervical cancer (Section 2.5). Interventions, including vaccination, screening, and treatment, are described in Section 2.6. In Section 2.7 we describe both standard model outputs and methods to flexibly define and capture additional outputs. In Section 2.8 we describe additional features of the model, including multiscale modeling, model calibration, and how the model can be parameterized to include HIV co-infection dynamics. In Section 2.9 we describe the software architecture underlying the model. ### 2.1. Model simulations Our philosophy with HPVsim was to make it as easy as possible to create and run a basic simulation. While creating, running, and plotting a simulation within HPVsim can be done in as little as four lines of code (see Figure 1 for an example), the model itself relies on a core set of assumptions and default inputs. All parameters and inputs that go into HPVsim will be described in detail within the remainder of this paper, but for ease of reference they can also be found in Table S1 along with their default values, as well as within the HPVsim documentation pages. All parameters can be directly modified when the simulation is created (e.g. sim = hpv.Sim(start_year=2000)). ![Figure1](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/02/02/2023.02.01.23285356/F1.medium.gif) [Figure1](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/02/02/2023.02.01.23285356/F1) ![Figure 1:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/02/02/2023.02.01.23285356/F2.medium.gif) [Figure 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/02/02/2023.02.01.23285356/F2) Figure 1: Code to create, run and plot a simulation with HPVsim, along with the resulting plot. By default, HPVsim includes circulation of HPV16, HPV18, and other high-risk HPV genotypes grouped together, here labeled “hrhpv”. The ‘sim object’ (an instance of the HPVsim class, as returned by the constructor code, hpv.Sim()) is the main workhorse for everything that a user may wish to do with a simulation. It can be thought of as a container that holds both model inputs (including the population, sexual network, all parameters that determine individuals’ probabilities of progressing through cervical dysplasia, and any interventions) and model outputs. It also contains methods for performing calculations and updates, such as sim.step() which steps the simulation forward in time. ### 2.2. Demographics and populations The demographic components of HPVsim are responsible for updating the population with births, deaths of all causes other than cervical cancer, and new entries and exits resulting from migration. By default, demographic updates are made annually. #### 2.2.1. Modeling a country We anticipate the most common usage pattern for HPVsim will be modeling HPV transmission and disease progression and the impact of various interventions within a particular country. To facilitate modeling at this scale, much of the demographic workflow has been automated. At the beginning of a simulation, a population of agents is initialized following a distribution of ages and sexes in the given country at a specified point in time (17). For each timestep on which demographics are updated, three demographic updates are made. First, new births are added to the population using crude birth rates by year as published by the World Bank (18). Next, we apply death rates by age, sex, and year, using the age specific mortality rates included with the UN’s 2022 World Population Prospects (WPP) (17). Finally, after adding births and removing deaths, we compare the overall modeled population size to the projected population size, which is taken from the UN WPP’s mid-fertility projections. Discrepancies are assumed to be attributable to migration, so the final update consists of either adding or removing people from the simulation. Both methods are applied to maintain historical and projected age-distribution over time. When adding migrants to the population, we draw attributes such as age, immunity profile, and vaccination status from a distribution based on that of the existing population. Data required for this workflow are automatically pulled from World Bank and UN WPP sources cited above upon installation of HPVsim, using data scrapers that generate and locally store object files with demographic data for all countries in the world. When new data are released, these will be included in future releases of HPVsim, and will automatically update for users when they update their HPVsim version. #### 2.2.2. Modeling a custom setting To facilitate custom analyses, HPVsim includes options to overwrite all default demographic inputs. For example, rather than modeling a particular country, a user may wish to model a collection of countries grouped by income or region, or a user interested in a more theoretical exploration may like to create a representative population with particular age structure and birth/death rates. ### 2.3. Sexual network HPVsim includes two different built-in sexual network options – ‘default’ and ‘random’ – each of which can be configured by the user by adjusting various input parameters (Table S1). Each of these networks are generated by an algorithm, which we describe in more detail in this section, but which can be briefly summarized as a female-driven partner selection algorithm that assigns males to female partners based on age and other preferences. HPVsim currently only models heterosexual partnerships and cisgender individuals. By default, updates to the sexual networks (i.e. partnership creation/dissolution) are made on a timestep of 0.25 years, corresponding to 3 months. #### 2.3.1. Relationship types and properties The ‘default’ sexual network includes three relationship types: long-term, casual, and one-off. The ‘random’ sexual network only includes a single relationship type capturing all relationships. Across both network options, relationship types are characterized by the following six properties: relationship duration, propensity for concurrency, coital frequency, condom usage, participation rates, and age mixing. Default values for each of these are presented in Table S1, but this collection of inputs is among the most likely to vary between different socio-geographical settings. #### 2.3.2. Network initialization The sexual network is initialized at the beginning of a simulation. Relationship participation rates are used to determine the proportion of males and females in each age bin that are in relationships of each type. By default, relationship participation rates are disaggregated by sex into 5-year age bins, although this can be configured differently as needed. Each agent in the network is assigned a preferred number of simultaneous partners for each relationship type, governed by the concurrency propensity parameter for each partnership layer. Each female is assumed to begin with her preferred number of partners. Male partners are found using age mixing matrices, which specify the distributions of male partner ages for females of each specific age. Males are weighted for selection based on how relatively under-partnered they are: a male who prefers two casual partners and has none will be weighted higher than a male who prefers one casual partner and has none. Once both females and males have been selected, we assign each partnership a duration and a number of coital acts drawn from the partner type-specific distributions specified in Table S1. Acts are scaled according to age and are assumed to increase between the age of sexual debut and the age of sexual peak, and then subsequently decline (further details of the default assumptions are contained in Table S1). Because the sexual network takes some time to stabilize, we recommend running the model with a minimum 20-30 year burn-in period, and as such have set the model to start in 1990 by default. #### 2.3.3. Network updating At each time step, we dissolve relationships that have reached the end of their duration. For each relationship type and each age bucket, we calculate the difference between the proportion of females that are currently in relationships and the proportion assumed to participate in relationships of each type. We make up the difference by selecting females who are sexually active and weighting them higher for selection if they are under-partnered relative to their preferences. We then choose male partners by using the age mixing matrices, again weighting them higher for selection if they are under-partnered relative to their preferences. As with network initialization, relationships are then assigned a duration, condom usage, and an initial number of coital acts per year. #### 2.3.4. Network example Figure 2 illustrates how the network generates and updates partners for three sample agents within HPVsim. The woman in 2A debuts sexually in her mid-teens, is married from 22-30, and then marries again around age 45. She acquires 2 HPV infections, both of which clear spontaneously either with or without any detectable cervical dysplasia. The woman in 4B marries at 18 (at which point she acquires and then clears HPV), then has an extramarital relationship in her 30s. The woman in 4C debuts sexually in her early teens has a number of concurrent partners in her teens and 20s, and then has a period of a large number of casual or one-off partners, characteristic of someone engaging in sex work, throughout her 30s. She acquires an HPV infection in her early 20s, which persists throughout her 20s and 30s and transforms in her mid 30s before eventually progressing to invasive cervical cancer around age 40. Within the model, people who have invasive cervical cancer are removed from the sexual network (see Section 2.8.2). She dies from cervical cancer at age 50. ![Figure 2:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/02/02/2023.02.01.23285356/F3.medium.gif) [Figure 2:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/02/02/2023.02.01.23285356/F3) Figure 2: Three sample agent lifetime sexual network connections and associated health status. ![Figure 3:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/02/02/2023.02.01.23285356/F4.medium.gif) [Figure 3:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/02/02/2023.02.01.23285356/F4) Figure 3: Schematic illustration of the natural history model within HPVsim. HPV infection in women can become a transforming infection, or can clear on its own. Once a cellular transformation event occurs, it is assumed that this begins an irreversible process that, in the absence of treatment, will lead to invasive cervical cancer. We model the proportion of HPV-infected cells, rather than the individual cells shown here. We do not model the different stages of invasive cervical cancer. ### 2.4. HPV transmission #### 2.4.1. Basic transmission equation HPVsim models HPV transmission within serodiscordant partnerships, with per-act probability β*g* for genotype *g*. We assume that individuals can only have a single infection with a given genotype at a time, i.e. a person currently infected with genotype *g* cannot get a second infection with the same genotype. We do, however, allow multiple concurrent infections with different genotypes. In the absence of clear data to inform within-host genotype competition and given the delay in seroconversion and antibody development to provide own- and cross-immune protection (19,20), we assume HPV infections are independent; agents are no more or less likely to acquire an infection of a different genotype if they are currently infected. Own- and cross-immune protection, which we assume is conferred following clearance of infection, will be discussed in Section 2.4.2. The probability of a person *i* infected with genotype *g* transmitting to a susceptible person *j* within a given time step can be written as ![Formula][1] where *β**g* is the per-act probability of transmission of genotype *g, eff_cond* is the assumed efficacy of condoms, *cond* is the probability of condom use within this partnership, and *n(t)* is the number of sexual acts within this partnership between time *t* and time *t+dt*. The parameter *inf_imm**j,g**(t)* describes the person *j*’s protective immunity to infection against genotype *g*, and the relative transmissibility of person *i* at time *t*, respectively. More details for these parameters are provided in the Section 2.4.2. #### 2.4.2. B-cell mediated neutralizing immunity Equation 1 shows how the probability of HPV transmission is moderated by both the immunity of the susceptible partner and the relative transmissibility of the infected partners (in addition to partnership behavioral choices, like condom use and coital frequency). B-cell mediated immunity neutralizes virus at the point of exposure/challenge and can be conferred by either infection or vaccination (21). Within HPVsim, the former begins once an individual *j* clears infection with genotype *g*, at which point we evaluate whether or not the individual seroconverts, using probabilities that depend on the genotype (Table S2). An individual *j* who seroconverts is assigned a level of immunity to the genotype just cleared, *nab_imm**j,g*, drawn from a beta distribution with mean of 0.35 and variance of 0.025, derived based upon a meta-analysis of natural acquired immunity (22). By default, this value stays constant over time, i.e. we do not model waning immunity, although simulations can be configured to include waning immunity with a specified decay function if desired (in which case *nab_imm**j,g* can be replaced by *nab_imm**j,g**(t)*). The individual *j*’s degree of protection against infection from any genotype *h* is then calculated using a cross-immunity matrix (Table 1), as ![Formula][2] View this table: [Table 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/02/02/2023.02.01.23285356/T1) Table 1. Cross immunity matrix. hrHPV: all other non-16/18 oncogenic HPV genotypes. These values are based on a compilation of evidence from cross-reactivity studies (23–25). where *ximm**i,h* is the entry from the ith row and hth column of the cross-immunity matrix *ximm* depicted in Table 1. This is best explained with an example, so let us consider a simulation with two genotypes (HPV16 and HPV18) and three people. The first person has previously cleared infection with HPV16, seroconverts to the HPV16 infection, and develops an immunity level *nab_imm**1,HPV16* of 0.5; the second person has previously cleared HPV18, seroconverted to the HPV18 infection, and develops an immunity level *nab_imm**2,HPV18* of 0.7; and the third person has a history of infection with both HPV16 and HPV18, but only seroconverted to the HPV16 infection, developing an immunity level *nab_imm**3,HPV16* of 0.9. Then, using the cross immunity matrix in Table 1, we can compute an individual’s effective immunity against a challenge. This indicates that people who have had HPV18 get 50% benefit from their HPV18 protection against acquiring HPV16, and people who have been infected with HPV16 get 50% benefit from their HPV16 protection against acquiring HPV18. Now, if each of these people were challenged by HPV16, their effective immunity against infection (*inf_imm**HPV16*) levels against HPV16 would be calculated by taking the dot or scalar product of the vector of all genotypes and the vector of levels of immunity (see Equation 2), resulting in 0.5 for person 1, 0.7*0.5=0.35 for person 2, and 0.9*1=0.9 for person 3. Equation 1 shows how effective immunity factors into the probability that an agent acquires an HPV infection. This example shows how immunity from prior infection moderates an individual’s risk of acquiring HPV. Immunity from vaccination works in a similar way and will be further described in Section 2.6.1. We assume men do not acquire neutralizing immune protection after clearing infection, based upon a meta-analysis of natural acquired immunity (22). #### 2.4.3. Relative transmissibility Within HPVsim, there is functionality to allow an infected person’s relative transmissibility to vary depending on the state of their HPV infection (episomal, transforming, cancerous). However, the data on time- and health-state-varying viral load is inconclusive to date and challenged by the possibility of multiple concurrent lesions in different parts of the cervix that might contribute to viral shedding, so by default all stages of infection and dysplasia are treated as equally infectious (26–28), with the exception of cancer, which is treated as not infectious. While we know that women with cancer are likely to still be able to transmit HPV infection via other concurrent lower-grade lesions, this assumption was made to facilitate the use of multiscale modeling, which is described in Section 2.8.2. Different values of relative transmissibility can be set for infections that are episomal (prior to and early in dysplasia) or transforming (as dysplasia advances, leading potentially to integration) if desired, and may be useful for exploring time- and health-state varying viral load and its impact on transmission. ### 2.5. Disease natural history Persistent episomal HPV infection can lead to cellular transformation, characterized by uncontrollable cell division, sustained genetic mutations, and the integration of virus within the host genome. Over time, enough genetic mutations can accumulate to cause invasive cervical cancer. In HPVsim, we model a continuous process of episomal infection growth, transformation, and invasion to cervical cancer; and to optimize performance, we determine all prognoses upon infection, including the precise time points on which a woman will either clear infection, or begin transformation and eventually progress to invasive cervical cancer. These prognoses can be updated at later dates in response to interventions (e.g. screening and treatment) or changes in a state of immune compromise, such as untreated HIV infection. However, pre-specifying prognoses in this way means that we only need to change the health state of a small subset of women in each timestep. The method that we use involves two steps. First, we sample the duration of episomal HPV infection (during which time HPV is maintained as episomes replicating alongside cellular DNA) and use this to determine the time course of infection severity. Roughly speaking, infection severity corresponds to the proportion of epithelial layers with affected cells. Second, we use the severity of infection to determine whether the infection will result in clearance (via a host-induced immune response) or a cellular transformation event (characterized by the integration of the viral DNA into the host genome, implying cell immortalization and the cessation of virion particle production). If cellular transformation occurs, we assume that, in the absence of treatment, this is an irreversible process that will end in invasive cervical cancer. For men, a duration of infection is sampled from a log-normal distribution and date of clearance assigned at the time of infection. We do not model persistent infections in males or any associated precancer/cancer outcomes. #### 2.5.1. Evaluating infection growth and transformation We assume that the duration of episomal HPV infection prior to either clearance or the beginning of transformation follows a log-normal distribution, with mean values and distributions varying by genotype as shown in Figure 4A. Sampled durations are modified based upon *cell*_*imm**g*, which represents person *j*’s level of protective immunity against abnormal cell growth with genotype *g* from a previously cleared infection (described in greater detail in Section 2.5.2). ![Figure 4:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/02/02/2023.02.01.23285356/F5.medium.gif) [Figure 4:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/02/02/2023.02.01.23285356/F5) Figure 4: Infection and progression dynamics. (A) Distribution of duration of episomal infection prior to transformation or clearance for genotypes HPV16, HPV18, and other high-risk genotypes (HRHPV). (B) Relationship between the duration of infection, genotype, and severity of infection. The mean relationship is represented by the bold line, and the lighter lines represent a sample of size 10 to illustrate how clinical outcomes vary by individual woman. The individual values can be interpreted as the degree of abnormal cell growth within the cervix, and can be translated into cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grades shown by the shaded areas based upon a histologic diagnosis. (C) Cumulative probability of a transformation event occurring by time with infection and genotype. (D) The expected eventual outcomes for women, evaluated at the point of infection, in the absence of vaccination, screening, and treatment. By default, we assume infection severity, *s**g*, grows over time according to a logistic function with a genotype-specific inflection point *c**g* and rate of growth ![Graphic][3], such that the value of *s**g**(t)* after a woman has been infected for *t* years is: ![Formula][4] as depicted in Figure 4B. Infection severity is updated on each time step and used to classify women into histologic categories based upon clinical cutoffs, also shown in Figure 4B. The default values of infection duration *T*_*inf**g*, *s**g*, and *c**g* were chosen to roughly fit observed data on the duration of HPV infection prior to CIN detection (29). The growth of infected cells is an unobserved process, but the number of women with a given histological outcome can be observed, so it’s possible to infer parameters of Equation 3 that give rise to these observed data (Table S2 provides defaults based on calibration). At the same time, however, it’s possible that a number of growth functions could give rise to the observed number of women with a given histological grade. Given the uncertain and potentially important nature of this process, users can modify the growth function by providing the name and parameters of pre-specified functional forms (including forms commonly used for modeling tumor growth, such as logarithmic, exponential, and linear growth (30,31)) or providing a custom function. The probability of an episomal infection transforming and integrating is assumed to be a stochastic process that occurs for each abnormal cell, such that the risk of transformation grows with the severity of infection over time, depicted in Figure 4C. The probability of a transformation event is then evaluated as, ![Formula][5] where π*g* represents the probability of an integration event for a single episomal cell, designed to capture the fact that some genotypes are more aggressively oncogenic than others. Once a cellular integration event occurs, it is assumed that this is an irreversible process that will result in invasive cervical cancer in the absence of any treatment. A time to onset of cancer is sampled from a log-normal distribution, and abnormal cell growth is assumed to continue until invasive cervical cancer occurs. Default values for the transformation probability and time to cancer were selected based upon calibration to age-specific cancers and HPV genotype distribution in cancer across a selection of countries. #### 2.5.2. T-cell mediated immunity The duration of an episomal HPV infection is moderated by the immune memory of the infected agent. T-cell mediated immune memory is responsible for clearing infection and protecting against persistent infection, and is conferred in individuals following HPV infection clearance (32,33). It is still unclear whether B- and T-cell memories track together in individuals or whether T-cell memory is generated irrespective of seroconversion, and this warrants further research. As with B-cell mediated neutralizing immunity discussed in Section 2.4.2., within HPVsim, T-cell mediated immunity begins once an individual *j* clears infection with genotype *g* and seroconverts, at which time they are assigned an immunity value, *cell_imm**j,g* drawn from a beta distribution with mean of 0.25 and variance of 0.025. These default values were chosen based upon a comparison of the risk of incident infection and dysplasia in baseline seropositive women followed over 7 years (34). As with B-cell mediated immunity, this value stays constant over time by default and is genotype-specific. Unlike B-cell mediated immunity, we assume T-cell mediated immunity confers no cross-immune protection to other genotypes. #### 2.5.4. Clearance, latency, and reactivation On the day that a woman clears infection, we evaluate whether seroconversion takes place, using genotype-specific probabilities (19). Individuals who seroconvert develop type-specific B- and T-cell protection against future infection, *nab_imm**g* and *cell_imm**g*, respectively, as explained in Sections 2.4.2 and 2.5.2. By default, we do not factor in latent infections, meaning that clearance is assumed to represent complete clearance rather than a dormant infection below the limit of detection. However, this behavior can be altered by adjusting a parameter that determines the probability of complete clearance, *hpv\_control\_prob*. If this feature is used, latent infections are not transmissible, but can reactivate. #### 2.5.5. Distribution of outcomes A useful advantage of the method described in the previous sections is that we can derive an implied distribution of clinical and subclinical outcomes, which can then be compared to empirical data to evaluate whether these implied estimates are reasonable for a given setting. These are shown in Figure 4D. For a given HPV16 infection, approximately 90 percent of episomal infections clear, having only progressed to maximally CIN1. Of the 10 percent that progress to CIN2+, approximately 22 percent invade and cause cervical cancer (2 percent of all infections). In comparison, in over 7 years of follow-up of women in the longitudinal NCI-Kaiser Permanente Northern California Persistence and Progression (PaP) Study, 22 percent of HPV16 infections and 11 percent of HPV18 infections progressed to CIN3+ (35). These proportions differ considerably by genotype, and in contexts where genotypes that are more likely to lead to cancer are more prevalent, this would weight the outcomes more towards higher incidence of cancer. ### 2.6. Interventions The central pillars of the global public health response to HPV consist of prophylactic vaccination programs, cervical screening programs, and treatment of both precancerous lesions and cancer. HPVsim allows users to model these standard interventions, and additionally to define their own custom ones that might reflect country-specific strategies for prevention and treatment. In this section we elaborate on each of these options. The general design of the standard interventions (screening, triage, treatment, and prophylactic vaccination) is intended to allow users to flexibly specify both the product and the details of its delivery. Moreover, it is possible to create complex algorithms of screening and treatment by linking interventions together, as the examples below will demonstrate. For all default interventions described below, there may be differences by HIV status that are relevant for users who want to explicitly model HIV, such as reduced treatment effectiveness (36,37) and lower immunogenicity following vaccination. #### 2.6.1. Prophylactic vaccination ##### 2.6.1.1. Vaccine efficacy and dosing Available HPV vaccines are licensed to protect against infection with either two, four, or nine types of HPV, but have been documented to provide varying degrees of cross-protection against other non-vaccine genotypes as well (24,38–40). Based on the interim results from the ongoing KEN SHE trial that vaccines have high levels of efficacy (97.5%) against incident HPV infection when delivered as a single-dose regimen (41). In HPVsim, a single dose of a particular prophylactic vaccine is assumed to confer neutralizing immunity (*nab_imm*) to the genotypes that it is specifically targeted at, as well as lower levels of cross-immunity to other genotypes. Values and references for these cross-immunity assumptions are documented in Table S3. The currently available vaccines do not evoke a T-cell response and so do not confer *cell_imm* within HPVsim. ##### 2.6.1.2. Vaccine duration of protection Evidence indicates that HPV vaccines confer long-lasting protection against their targeted genotypes, with vaccine efficacy against high-grade lesions associated with targeted HPV types remaining above 90% for the quadrivalent vaccine after 12 years (42), above 90% for the nonavalent vaccine after 6 years (43), and near 100% for the bivalent vaccine after 10 years (44). In light of these results, HPVsim assumes by default that immunity from prophylactic vaccination does not wane over time. However, given that there is also some evidence to suggest that cross-protective immunity to non-vaccine types may be somewhat less durable (40), we also include the option to model waning immunity. ##### 2.6.1.3. Vaccine delivery The details of the delivery of prophylactic vaccines are generally context-specific, and HPVsim does not assume any defaults regarding the targeted age group or time frame of delivery. In some contexts, the HPV vaccine is delivered to boys as well as girls; by default we assume that the vaccine is targeted to girls only, but delivery to boys is also supported. The following example models a routine vaccination program commencing in 2015 with 50% coverage of girls aged between 9 and 10 years each year: ![Formula][6] Catch-up campaigns can also be modeled in a similar fashion, where in a single year (2025) 90% of 15-24 year old girls and women receive a bivalent vaccine: ![Formula][7] Each of these two examples uses the bivalent vaccine, and this is assumed to be delivered as a single dose, i.e. the efficacy and coverage parameters are based on a single-dose delivery. Modeling multi-dose regimens is also possible, and we provide further examples of this in the model documentation. #### 2.6.2. Screening and triage ##### 2.6.2.1. Screening products Cervical screening programs are intended to identify HPV infection or precancerous lesions before advancement to invasive cervical cancer. Different screening strategies are used in different contexts worldwide, with the three dominant categories being HPV DNA testing (the preferred cervical screening method according to WHO and US guidelines (37,45)), cytology (either conventional Papanicolaou (Pap) smear or liquid-based cytology), and visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA). Within HPVsim, these three screening strategies are defined by the set of possible outcomes they can return (positive, negative or inadequate for HPV DNA testing and VIA and normal, ASCUS, or abnormal for cytology), and the probability of returning each of these outcomes given the true underlying disease state, all of which are documented in Table S4. Screening technologies are also evolving to include machine learning supported visual inspection products (automated visual examination or AVE) (46–48), as well as self-collection options (49,50). Within HPVsim, new screening products can be defined with examples provided in the documentation. ##### 2.6.2.2. Triage products The WHO recommends HPV genotyping, colposcopy (a procedure to examine the cervix, vagina, and vulva for signs of disease), VIA, or cytology as triage tests (51). Following triage or primary screening without triage, women may be referred for further testing (e.g. biopsy) to determine the best course of treatment, given treatment immediately, or asked to return for repeat screening after a prescribed interval. Within HPVsim, this treatment pathway is implemented as a set of triage products, which both administer a screening test and assigns women to subsequent additional triage or treatment based upon the test results and specified algorithm. The first of these options classifies women into a distinct state (in this case, the kind of treatment that she should receive). The second option, of immediate treatment, is described in Section 2.6.3, and the third option is generally a repeat of one of the existing screening or triage products described in this section and in Section 2.6.1.1. ##### 2.6.2.3. Screening and triage delivery As with vaccine delivery, delivery platforms for screening and triage are context-specific; settings with early sexual debut and high HIV burden might require earlier and more frequent screening than settings without such risk factors. By default, HPVsim assumes that screening programs are targeted to women aged 30-50 years, but users must specify the screening frequency and other eligibility criteria they wish to model. The following example models a routine screening program using VIA that commenced in 2015, with 50% lifetime coverage of women aged 30-50. We then define the conditions that make a woman eligible for triage (in this case, that they return a positive screening result) using a lambda function, and define a triage program with HPV DNA testing and 10% loss-to-follow-up. ![Formula][8] This example provides a first look at how different components of screening and triage can be linked together to form complex multi-step algorithms. Further examples of this, including how to specify a new screening product, are provided in HPVsim’s documentation. #### 2.6.3. Treatment ##### 2.6.3.1. Thermal ablation Thermal ablation (also called cold coagulation or thermocoagulation) consists of applying a probe tip heated to between 100°C and 120°C to the cervix to destroy precancerous lesions. The WHO guidelines recommend thermal ablation for women who have histologically confirmed CIN2/3 or for women who have been screened positive in a screen-and-treat strategy (52). All available evidence indicates that ablative treatments are highly effective at clearing lesions. A 2019 meta-analysis found that the overall response rate for ablative treatment of CIN2+ was 93.8% (53). Similarly, WHO guidelines report the proportion of women with no evidence of disease after thermal ablation to be 91% (52). Within HPVsim, we selected a default value for thermal ablation of 93% effectiveness in removing lesions. There is also evidence to suggest that thermal ablation is effective at clearing HPV infection. Reported rates of HPV clearance across a range of studies fall within the 80-85% range (54,55), although one study (56) reports lower rates of around 40% (noting that this may be attributable to a shorter follow-up time). Within HPVsim, we selected a default value of 80% clearance of HPV infections following ablative treatment. ##### 2.6.3.2. Excisional treatments Excisional treatments (also called cone biopsies or cervical conization) include cold knife conization, loop electrosurgical excision procedure (LEEP; also called large loop excision of the transformation zone (LLETZ)), and laser conization. These treatments remove a large sample of the cervix for examination or treatment, and are intended for the treatment of precancerous lesions. In many high-income settings, excisional treatments are preferred because the cells that are removed as part of this process can then be sent for further lab work to determine if there are any unobserved cancerous cells that might require additional monitoring or treatment. A recent meta-analysis provides some evidence to suggest that excisional treatments are more effective than ablative treatments, with the relative risk of persistence/recurrence following ablation 57% higher (95% CI 11-123%) than with excision (57). Within HPVsim, we assume that excisional treatments are 95% effective at removing lesions, and 80% effective at clearing active HPV infection. ##### 2.6.3.3. Other treatments for precancer Many countries use alternative ablation methods, such as cryotherapy. While this is not included as one of HPVsim’s default treatment products, it is straightforward to define a new treatment product that acts in a similar way to thermal ablation, but with efficacy parameters that reflect cryotherapy. ##### 2.6.3.4 Treatment of invasive cancer Surgery, radiotherapy, and/or chemotherapy are the most common treatment options for invasive cervical cancer. If the cancer has been diagnosed in its early stages, these treatments have success rates around 80% (58). Actual survival rates, as well as recommended treatment/care options, depend on the stage of cervical cancer and quality of care, which HPVsim does not yet model in detail. Radiation therapy is included with HPVsim as a possible treatment option, which acts to extend the lifespan of people with invasive cancer. HPVsim also produces default outputs, such as cervical cancer incidence by age, that could be used as inputs to separate analyses around the impact or resource requirements of different cancer treatment options. ##### 2.6.3.5. Treatment delivery Treatment delivery platforms vary significantly between contexts; key distinguishing factors include the number of visits required (e.g., single-visit screening and treatment compared to screen, triage, and treatment over multiple visits), and the treatment modality, which depends on the diagnosed disease stage. Referral to different treatment options is implemented in HPVsim as a kind of triage strategy (see Section 2.6.2.2), which must be defined for a specific context. HPVsim then includes two default options for the delivery of the treatment strategies themselves. The *‘treat_num’* option is intended for situations when there is a cap on the maximum number of people who can be treated in a given year (e.g. due to capacity constraints). To use this option, users can specify the uptake probability (i.e. the proportion of women who are offered treatment and who receive), and the maximum capacity. The second option, *‘treat_delay’*, is intended to represent situations where there is a delay between when a woman is referred for treatment and when the treatment can be delivered. With this option, users again specify a probability of returning for treatment, as well as a delay time. #### 2.6.4. Therapeutic vaccination ##### 2.6.4.1. Therapeutic vaccine products There are currently no therapeutic vaccine products on the market, but this is an active and potentially highly influential area of research, with at least one clinical trial underway (59,60). We therefore included a basic infrastructure for modeling therapeutic vaccination in the model. Our default assumptions are that the therapeutic vaccine will be delivered as a two-dose regimen targeted at HPV16 and 18 only, with the two doses in combination having 50% efficacy at regressing high-grade lesions (CIN2/3) attributable to these two types, 70% efficacy at clearing low-grade lesions (CIN1), and 90% efficacy at virological clearance. Different assumptions can be explored by reconfiguring these parameters. Our default implementation of the therapeutic vaccine product does not confer any neutralizing (*nab_imm)* or T-cell (*cell_imm)* immune memory beyond what is elicited naturally following clearance of infection or dysplasia, but this can also be adjusted to fit the modeling questions for a particular analysis. ##### 2.6.4.2. Therapeutic vaccine delivery As with all other standard interventions, delivery of therapeutic vaccination is likely to vary across countries and over time, and will further depend on the as-yet-unknown characteristics of the vaccine(s). Ongoing World Health Organization consultations have already identified at least two high-level use cases for a therapeutic vaccine candidate: (1) a mass-vaccination approach in which the therapeutic vaccine would be delivered broadly to an entire population without requiring a positive test result; (2) a screen-and-vaccinate approach, where the therapeutic vaccine would be integrated within existing or new screening programs, e.g. offered to all women who screened positive for HPV (60). HPVsim provides default vaccine delivery interventions to cater to both of these scenarios. The first of these can be modeled within HPVsim using the *‘routine_txvx’* option, which like routine screening or prophylactic vaccination requires users to specify the years of delivery, the targeted age range and any other eligibility criteria, and uptake. The second can be modeled using the *‘linked_txvx’* option, which requires another intervention (e.g. a screening program) to determine women’s eligibility for the vaccine. #### 2.6.5. Combining interventions into complex screen and treat algorithms In practice, interventions for screening, triage, and treatment do not exist in isolation, but rather are combined into complex multi-stage algorithms. WHO guidelines outline seven algorithms: two screen- and-treat options and five screen-triage-and-treat options. The HPVsim documentation details how to implement each of these by combining different interventions, and provides an example of how the screen-and-vaccinate approach outlined in Section 2.6.3.2 can be modeled. #### 2.6.6. Custom interventions In addition to the standard suite of interventions detailed throughout this section, HPVsim includes an option to dynamically change parameter values over time, which may be useful for modeling behavioral changes over long time periods, e.g. changes in condom use patterns or sex partner concurrency as a result of the HIV/AIDS pandemic. It is also straightforward for users to define their own interventions. For example, users who model HIV co-infection (see Section 2.8.1), may wish to approximate the impact of increasing antiretroviral treatment (ART) availability for women living with HIV (WLHIV), which could be very roughly approximated as a combination of dynamic parameter changes over time that changes the average transmissibility and immuno-compromise levels of the population. ### 2.7. Model outputs #### 2.7.1. Standard outputs After running a simulation, the HPVsim *‘sim’* object contains a dictionary of results that can be plotted, exported to alternative formats (csv, Excel), or manipulated directly within Python. Results are reported annually, and for most variables they are stored for the population as a whole, as well as by age group (using default age bins of width 5 years up until 85, then all others 85+) and by HPV genotype. Standard results include flows (e.g. the number of new infections/CINs/cancers annually), stocks (the number of people in a given disease state at a point in time), demographic outputs (including crude birth and death rates, population sizes by sex), and cumulative aggregates of people who have received interventions (e.g., the total number ever screened, vaccinated, or treated). #### 2.7.2. Analyzers for custom outputs HPVsim also includes a class of *‘analyzers’* which gives the user freedom to record any information they want from a simulation and are designed to report on additional details about the model that are not included as standard outputs. Often, these may be used to capture results that are time-consuming to calculate on every time step of a simulation, and which only need to be reported for 1 to 5 years (with the assumption being that they are relatively stable over time horizons of 5 to 10 years). These include: age pyramids; the age of infection for people who develop cervical cancer; rates of cancer detection; and by-age results using custom age groups. ### 2.8. Additional features #### 2.8.1 Impact of HIV on HPV pathogenesis HPVsim allows the user to model the impact of HIV infection on HPV acquisition and natural history. If a user wants to model HIV, HIV incidence by age, sex and over time as well as overall coverage of antiretroviral therapy (ART) over time must be provided. These data should include assumptions about how HIV incidence will change with ART scale-up over time. While there is some evidence of a bi-directional relationship between HIV and HPV (61), wherein HPV infection increases the risk of HIV, this association is not explicitly modeled. When the simulation is initialized, these files will be read in and ART “adherence” rates will be generated. HPVsim does not model individuals dropping in and out of care over time, but rather computes a lifetime adherence based on the specified coverage over time (provided by the user) and life expectancy. This value can be thought of as the likelihood of being on ART over the remaining lifetime of an individual with HIV. At each time step, individuals in the simulation can be exogenously infected with HIV based upon their age, sex and the year of the simulation. Upon infection, the ART adherence of that agent is determined, which will then be used to modify any future risk of HPV acquisition and progression. While individuals adherent to ART can fail to suppress HIV or experience immune reconstitution, we assume an individual’s immune state is directly proportional to adherence. At the point of HIV infection, for individuals with prevalent HPV infection, the prognoses are modified using relative risk estimates derived from a meta-analysis ((62), see Table S6). An ART adherence value of 1 means that an agent is fully adherent to their ART over their lifetime and therefore has no elevated risk of HPV infection or progression. An ART adherence value of 0 means that an agent is fully non-adherent to ART over their remaining lifetime, and therefore has the full elevated risk of HPV infection and progression associated with HIV. Values in between suggest some level of non-adherence and some HIV-related elevated risk of HPV acquisition or progression. #### 2.8.2 Multiscale modeling Because HPV cases are relatively common (affecting a majority of people) and cervical cancer cases are relatively rare (affecting roughly 1 in 150 women), HPVsim uses an approach called *multiscale modeling*. In agent-based modeling, it is common for one “agent” to represent more than one person (or more precisely, for agents to represent a statistical sample of the population, much like in a survey). However, a problem arises when some events being simulated are very frequent (such as HPV infection), and other events are very rare (such as developing cancer). In this situation, to get enough events of the latter to be statistically meaningful (e.g., dozens of cancer cases per age bin per year), one must simulate an extremely large number of the former type of events (e.g. millions of HPV infections). To address this, in a multiscale modeling approach, different types of agents are modeled with different levels of “resolution” or “sampling.” For example, for a population of 10 million people (equivalent to a medium-sized country) being modeled, specifying 100,000 agents is roughly the number of agents required to provide a good tradeoff between statistical accuracy and simulation speed. This means there is a scale factor (or “weight”) of 100 for each agent (or put another way, people are downsampled by 100). We call these “Level 0” agents since they are at the lowest (default) level of resolution. These are the agents who participate in the sexual mixing network, who are able to contract and transmit HPV, and who can give birth to new agents. “Level 1” agents have a lower scale factor (higher resolution, lower weight per agent), and correspond to agents who will (without intervention) develop cancer. These Level 1 agents all have HPV (we adjust to prevent double-counting), but do *not* participate in the disease transmission network; instead, only their disease progression is tracked. This multiscale approach works within HPVsim to balance model performance and statistical accuracy, but can be disabled at any time, for example if a user wanted to explore transmissibility of cancerous agents. #### 2.8.3 Calibration Calibration is the process of contextualizing the model to a setting by choosing one or more representative parameter configurations that generate model outputs that resemble observed data. This process might involve finding parameter values that minimize a function that quantifies the difference between observed data and the model predictions or include processes that more explicitly capture uncertainty quantification and propagation. For HPVsim, relevant data might include the age-specific incidence or number of cases of cancer or high-grade lesions reported in a particular year; HPV prevalence over time; lifetime incidence of HPV; the distribution of genotypes in detected cases of cancer/high-grade lesions; and perhaps sexual behavior metrics like the average age at first marriage, duration of relationships, or number of lifetime partners. HPVsim includes a built-in calibration function that leverages the Optuna hyperparameter optimization framework (63). Users can specify the parameters to be calibrated, including lower and upper-bounds of these values based on literature on best-guesses, as well as data files to fit to. Example scripts for setting up and running a calibration can be found in the Documentation and Tutorials. ### 2.9 Software #### 2.9.1 Architecture HPVsim is a modeling tool built upon the architecture and design of the Starsim modeling platform, a flexible Python-based framework for epidemiological modeling which thus far includes Covasim for modeling COVID-19 (64–66), FPsim for family planning (67,68), and Synthpops for population modeling (69). All Starsim models share several core design principles in terms of their distribution, philosophy, architecture, and structure. First and foremost, all Starsim models are all open source under the MIT License, distributed via both the Python Package Index (via pip install) and GitHub ([hpvsim.org](http://hpvsim.org)). Second, they all follow a design philosophy that common usage patterns should be as simple as possible, while having maximal flexibility for customization of all aspects of a simulation. Third, a considerable amount of software architecture is common to all Starsim models: they are all written in pure Python with dependencies on SciPy (70), NumPy (71), and Pandas (72) for fast numerics; Matplotlib for plotting (73,74); and Sciris for data structures, parallelization, and other utilities (75,76). Finally, the models themselves are all agent-based, and have a common logic in terms of how a population is created and then stochastically updated over time. #### 2.9.2 Testing In line with all other models in the Starsim suite, HPVsim includes a suite of integrated tests designed to maximize both robustness and speed on the software side, and rigor and validity on the scientific side. Regression tests compare outputs from the default simulations for each version against cached values in the repository. Each version of the model stores the set of parameter values that were used, so that changes can easily be tracked and understood. Basic tests in the style of unit tests ensure that the model’s functions and methods act as they should. Scientific tests have also been set up to (a) check that the model’s default parameter values give rise to recognizable epidemic dynamics and (b) ensure that parameters have the impact that one would expect on the results, e.g. increasing the transmission rate should result in more infections. #### 2.9.3 Performance HPVsim inherits many of the features that were developed for Covasim to maximize performance (66). First, HPVsim uses an array-based representation of agents (described in more detail in Kerr et al. (64)), which allows for fast vectorized computations rather than slower for-loops when updating agents’ states and contacts. Second, HPVsim includes a variety of out-of-the-box ways to run simulations in parallel: the “MultiSim” class for running, summarizing, and plotting an arbitrary collection of simulations; the “Scenario” class for running, summarizing, and plotting a collection of simulations that specifically differ according to their input parameters, including interventions; the “Sweep” class for running 2+ dimensional sweeps over parameter values and producing automated heatmaps of the resulting outcomes of interest. All of these can be used on personal computers to run a small number of simulations in parallel, or to run very large numbers of simulations on cloud-based or HPC computing resources. ## 3 Results ### 3.1 Use Case 1: policy explorations of screening algorithms Here we provide a case study to demonstrate how HPVsim could be used to guide decisions about which screening/treatment algorithm to use for policy and planning. The WHO guidelines outline seven algorithms (77), including two “screen-and-treat” approaches and five “screen, triage and treat” approaches. There are many considerations for the design of a screening program, among them resource availability, and modeling can help to elucidate the trade-offs between various strategies. In general, “screen-and-treat” programs tend to have lower specificity but a key advantage is that loss to follow-up for treatment is reduced. In contrast, “screen-triage-and-treat” programs better target treatment to those with highest cancer risk, but often introduce delays and consequently increase loss to follow-up for treatment (51)). In this use case, we compare the seven algorithms recommended by the WHO (see Table 2). We only considered treatment with thermal ablations and did not consider alternative treatments that would be suggested for women with large lesions, such as LEEP, CKC or a hysterectomy. View this table: [Table 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/02/02/2023.02.01.23285356/T2) Table 2. Screening modalities used in seven WHO-recommended screening algorithms. The code to configure the model for running these algorithms is available in the publicly-available Github repository accompanying this paper. In brief, we initialize the model in 1950 with 50,000 agents, and run the model until 2060 using a time-step of 3 months. We assume that the screening algorithms start in 2025, whereby 70% of women will be screened every five years from age 30 to 50, and 90% of women offered thermal ablation will accept. These values were chosen to represent the “90-70-90” targets outlined in the WHO’s Cervical Cancer Elimination Initiative (1,78). We do not factor in the possibility of differences in uptake of screening between these algorithms, but we do account for higher loss to follow-up and lower resulting treatment coverage rate with Algorithms 3 through 7 which have triage steps, since we assume that triage involves a 10% loss-to-follow-up. In reality, loss to follow-up rates may be higher and resulting treatment rates lower if the algorithm requires maintaining women along a diagnostic care pathway for several steps which may be weeks apart. The results of these scenarios are plotted in Figure 5. Relative to no screening, all seven algorithms result in considerable reductions in the age-standardized rates of cancer incidence, with Algorithm 2 (HPV DNA screen-and-treat) being the most effective, likely as a result of the extremely high sensitivity of HPV DNA testing. The second panel of Figure 5 shows number of ablative treatments over time for each strategy, with Algorithm 1 resulting in over 2.5 times more treatments than Algorithm 2, the strategy with the next most number of treatments, due to the extremely poor specificity of VIA. ![Figure 5:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/02/02/2023.02.01.23285356/F6.medium.gif) [Figure 5:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/02/02/2023.02.01.23285356/F6) Figure 5: Results of scenarios comparing four different screening algorithms (described in Table 1). These results support the intuition that triage reduces overtreatment, which has also been explored in several other studies: Schiffman et al. note that overtreatment is especially common if HPV DNA testing is used as the primary screening test (37), and Mustafa et al. note that small differences in primary test specificity result in sizable absolute differences in overtreatment (79). We can also explore the cost-effectiveness of the various strategies. Here, we used costs from the health care system perspective as defined in Table 3, and as a simplifying assumption do not consider the costs (and associated costs averted) of cervical cancer treatment. As this is a demonstrative example, these costs are hypothetical and do not represent any particular setting. We calculated DALYs averted by applying a life-expectancy of 84 years and a disutility weight for cervical cancer of 0.4. Both costs and DALYs were discounted at 3% per year. View this table: [Table 3.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/02/02/2023.02.01.23285356/T3) Table 3. Hypothetical costs of various screen test and treatment products. The total costs and DALYs averted relative to no screening for each algorithm are shown in Figure 6. We find that Algorithms 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 are dominated by Algorithms 1 and 2. The slope of the resulting efficiency frontier shows the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $550 per DALY averted for Algorithm 1 and $3,500 per DALY averted for Algorithm 2. A policymaker might compare this value to a willingness to pay threshold to determine whether this was an affordable strategy. ![Figure 6:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/02/02/2023.02.01.23285356/F7.medium.gif) [Figure 6:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/02/02/2023.02.01.23285356/F7) Figure 6: Results of cost-effectiveness analysis comparing four alternative screening strategies that vary based upon screening tests used for primary and triage as well as loss to follow-up assumptions. Details of the four algorithms can be found in Table 1. ### 3.2 Use Case 2: explorations of sexual behavior WHO guidelines recommend that the HPV prophylactic vaccine be administered to girls aged 9, with the intention being to vaccinate prior to them being exposed to HPV (i.e. before they become sexually active). The 90-70-90 Cervical Cancer Elimination Initiative calls for vaccination coverage of 90%, but many countries are far from this target; coverage has in fact been declining significantly, especially in high burden geographies (80). One option to help get closer to these targets faster is to use catch-up campaigns to vaccinate girls and/or young women who have not yet been vaccinated. HPV vaccine catch-up campaigns have been implemented in several high-income countries, including England, Sweden, Denmark, and the USA (81). However, the value of catch-up campaigns depends to a large extent on the proportion of the targeted group who have already been exposed to HPV. Sexual behavior varies considerably across the world according to cultural, religious, and economic factors, as well as the history of interventions aimed at encouraging delay of sexual activity (82), so the relative impact of HPV catch-up campaigns is likely to vary too. Here, we demonstrate how to use HPVsim to investigate the potential impact of a catch-up campaign designed to vaccinate 50% of girls and young women aged 15-24 in three different country archetypes that vary according to the average age of first sex (AFS) for girls, ranging from 14 to 18 for girls and 15 to 19 for boys. We set up a simulation to run from 1950 to 2060 with 25 years of burnin with a timestep of 3 months, and we base the demographics of the population on Nigeria. We then run two scenarios: one in which routine vaccination consisting of a single dose of the bivalent HPV vaccine is administered to girls aged 9-14 from 2025 onwards; and one in which this same routine vaccination program is supplemented by a catch-up campaign in 2025, which delivers a single dose of the bivalent vaccine to 50% of girls/young women aged 15-24. The results of these scenarios are plotted in Figure 7 and show the different rates of growth in HPV exposure based upon age of first sex and the associated health impact of catch-up vaccination for older girls and young women. Further analyses using HPVsim could vary other characteristics of sexual behavior, such as the age mixing patterns in a population; or could investigate the efficiency of catch-up campaigns by computing the number needed to vaccinate to avert one cervical cancer case or death. ![Figure 7:](http://medrxiv.org/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/medrxiv/early/2023/02/02/2023.02.01.23285356/F8.medium.gif) [Figure 7:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/02/02/2023.02.01.23285356/F8) Figure 7: Results of scenarios comparing the additional impact of catch-up vaccination campaigns on cancers averted. Mean and 10-90% quantiles presented for 5 replicates. AFS (age of first sex) represents the mean age of sexual debut. ## 4. Discussion Since HPV was identified as the causative agent of invasive cervical cancer, researchers and global public health agencies have been working to design interventions to disrupt its transmission and progression to reduce the burden of cervical cancer. Mathematical models have been essential in helping to understand, evaluate, and prioritize these interventions (3–5,7,8,83–86). However, there is ongoing demand for innovative and flexible modeling tools that can incorporate new information about the underlying oncogenic processes and evaluate the implications of new health technologies and evolving epidemic conditions. In creating HPVsim, we aimed to build a tool for global public good that, when placed in the hands of researchers and decision-makers, will help create a larger network of modelers to meet this need. Throughout the development of HPVsim, we prioritized three fundamental, interconnected, and equally important criteria: (1) ease of use, which demands simple and customizable analysis workflows, minimal computing requirements, fast run-times, and transparent documentation; (2) scientific rigor, essential if the model is to be used for policy; and (3) stakeholder acceptance through active and ongoing engagement across the modeling and policy landscape. For the first point, we benefited from the legacy of the Covasim model for COVID-19 analyses (64), which already had a sizable user base, so recycling many of the design principles means that HPVsim’s syntax and structure has already been ‘road-tested’ by proxy. For example, reusing Covasim’s array-based architecture allows HPVsim to run in a matter of seconds (for simple analyses). For the second and third points, we iterated between development and discussion with subject matter experts to develop particular components of the model. For example, the decision to design the model without relying on histological grades to define women’s health state was based on discussions that highlighted the importance of new biomarker based screening methodologies, as well as the relatively low sensitivity and reproducibility of cytology. We therefore designed HPVsim based upon the underlying mechanism of cellular transformation, rather than histologic or cytologic categories. Throughout the entire development process, transparency (including open-sourcing the model code and all analysis scripts) was crucial for ensuring both scientific rigor and stakeholder acceptance. ### 4.1 HPVsim within the HPV modeling landscape As noted above, there is already a robust landscape of models for HPV and cervical cancer, and HPVsim has benefitted from the contributions of these models. HPVsim is not the first open-source HPV model (5), but it is the first open-source HPV model to include dynamic transmission. This, in combination with the streamlined flexibility to adapt a model to a specific setting or scenario, opens the door for widespread use of the model. HPV-FRAME is an initiative that was established to unify reporting standards and to help compare models in terms of their suitability for different policy questions (87). As HPVsim is adopted and applied to different modeling questions, we will work with the modeling community to elucidate the model’s position within this framework. ### 4.2 Limitations of HPVsim Mathematical models, especially those intended for informing health policy, often have many hundreds if not thousands of parameters. The question of how to estimate values to inform these parameters is often difficult. With HPVsim, we have taken the approach of providing default parameter values for all our inputs. However, it is entirely possible that if HPVsim is applied to a particular country, default parameter values will not produce outputs that resemble the country’s epidemic. As such, we would caution against relying too heavily on default parameter values provided: they are intended to represent a point of departure for modeling, which should then be refined via calibration, including parameter adjustment, and model validation. In particular, the use cases included herein are designed to illustrate the model’s functionality, not to provide policy guidance. In providing default values along with detailed documentation of their sources and notes on which parameters are most likely to need adjustment during calibration, our intention is to enable users to determine which ones would be most appropriate for adjustment during calibration. Where possible, we have tried to avoid baking in structural assumptions about aspects of transmission or progression that may be unknown or be context-dependent (for example, the exact growth trajectory of abnormal cells, or the configuration of the sexual network). However, to some extent this was unavoidable, so there are some aspects of the model (for example, the ways in which immunity is assumed to impact transmission and progression) that would be more difficult for a user to change. Given that unbounded flexibility would necessarily come at the cost of some scientific rigor, we have tried to balance the two judiciously. While we have provided default values for many parameters, there are some we have not included, and chief among these are the parameters that would be necessary to complete a cost-effectiveness analysis, e.g. cost data and disutility weights. As demonstrated in Use Case 1, the model can be used for CEA, but we did not provide default costing data as these are very likely to vary by context. While HPVsim’s structure is generic enough that theoretically the model can be applied to any country, we have designed it with lower- and middle-income countries in mind, and as such it may not capture many of the downstream features specific to higher-income countries (e.g. we do not yet model cancer progression or treatment in detail). We do not capture transmission within homosexual partnerships or diseases caused by HPV apart from cervical cancer (e.g. genital warts, and cancers of the vulva, vagina, penis, anus, and oropharynx). We do not model heterogeneities in individuals’ risk of cervical disease and/or uptake of interventions arising from age, race, ethnicity, gender identity, sexuality, or income. The model in general is also subject to the usual limitations of mathematical models, e.g. simplifying assumptions have been made to capture sexual networks. The model is primarily intended for use in lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where ∼90% of the burden of cervical cancer deaths is concentrated (88), and where cervical cancer treatment rates are generally low (89). ### 4.3 Conclusions In response to the continued evolution of policy recommendations around HPV vaccination, screening, and treatment, we have created a model which, over time and as it is further applied, will enable researchers and policy makers to analyze new technologies, evaluate different strategies, and feed into decision-making pipelines. We are committed to ongoing development and improvement of HPVsim in partnership with stakeholders, collaborators, and users of the model, not only because such collaborations strengthen the model itself, but more importantly, because they provide an opportunity to work together towards the fundamental goal of cervical cancer elimination. ## Data Availability The source code for HPVsim, including documentation and tutorials, is freely available via GitHub (hpvsim.org). The scripts to produce the figures and analyses used in this paper are in a separate Github repository ([https://github.com/hpvsim/hpvsim\_methods_manuscript](https://github.com/hpvsim/hpvsim_methods_manuscript)). This manuscript refers to all features and parameters of version 1.0.0 of HPVsim. ## Additional information For more information or to get involved, please email info{at}hpvsim.org. ## Funding Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Institutional support, including high-performance computing resources and library access, was provided by the Burnet Institute and the University of Sydney School of Physics. ## Competing interests Authors declare no competing interests. ## Data and materials availability The source code for HPVsim, including documentation and tutorials, is freely available via GitHub. The scripts to produce the figures and analyses used in this paper are in a separate Github repository available here. This manuscript refers to all features and parameters of version 1.0.0 of HPVsim. Any subsequent changes will be documented on GitHub. ## Supplementary materials View this table: [Table S1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/02/02/2023.02.01.23285356/T4) Table S1: HPVsim parameters and default values View this table: [Table S2:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/02/02/2023.02.01.23285356/T5) Table S2: HPVsim genotype parameters and default values View this table: [Table S3:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/02/02/2023.02.01.23285356/T6) Table S3: Prophylactic vaccine parameters View this table: [Table S4:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/02/02/2023.02.01.23285356/T7) Table S4: Sensitivity/specificity of screening products View this table: [Table S5:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/02/02/2023.02.01.23285356/T8) Table S5: HIV parameters ## Acknowledgments and contributions HPVsim model development has been led by Jamie Cohen, Robyn Stuart, Romesh Abeysuriya, and Cliff Kerr. This project is sponsored by Hao Hu and Daniel Klein. We thank our expert advisers for their frequent and helpful consultations on model conceptualization and development. These include but are not limited to Sharon Achilles, Maike Scharp, Celina Schocken, Peter Dull, John Schiller, Chris Karp, and Holger Kanzler. Mark Jit, David Wilson, Sherrie Kelly, Jasmina Panovska-Griffiths, Andrew Shattock, Edinah Mudimu, Michelle O’Brien, Helen Olsen, and Greer Fowler provided editing and informal review. Erin Ingle provided valuable literature review support to inform model parameters. Tremendous gratitude to Mandy Izzo for her graphical content and editing support. ## Footnotes * ⤉ Co-first authors * ^ Contractor on assignment * Received February 1, 2023. * Revision received February 1, 2023. * Accepted February 2, 2023. * © 2023, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution 4.0 International), CC BY 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) ## References 1. 1.Global strategy to accelerate the elimination of cervical cancer as a public health problem [Internet]. [cited 2022 Nov 22]. Available from: [https://www.who.int/publications-detail-redirect/9789240014107](https://www.who.int/publications-detail-redirect/9789240014107) 2. 2.One-dose Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine offers solid protection against cervical cancer [Internet]. [cited 2022 Nov 22]. Available from: [https://www.who.int/news/item/11-04-2022-one-dose-human-papillomavirus-(hpv)-vaccine-offers-solid-protection-against-cervical-cancer](https://www.who.int/news/item/11-04-2022-one-dose-human-papillomavirus-(hpv)-vaccine-offers-solid-protection-against-cervical-cancer) 3. 3.Kim JJ, Simms KT, Killen J, Smith MA, Burger EA, Sy S, et al. Human papillomavirus vaccination for adults aged 30 to 45 years in the United States: A cost-effectiveness analysis. PLOS Med. 2021 Mar 11;18(3):e1003534. 4. 4.Creighton P, Lew JB, Clements M, Smith M, Howard K, Dyer S, et al. Cervical cancer screening in Australia: modelled evaluation of the impact of changing the recommended interval from two to three years. BMC Public Health. 2010 Nov 26;10(1):734. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/1471-2458-10-734&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=21110881&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F02%2F02%2F2023.02.01.23285356.atom) 5. 5.Jit M, Brisson M, Portnoy A, Hutubessy R. Cost-effectiveness of female human papillomavirus vaccination in 179 countries: a PRIME modelling study. Lancet Glob Health. 2014 Jul;2(7):e406–414. 6. 6.Liu G, Mugo NR, Bayer C, Rao DW, Onono M, Mgodi NM, et al. Impact of catch-up human papillomavirus vaccination on cervical cancer incidence in Kenya: A mathematical modeling evaluation of HPV vaccination strategies in the context of moderate HIV prevalence. eClinicalMedicine [Internet]. 2022 Mar 1 [cited 2022 Jul 16];45. Available from: [https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(22)00036-0/fulltext](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(22)00036-0/fulltext) 7. 7.Hall MT, Simms KT, Lew JB, Smith MA, Brotherton JM, Saville M, et al. The projected timeframe until cervical cancer elimination in Australia: a modelling study. Lancet Public Health. 2019 Jan 1;4(1):e19–27. 8. 8.Brisson M, Kim JJ, Canfell K, Drolet M, Gingras G, Burger EA, et al. Impact of HPV vaccination and cervical screening on cervical cancer elimination: a comparative modelling analysis in 78 low-income and lower-middle-income countries. The Lancet. 2020 Feb 22;395(10224):575–90. 9. 9.Rao DW, Bayer CJ, Liu G, Chikandiwa A, Sharma M, Hathaway CL, et al. Modelling cervical cancer elimination using single-visit screening and treatment strategies in the context of high HIV prevalence: estimates for KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. J Int AIDS Soc. 2022 Oct 12;25(10):e26021. 10. 10.Boily MC, Barnabas RV, Rönn MM, Bayer CJ, Schalkwyk C van, Soni N, et al. Estimating the effect of HIV on cervical cancer elimination in South Africa: Comparative modelling of the impact of vaccination and screening. eClinicalMedicine [Internet]. 2022 Dec 1 [cited 2023 Jan 7];54. Available from: [https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(22)00483-7/fulltext](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(22)00483-7/fulltext) 11. 11.Rosettie KL, Joffe JN, Sparks GW, Aravkin A, Chen S, Compton K, et al. Cost-effectiveness of HPV vaccination in 195 countries: A meta-regression analysis. PLOS ONE. 2021 Dec 20;16(12):e0260808. 12. 12.Campos NG, Demarco M, Bruni L, Desai KT, Gage JC, Adebamowo SN, et al. A proposed new generation of evidence-based microsimulation models to inform global control of cervical cancer. Prev Med. 2021 Mar 1;144:106438. 13. 13.Eddy DM, Hollingworth W, Caro JJ, Tsevat J, McDonald KM, Wong JB, et al. Model transparency and validation: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force-7. Med Decis Mak Int J Soc Med Decis Mak. 2012 Oct;32(5):733–43. 14. 14.Caro JJ, Briggs AH, Siebert U, Kuntz KM, ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force. Modeling good research practices--overview: a report of the ISPOR-SMDM Modeling Good Research Practices Task Force--1. Value Health J Int Soc Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res. 2012 Oct;15(6):796–803. 15. 15.Malone K, Wolski R. Issue 2.2, Spring 2020. Harv Data Sci Rev [Internet]. 2020 Apr 30 [cited 2023 Jan 15];2(2). Available from: [https://hdsr.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/xsrt4zs2/release/6](https://hdsr.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/xsrt4zs2/release/6) 16. 16.Giving software its due. Nat Methods. 2019 Mar;16(3):207–207. 17. 17.United Nations. World Population Prospects 2022. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division; 2022. 18. 18.Birth rate, crude (per 1,000 people) | Data [Internet]. [cited 2022 Dec 19]. Available from: [https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.CBRT.IN](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.CBRT.IN) 19. 19.Brown DR, Castellsagué X, Ferris D, Garland SM, Huh W, Steben M, et al. Human papillomavirus seroprevalence and seroconversion following baseline detection of nine human papillomavirus types in young women. Tumour Virus Res. 2022 Jun 1;13:200236. 20. 20.Coseo S, Porras C, Hildesheim A, Rodriguez AC, Schiffman M, Herrero R, et al. Seroprevalence and correlates of human papillomavirus 16/18 seropositivity among young women in Costa Rica. Sex Transm Dis. 2010 Nov;37(11):706–14. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/OLQ.0b013e3181e1a2c5&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=20661178&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F02%2F02%2F2023.02.01.23285356.atom) 21. 21.Prabhu PR, Carter JJ, Galloway DA. B Cell Responses upon Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Infection and Vaccination. Vaccines. 2022 May 25;10(6):837. 22. 22.Beachler DC, Jenkins G, Safaeian M, Kreimer AR, Wentzensen N. Natural Acquired Immunity Against Subsequent Genital Human Papillomavirus Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. J Infect Dis. 2016 May 1;213(9):1444–54. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/infdis/jiv753&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26690341&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F02%2F02%2F2023.02.01.23285356.atom) 23. 23.Scherpenisse M, Schepp RM, Mollers M, Meijer CJLM, Berbers GAM, Klis FRM van der. Characteristics of HPV-Specific Antibody Responses Induced by Infection and Vaccination: Cross-Reactivity, Neutralizing Activity, Avidity and IgG Subclasses. PLOS ONE. 2013 Sep 18;8(9):e74797. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1371/journal.pone.0074797&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=24058629&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F02%2F02%2F2023.02.01.23285356.atom) 24. 24.Ault KA. Human papillomavirus vaccines and the potential for cross-protection between related HPV types. Gynecol Oncol. 2007 Nov;107(2 Suppl 1):S31–33. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.ygyno.2007.08.059&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=18499916&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F02%2F02%2F2023.02.01.23285356.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000250914600008&link_type=ISI) 25. 25.Wheeler CM, Castellsagué X, Garland SM, Szarewski A, Paavonen J, Naud P, et al. Cross-protective efficacy of HPV-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine against cervical infection and precancer caused by non-vaccine oncogenic HPV types: 4-year end-of-study analysis of the randomised, double-blind PATRICIA trial. Lancet Oncol. 2012 Jan;13(1):100–10. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70287-X&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22075170&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F02%2F02%2F2023.02.01.23285356.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000299014500049&link_type=ISI) 26. 26.Berggrund M, Gustavsson I, Aarnio R, Hedlund-Lindberg J, Sanner K, Wikström I, et al. HPV viral load in self-collected vaginal fluid samples as predictor for presence of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Virol J. 2019 Nov 27;16(1):146. 27. 27.Grabowski MK, Kong X, Gray RH, Serwadda D, Kigozi G, Gravitt PE, et al. Partner Human Papillomavirus Viral Load and Incident Human Papillomavirus Detection in Heterosexual Couples. J Infect Dis. 2016 Mar 15;213(6):948–56. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/infdis/jiv541&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26597261&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F02%2F02%2F2023.02.01.23285356.atom) 28. 28.Depuydt CE, Thys S, Beert J, Jonckheere J, Salembier G, Bogers JJ. Linear viral load increase of a single HPV-type in women with multiple HPV infections predicts progression to cervical cancer. Int J Cancer. 2016;139(9):2021–32. 29. 29.Insinga RP, Dasbach EJ, Elbasha EH, Liaw KL, Barr E. Incidence and Duration of Cervical Human Papillomavirus 6, 11, 16, and 18 Infections in Young Women: An Evaluation from Multiple Analytic Perspectives. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2007 Apr 6;16(4):709–15. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoiY2VicCI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czo4OiIxNi80LzcwOSI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIzLzAyLzAyLzIwMjMuMDIuMDEuMjMyODUzNTYuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 30. 30.Yin A, Moes DJAR, van Hasselt JGC, Swen JJ, Guchelaar H. A Review of Mathematical Models for Tumor Dynamics and Treatment Resistance Evolution of Solid Tumors. CPT Pharmacomet Syst Pharmacol. 2019 Oct;8(10):720–37. 31. 31.Murphy H, Jaafari H, Dobrovolny HM. Differences in predictions of ODE models of tumor growth: a cautionary example. BMC Cancer. 2016 Feb 26;16(1):163. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s12885-016-2164-x&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F02%2F02%2F2023.02.01.23285356.atom) 32. 32.Farhat S, Nakagawa M, Moscicki AB. Cell-Mediated Immune Responses to Human Papillomavirus 16 E6 and E7 Antigens as Measured by Interferon Gamma Enzyme-Linked Immunospot in Women With Cleared or Persistent Human Papillomavirus Infection. Int J Gynecol Cancer [Internet]. 2009 Apr 1 [cited 2023 Jan 12];19(4). Available from: [https://ijgc.bmj.com/content/19/4/508-512](https://ijgc.bmj.com/content/19/4/508-512) 33. 33.Scott M, Nakagawa M, Moscicki AB. Cell-Mediated Immune Response to Human Papillomavirus Infection. Clin Diagn Lab Immunol. 2001 Mar;8(2):209–20. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1128/CDLI.8.2.209-220.2001&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=11238198&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F02%2F02%2F2023.02.01.23285356.atom) 34. 34.Rosillon D, Baril L, Del Rosario-Raymundo MR, Wheeler CM, Skinner SR, Garland SM, et al. Risk of newly detected infections and cervical abnormalities in adult women seropositive or seronegative for naturally acquired HPV-16/18 antibodies. Cancer Med. 2019;8(10):4938–53. 35. 35.Demarco M, Hyun N, Carter-Pokras O, Raine-Bennett TR, Cheung L, Chen X, et al. A study of type-specific HPV natural history and implications for contemporary cervical cancer screening programs. EClinicalMedicine. 2020 May;22:100293. 36. 36.Debeaudrap P, Sobngwi J, Tebeu PM, Clifford GM. Residual or Recurrent Precancerous Lesions After Treatment of Cervical Lesions in Human Immunodeficiency Virus–infected Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Treatment Failure. Clin Infect Dis. 2019 Oct 15;69(9):1555–65. 37. 37.Schiffman M, de Sanjose S. False positive cervical HPV screening test results. Papillomavirus Res. 2019 Apr 25;7:184–7. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.pvr.2019.04.012&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F02%2F02%2F2023.02.01.23285356.atom) 38. 38.Tsang SH, Sampson JN, Schussler J, Porras C, Wagner S, Boland J, et al. Durability of Cross-Protection by Different Schedules of the Bivalent HPV Vaccine: The CVT Trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2020 Oct 1;112(10):1030–7. 39. 39.De Vincenzo R, Ricci C, Conte C, Scambia G. HPV vaccine cross-protection: Highlights on additional clinical benefit. Gynecol Oncol. 2013 Sep;130(3):642–51. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.ygyno.2013.05.033&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23747835&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F02%2F02%2F2023.02.01.23285356.atom) 40. 40.Brown DR, Joura EA, Yen GP, Kothari S, Luxembourg A, Saah A, et al. Systematic literature review of cross-protective effect of HPV vaccines based on data from randomized clinical trials and real-world evidence. Vaccine. 2021 Apr 15;39(16):2224–36. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F02%2F02%2F2023.02.01.23285356.atom) 41. 41.Barnabas RV, Brown ER, Onono MA, Bukusi EA, Njoroge B, Winer RL, et al. Efficacy of Single-Dose Human Papillomavirus Vaccination among Young African Women. NEJM Evid. 2022 Apr 26;1(5):EVIDoa2100056. 42. 42.Kjaer SK, Nygård M, Dillner J, Brooke Marshall J, Radley D, Li M, et al. A 12-Year Follow-up on the Long-Term Effectiveness of the Quadrivalent Human Papillomavirus Vaccine in 4 Nordic Countries. Clin Infect Dis Off Publ Infect Dis Soc Am. 2018 Jan 18;66(3):339–45. 43. 43.Huh WK, Joura EA, Giuliano AR, Iversen OE, de Andrade RP, Ault KA, et al. Final efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety analyses of a nine-valent human papillomavirus vaccine in women aged 16-26 years: a randomised, double-blind trial. Lancet Lond Engl. 2017 Nov 11;390(10108):2143–59. 44. 44.Porras C, Tsang SH, Herrero R, Guillén D, Darragh TM, Stoler MH, et al. Efficacy of the bivalent HPV vaccine against HPV 16/18-associated precancer: long-term follow-up results from the Costa Rica Vaccine Trial. Lancet Oncol. 2020 Dec;21(12):1643–52. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30524-6&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=33271093&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F02%2F02%2F2023.02.01.23285356.atom) 45. 45.US Preventive Services Task Force, Curry SJ, Krist AH, Owens DK, Barry MJ, Caughey AB, et al. Screening for Cervical Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA. 2018 Aug 21;320(7):674–86. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jama.2018.10897&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=30140884&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F02%2F02%2F2023.02.01.23285356.atom) 46. 46.Desai KT, Befano B, Xue Z, Kelly H, Campos NG, Egemen D, et al. The development of “automated visual evaluation” for cervical cancer screening: The promise and challenges in adapting deep-learning for clinical testing. Int J Cancer. 2022;150(5):741–52. 47. 47.Hu L, Bell D, Antani S, Xue Z, Yu K, Horning MP, et al. An Observational Study of Deep Learning and Automated Evaluation of Cervical Images for Cancer Screening. JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst. 2019 Sep 1;111(9):923–32. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F02%2F02%2F2023.02.01.23285356.atom) 48. 48.Hu L, Horning MP, Banik D, Ajenifuja OK, Adepiti CA, Yeates K, et al. Deep learning-based image evaluation for cervical precancer screening with a smartphone targeting low resource settings – Engineering approach. In: 2020 42nd Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine & Biology Society (EMBC). 2020. p. 1944–9. 49. 49.Fujita M, Nagashima K, Shimazu M, Suzuki M, Tauchi I, Sakuma M, et al. Implementation of a self-sampling HPV test for non-responders to cervical cancer screening in Japan: secondary analysis of the ACCESS trial. Sci Rep. 2022 Aug 25;12(1):14531. 50. 50.Yeh PT, Kennedy CE, de Vuyst H, Narasimhan M. Self-sampling for human papillomavirus (HPV) testing: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Glob Health. 2019 May 14;4(3):e001351. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NToiYm1qZ2giO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6MTE6IjQvMy9lMDAxMzUxIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjMvMDIvMDIvMjAyMy4wMi4wMS4yMzI4NTM1Ni5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 51. 51.Wentzensen N, Schiffman M, Palmer T, Arbyn M. Triage of HPV positive women in cervical cancer screening. J Clin Virol Off Publ Pan Am Soc Clin Virol. 2016 Mar;76(Suppl 1):S49–55. 52. 52.WHO guidelines for the use of thermal ablation for cervical pre-cancer lesions [Internet]. [cited 2022 Dec 19]. Available from: [https://www.who.int/publications-detail-redirect/9789241550598](https://www.who.int/publications-detail-redirect/9789241550598) 53. 53.Randall TC, Sauvaget C, Muwonge R, Trimble EL, Jeronimo J. Worthy of further consideration: An updated meta-analysis to address the feasibility, acceptability, safety and efficacy of thermal ablation in the treatment of cervical cancer precursor lesions. Prev Med. 2019 Jan 1;118:81–91. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F02%2F02%2F2023.02.01.23285356.atom) 54. 54.Slavkovsky RC, Bansil P, Sandoval MA, Figueroa J, Rodriguez DM, Lobo JS, et al. Health Outcomes at 1 Year After Thermal Ablation for Cervical Precancer Among Human Papillomavirus– and Visual Inspection With Acetic Acid–Positive Women in Honduras. JCO Glob Oncol. 2020 Nov;(6):1565–73. 55. 55.Zhao XL, Liu ZH, Zhao S, Hu SY, Muwonge R, Duan XZ, et al. Efficacy of point-of-care thermal ablation among high-risk human papillomavirus positive women in China. Int J Cancer. 2021 Mar 15;148(6):1419–27. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F02%2F02%2F2023.02.01.23285356.atom) 56. 56.Pinder LF, Parham GP, Basu P, Muwonge R, Lucas E, Nyambe N, et al. Thermal ablation versus cryotherapy or loop excision to treat women positive for cervical precancer on visual inspection with acetic acid test: pilot phase of a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2020 Jan 1;21(1):175–84. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F02%2F02%2F2023.02.01.23285356.atom) 57. 57.Efficacy, acceptability and safety of ablative versus excisional procedure in the treatment of histologically confirmed CIN2/3: A systematic review - Zhang - 2023 - BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology - Wiley Online Library [Internet]. [cited 2022 Dec 19]. Available from: [https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1471-0528.17251](https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1471-0528.17251) 58. 58.Cohen PA, Jhingran A, Oaknin A, Denny L. Cervical cancer. The Lancet. 2019 Jan 12;393(10167):169–82. 59. 59.Yang A, Farmer E, Wu TC, Hung CF. Perspectives for therapeutic HPV vaccine development. J Biomed Sci. 2016 Nov 4;23(1):75. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s12929-016-0293-9&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=27809842&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F02%2F02%2F2023.02.01.23285356.atom) 60. 60.Prudden HJ, Achilles SL, Schocken C, Broutet N, Canfell K, Akaba H, et al. Understanding the public health value and defining preferred product characteristics for therapeutic human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines: World Health Organization consultations, October 2021-March 2022. Vaccine. 2022 Sep 29;40(41):5843–55. 61. 61.Liu G, Mugo NR, Brown ER, Mgodi NM, Chirenje ZM, Marrazzo JM, et al. Prevalent human papillomavirus infection increases the risk of HIV acquisition in African women: advancing the argument for human papillomavirus immunization. AIDS Lond Engl. 2022 Feb 1;36(2):257–65. 62. 62.Liu G, Sharma M, Tan N, Barnabas R. HIV-positive women have higher risk of HPV infection, precancerous lesions, and cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. AIDS Lond Engl. 2018 Mar 27;32(6):795–808. 63. 63.Akiba T, Sano S, Yanase T, Ohta T, Koyama M. Optuna: A Next-generation Hyperparameter Optimization Framework. In: Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining [Internet]. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery; 2019 [cited 2022 Nov 20]. p. 2623–31. (KDD ‘19). Available from: [https://doi.org/10.1145/3292500.3330701](https://doi.org/10.1145/3292500.3330701) 64. 64.Kerr CC, Stuart RM, Mistry D, Abeysuriya RG, Rosenfeld K, Hart GR, et al. Covasim: An agent-based model of COVID-19 dynamics and interventions. PLOS Comput Biol. 2021 Jul 26;17(7):e1009149. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1371/JOURNAL.PCBI.1009149&link_type=DOI) 65. 65.Institute of Disease Modeling. Covasim docs [Internet]. Available from: [http://docs.covasim.org/](http://docs.covasim.org/) 66. 66.Kerr CC, Stuart RM, Mistry D, Abeysuriya RG, Cohen JA, George L, et al. Python vs. the pandemic: a case study in high-stakes software development. 67. 67.O’Brien M, Valente A, Kerr CC, Noori N, Proctor JL, Root ED, et al. FPsim: An agent-based model of family planning for informed policy decision-making. 68. 68.Institute of Disease Modeling. FPsim 0.21.2 documentation [Internet]. [cited 2022 Dec 19]. Available from: [https://docs.idmod.org/projects/fpsim/en/latest/](https://docs.idmod.org/projects/fpsim/en/latest/) 69. 69.Institute of Disease Modeling. SynthPops 1.10.4 documentation [Internet]. [cited 2022 Dec 19]. Available from: [https://docs.idmod.org/projects/synthpops/en/latest/](https://docs.idmod.org/projects/synthpops/en/latest/) 70. 70.Virtanen P, Gommers R, Oliphant TE, Haberland M, Reddy T, Cournapeau D, et al. SciPy 1.0: fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in Python. Nat Methods. 2020 Mar;17(3):261–72. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=32015543&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F02%2F02%2F2023.02.01.23285356.atom) 71. 71.NumPy [Internet]. [cited 2022 Dec 19]. Available from: [https://numpy.org/](https://numpy.org/) 72. 72.pandas - Python Data Analysis Library [Internet]. [cited 2022 Dec 19]. Available from: [https://pandas.pydata.org/](https://pandas.pydata.org/) 73. 73.Matplotlib — Visualization with Python [Internet]. [cited 2022 Dec 19]. Available from: [https://matplotlib.org/](https://matplotlib.org/) 74. 74.Plotly: Low-Code Data App Development [Internet]. [cited 2022 Dec 19]. Available from: [https://plotly.com/](https://plotly.com/) 75. 75.Kerr CC, Sanz-Leon P, Abeysuriya RG, Chadderdon GL, Harbuz V Ștefan, Saidi P, et al. Sciris: Simplifying scientific software in Python. 76. 76.Sciris - Home [Internet]. [cited 2022 Dec 19]. Available from: [http://sciris.org/](http://sciris.org/) 77. 77.WHO guideline for screening and treatment of cervical pre-cancer lesions for cervical cancer prevention [Internet]. [cited 2022 Dec 22]. Available from: [https://www.who.int/publications-detail-redirect/9789240030824](https://www.who.int/publications-detail-redirect/9789240030824) 78. 78.Cervical Cancer Elimination Initiative [Internet]. [cited 2022 Dec 22]. Available from: [https://www.who.int/initiatives/cervical-cancer-elimination-initiative](https://www.who.int/initiatives/cervical-cancer-elimination-initiative) 79. 79.Mustafa RA, Santesso N, Khatib R, Mustafa AA, Wiercioch W, Kehar R, et al. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the accuracy of HPV tests, visual inspection with acetic acid, cytology, and colposcopy. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2016 Mar 1;132(3):259–65. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.ijgo.2015.07.024&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26851054&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F02%2F02%2F2023.02.01.23285356.atom) 80. 80.Dorji T, Nopsopon T, Tamang ST, Pongpirul K. Human papillomavirus vaccination uptake in low- and middle-income countries: a meta-analysis. EClinicalMedicine. 2021 Apr 1;34:100836. 81. 81.Sekine M, Yamaguchi M, Kudo R, Hanley SJB, Ueda Y, Kurosawa M, et al. Problems with catch-up HPV vaccination after resumption of proactive recommendations. Lancet Oncol. 2022 Aug 1;23(8):972–3. 82. 82.Nguyen VK, Eaton JW. Trends and country-level variation in age at first sex in sub-Saharan Africa among birth cohorts entering adulthood between 1985 and 2020. BMC Public Health. 2022 Jun 4;22(1):1120. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/s12889-022-13451-y&link_type=DOI) 83. 83.Lew JB, Howard K, Gertig D, Smith M, Clements M, Nickson C, et al. Expenditure and resource utilisation for cervical screening in Australia. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012 Dec 5;12(1):446. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1186/1472-6963-12-446&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23216968&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F02%2F02%2F2023.02.01.23285356.atom) 84. 84.Van der Ploeg CPB, Van Vliet C, De Vlas SJ, Ndinya-Achola JO, Fransen L, Van Oortmarssen GJ, et al. STDSIM: A Microsimulation Model for Decision Support in STD Control. Interfaces. 1998;28(3):84–100. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1287/inte.28.3.84&link_type=DOI) 85. 85.Burger EA, de Kok IMCM, Groene E, Killen J, Canfell K, Kulasingam S, et al. Estimating the Natural History of Cervical Carcinogenesis Using Simulation Models: A CISNET Comparative Analysis. JNCI J Natl Cancer Inst. 2019 Dec 10;112(9):955–63. 86. 86.Burger EA, Kim JJ, Sy S, Castle PE. Age of Acquiring Causal Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Infections: Leveraging Simulation Models to Explore the Natural History of HPV-induced Cervical Cancer. Clin Infect Dis Off Publ Infect Dis Soc Am. 2017 Sep 15;65(6):893–9. 87. 87.Canfell K, Kim JJ, Kulasingam S, Berkhof J, Barnabas R, Bogaards JA, et al. HPV-FRAME: A consensus statement and quality framework for modelled evaluations of HPV-related cancer control. Papillomavirus Res Amst Neth. 2019 Dec;8:100184. 88. 88.Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries - Sung - 2021 - CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians - Wiley Online Library [Internet]. [cited 2022 Dec 19]. Available from: [https://acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3322/caac.21660](https://acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3322/caac.21660) 89. 89.LaVigne AW, Triedman SA, Randall TC, Trimble EL, Viswanathan AN. Cervical cancer in low and middle income countries: Addressing barriers to radiotherapy delivery. Gynecol Oncol Rep. 2017 Sep 1;22:16–20. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F02%2F02%2F2023.02.01.23285356.atom) ## References 1. 1.United Nations. World Population Prospects 2022. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division; 2022. 2. 2.Birth rate, crude (per 1,000 people) | Data [Internet]. [cited 2022 Dec 19]. Available from: [https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.CBRT.IN](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.CBRT.IN) 3. 3.Liu M, He Z, Zhang C, Liu F, Liu Y, Li J, et al. Transmission of genital human papillomavirus infection in couples: a population-based cohort study in rural China. Sci Rep. 2015 Jul 23;5:10986. 4. 4.Winer RL, Hughes JP, Feng Q, O’Reilly S, Kiviat NB, Holmes KK, et al. Condom use and the risk of genital human papillomavirus infection in young women. N Engl J Med. 2006 Jun 22;354(25):2645–54. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJMoa053284&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=16790697&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F02%2F02%2F2023.02.01.23285356.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000238416900003&link_type=ISI) 5. 5.Cervical Cancer Survival Rates | Cancer 5 Year Survival Rates [Internet]. [cited 2022 Dec 22]. Available from: [https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cervical-cancer/detection-diagnosis-staging/survival.html](https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cervical-cancer/detection-diagnosis-staging/survival.html) 6. 6.Beachler DC, Jenkins G, Safaeian M, Kreimer AR, Wentzensen N. Natural Acquired Immunity Against Subsequent Genital Human Papillomavirus Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. The Journal of Infectious Diseases. 2016 May 1;213(9):1444–54. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1093/infdis/jiv753&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=26690341&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F02%2F02%2F2023.02.01.23285356.atom) 7. 7.World (WHO 2000-2025) Standard - Standard Populations - SEER Datasets [Internet]. SEER. [cited 2022 Dec 22]. Available from: [https://seer.cancer.gov/stdpopulations/world.who.html](https://seer.cancer.gov/stdpopulations/world.who.html) 8. 8.Insinga RP, Dasbach EJ, Elbasha EH, Liaw KL, Barr E. Incidence and Duration of Cervical Human Papillomavirus 6, 11, 16, and 18 Infections in Young Women: An Evaluation from Multiple Analytic Perspectives. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention. 2007 Apr 6;16(4):709–15. [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoiY2VicCI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czo4OiIxNi80LzcwOSI7czo0OiJhdG9tIjtzOjUwOiIvbWVkcnhpdi9lYXJseS8yMDIzLzAyLzAyLzIwMjMuMDIuMDEuMjMyODUzNTYuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9) 9. 9.Brown DR, Castellsagué X, Ferris D, Garland SM, Huh W, Steben M, et al. Human papillomavirus seroprevalence and seroconversion following baseline detection of nine human papillomavirus types in young women. Tumour Virus Research. 2022 Jun 1;13:200236. 10. 10.Tsang SH, Sampson JN, Schussler J, Porras C, Wagner S, Boland J, et al. Durability of Cross-Protection by Different Schedules of the Bivalent HPV Vaccine: The CVT Trial. JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2020 Oct 1;112(10):1030–7. 11. 11.Mustafa RA, Santesso N, Khatib R, Mustafa AA, Wiercioch W, Kehar R, et al. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the accuracy of HPV tests, visual inspection with acetic acid, cytology, and colposcopy. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics. 2016 Mar 1;132(3):259–65. 12. 12.Koliopoulos G, Nyaga VN, Santesso N, Bryant A, Martin-Hirsch PP, Mustafa RA, et al. Cytology versus HPV testing for cervical cancer screening in the general population. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2022 Dec 21];(8). Available from: [https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD008587.pub2/full](https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD008587.pub2/full) 13. 13.Hutchinson ML, Zahniser DJ, Sherman ME, Herrero R, Alfaro M, Bratti MC, et al. Utility of liquid-based cytology for cervical carcinoma screening: results of a population-based study conducted in a region of Costa Rica with a high incidence of cervical carcinoma. Cancer. 1999 Apr 25;87(2):48–55. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19990425)87:2<48::AID-CNCR2>3.0.CO;2-D&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10227593&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F02%2F02%2F2023.02.01.23285356.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000079845400002&link_type=ISI) 14. 14.Mayrand MH, Duarte-Franco E, Rodrigues I, Walter SD, Hanley J, Ferenczy A, et al. Human Papillomavirus DNA versus Papanicolaou Screening Tests for Cervical Cancer. New England Journal of Medicine. 2007 Oct 18;357(16):1579–88. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJMoa071430&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=17942871&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F02%2F02%2F2023.02.01.23285356.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000250200500003&link_type=ISI) 15. 15.Kulasingam SL, Hughes JP, Kiviat NB, Mao C, Weiss NS, Kuypers JM, et al. Evaluation of Human Papillomavirus Testing in Primary Screening for Cervical AbnormalitiesComparison of Sensitivity, Specificity, and Frequency of Referral. JAMA. 2002 Oct 9;288(14):1749–57. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jama.288.14.1749&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=12365959&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F02%2F02%2F2023.02.01.23285356.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000178484700028&link_type=ISI) 16. 16.Schiffman M, de Sanjose S. False positive cervical HPV screening test results. Papillomavirus Res. 2019 Apr 25;7:184–7. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.pvr.2019.04.012&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F02%2F02%2F2023.02.01.23285356.atom) 17. 17.Arbyn M, Bergeron C, Klinkhamer P, Martin-Hirsch P, Siebers AG, Bulten J. Liquid compared with conventional cervical cytology: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Jan;111(1):167–77. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/01.AOG.0000296488.85807.b3&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=18165406&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F02%2F02%2F2023.02.01.23285356.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000252199900022&link_type=ISI) 18. 18.Abulafia O, Pezzullo JC, Sherer DM. Performance of ThinPrep liquid-based cervical cytology in comparison with conventionally prepared Papanicolaou smears: a quantitative survey. Gynecol Oncol. 2003 Jul;90(1):137–44. [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/S0090-8258(03)00176-8&link_type=DOI) [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=12821354&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F02%2F02%2F2023.02.01.23285356.atom) [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000183833600022&link_type=ISI) 19. 19.Liu G, Sharma M, Tan N, Barnabas R. HIV-positive women have higher risk of HPV infection, precancerous lesions, and cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. AIDS. 2018 Mar 27;32(6):795–808. [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2023%2F02%2F02%2F2023.02.01.23285356.atom) [1]: /embed/graphic-5.gif [2]: /embed/graphic-6.gif [3]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [4]: /embed/graphic-9.gif [5]: /embed/graphic-10.gif [6]: /embed/graphic-11.gif [7]: /embed/graphic-12.gif [8]: /embed/graphic-13.gif