Cost-effectiveness and accuracy of cervical cancer screening with a high-risk HPV genotyping assay vs a nongenotyping assay in China: an observational cohort study

Abstract

Abstract Background New screening techniques may affect the optimal approaches for the prevention of cervical cancer. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness and accuracy of alternative screening strategies to provide evidence for cervical cancer screening guidelines in China. Methods In total, 32,306 women were enrolled. The current screening with Cervista® high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV) nongenotyping and cytology cotesting (Cervista® cotesting) was compared with PCR-reverse dot blot HR-HPV genotyping and cytology cotesting (PCR-RDB cotesting). All eligible participants were divided into Arm 1, in which both HR-HPV assays were performed, and Arms 2 and 3, in which the PCR-RDB HPV or Cervista® HR-HPV assay, respectively, was performed. Outcome indicators included the cases, sensitivity, negative predictive value (NPV), colposcopy referral rate and cost of identifying cervical intraepithelial neoplasia of grade 2/3 or worse (CIN2+/CIN3+). Results Among the eligible participants, 18.4% were PCR-RDB HR-HPV-positive, while 16.9% were Cervista® HR-HPV-positive, which reflects good agreement (k = 0.73). PCR-RDB cotesting identified more CIN3+ cases than Cervista® cotesting in the first round of screening in Arm 1 (37 vs 32) and Arms 2/3 (252 vs 165). The sensitivity and NPV of PCR-RDB cotesting for identifying CIN3+ in Arm 1 (sensitivity: 94.9% vs 86.5%; NPV: 99.9% vs 99.7%) and Arms 2/3 (sensitivity: 95.1% vs 80.9%; NPV: 99.9% vs 99.6%) were higher than those of Cervista® cotesting, but the cost was similar. Conclusions The PCR-RDB HR-HPV genotyping and Cervista® HR-HPV assay results were consistent. PCR-RDB cotesting possesses optimal cost-effectiveness for cervical cancer screening in China, which has the highest number of cases globally but low screening coverage.