Cost-effectiveness of approaches to cervical cancer screening in Malawi: comparison of frequencies, lesion treatment techniques, and risk-stratified approaches

Background: Recently-updated global guidelines for cervical cancer screening incorporated new technologies—most significantly, the inclusion of HPV DNA detection as a primary screening test—but leave many implementation decisions at countries’ discretion. We sought to develop recommendations for Malawi as a test case since it has the second-highest cervical cancer burden globally and high HIV prevalence. We incorporated updated epidemiologic data, the full range of ablation methods recommended, and a more nuanced representation of how HIV status intersects with cervical cancer risk and exposure to screening to model outcomes of different approaches to screening. Methods: Using a Markov model, we estimate the relative health outcomes and costs of different approaches to cervical cancer screening among Malawian women. The model was parameterized using published data, and focused on comparing “triage” approaches—i.e., lesion treatment (cryotherapy or thermocoagulation) at differing frequencies and varying by HIV status. Health outcomes were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and deaths averted. The model was built using TreeAge Pro software. Results: Thermocoagulation was more cost-effective than cryotherapy at all screening frequencies. Screening women once per decade would avert substantially more deaths than screening only once per lifetime, at relatively little additional cost. Moreover, at this frequency, it would be advisable to ensure that all women who screen positive receive treatment (rather than investing in further increases in screening frequency): for a similar gain in QALYs, it would cost more than four times as much to implement once-per-5 years screening with only 50% of women treated versus once-per-decade screening with 100% of women treated. Stratified screening schedules by HIV status was found to be an optimal approach. Conclusions: These results add new evidence about cost-effective approaches to cervical cancer screening in low-income countries. At relatively infrequent screening intervals, if resources are limited, it would be more cost-effective to invest in scaling up thermocoagulation for treatment before increasing the recommended screening frequency. In Malawi or countries in a similar stage of the HIV epidemic, a stratified approach that prioritizes more frequent screening for women living with HIV may be more cost-effective than population-wide recommendations that are HIV status neutral.