Clinical and economic evaluation of the effectiveness of modern strategies for screening and early diagnosis of cervical cancer in the Russian Federation

Aim. To determine the most appropriate strategy for screening and early diagnosis of cervical cancer in the Russian Federation in terms of clinical (diagnostic) and cost-effectiveness.

Materials and methods. To assess the clinical (diagnostic) effectiveness of various screening strategies, a systematic review of publications on studies evaluating the effectiveness of cytological examination and human papillomavirus (HPV) testing for the diagnosis of cervical cancer and its precancerous conditions was conducted. This analysis included publications on the results of studies that assessed the sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic tests used in screening programs. Economic evaluation of the use of various screening strategies was carried out using a mathematical model. The analysis is based on the Markov model of the natural development of oncogenic HPV infection in the absence of screening. Mathematical modeling was performed for a cohort of patients aged 30–64 years inclusive, who have not undergone hysterectomy and who initially have no symptoms of cervical cancer. Clinical and economic analysis was performed from the perspective of the Moscow healthcare system and taking into account the time horizon of 40 years. In a cost-effectiveness analysis, the costs and effectiveness of three screening strategies: conventional cytology followed by triage (p16 and Ki-67 expression detection, CINtec® technology); HPV testing (Cobas HPV®) followed by CINtec® triage and conventional cytology; co-testing – conventional cytology + HPV testing (Cobas HPV®) followed by CINtec® triage, were compared with a strategy of using conventional cytology alone.

Results. The article presents the results of the evaluation of the clinical (diagnostic) efficiency of HPV testing compared with cytological studies, traditional cytological study compared with other diagnostic methods, HPV testing compared with other diagnostic methods, co-testing compared with cytological study only and the use of new biomarkers for the diagnosis of cervical neoplasia, including biomarkers for the detection of p16 and Ki-67 expression. Also, the analysis of cervical cancer screening programs in foreign countries, the efficiency of organized screening programs and the analysis of the cost-effectiveness of various screening strategies in Moscow are conducted. It has been established that there is no single model of cervical cancer screening in the world that would be suitable for every country. In most countries, there is a clear trend towards the transition from cytological testing to testing based on the detection of HPV DNA in certain age cohorts of women. It is also worth noting that not all developed countries have switched from opportunistic to organized cervical cancer screening. Based on the results of the clinical and economic study, it was determined that all the screening strategies studied are cost-effective, and the “Co-testing” screening strategy is the most effective in terms of reducing the number of cases of cervical cancer and deaths from cervical cancer.

Conclusion. The co-testing strategy, including the use of a biomarker to detect the expression of p16 and Ki-67, should be considered as the main one for conducting screening and early diagnosis programs for cervical cancer in the Russian Federation.

1. World Health Organization Newsletter 2022. Available at: https://www.who.int/ru/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/cervicalcancer. (In Russ.).

2. Malignant tumors in Russia in 2023 (incidence and mortality). Ed. by A.D. Kaprin, V.V. Starinskiy, A.O. Shakhzadova. Moscow: MNIOI im. P.A. Gertsena – filial FGBU “NMITS radiologii” Minzdrava Rossii, 2024. 267 p. (In Russ.).

3. Situation with cancer care in Russia in 2020. Ed. by A.D. Kaprin, V.V. Starinskiy, A.O. Shakhzadova. Moscow: MNIOI im. P.A. Gertsena – filial FGBU “NMITS radiologii” Minzdrava Rossii, 2021. 239 p. (In Russ.).

4. Pryalukhin I.A., Sheshko E.L., Seryapina Yu.V. et al. Development of clinical guidelines with the consideration of digital healthcare transformation in the Russian Federation: a proposal. Natsionalnoe zdravookhranenie = National Healthcare 2024;5(2):36–47. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.47093/2713-069X.2024.5.2.36-47

5. Arbyn M., Buntinx F., Van Ranst M. et al. Virologic versus cytologic triage of women with equivocal Pap smears: A meta-analysis of the accuracy to detect high-grade intraepithelial neoplasia. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004;96(4):280–93. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djh037.

6. Arbyn M., Sankaranarayanan R., Muwonge R. et al. Pooled analysis of the accuracy of five cervical cancer screening tests assessed in eleven studies in Africa and India. Int J Cancer 2008;123(1):153–60. DOI: 10.1002/ijc.23489.

7. Chen C., Yang Z., Li Z., Li L. Accuracy of several cervical screening strategies for early detection of cervical cancer: A meta-analysis. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2012;22(6):908–21. DOI: 10.1097/IGC.0b013e318256e5e4.

8. Koliopoulos G., Arbyn M., Martin-Hirsch P. et al. Diagnostic accuracy of human papillomavirus testing in primary cervical screening: A systematic review and meta-analysis of nonrandomized studies. Gynecol Oncol 2007;104(1):232–46. DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2006.08.053

9. Koliopoulos G., Nyaga V.N., Santesso N. et al. Cytology versus HPV testing for cervical cancer screening in the general population. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017;8(8):CD008587. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008587.pub2

10. Mustafa R.A., Santesso N., Khatib R. et al. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the accuracy of HPV tests, visual inspection with acetic acid, cytology, and colposcopy. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2016;132(3):259–65. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2015.07.024

11. Cong X., Cox D.D., Cantor S.B. Bayesian meta-analysis of Papanicolaou smear accuracy. Gynecol Oncol 2007;107(1 Suppl 1): S133–7. DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2007.08.080

12. Pyo J.S., Kang G., Yoon H.K., Kim H.J. Diagnostic test accuracy review of cytology for squamous intraepithelial lesion and squamous cell carcinoma of uterine cervix. J Korean Med Sci 2019;34(2):e16. DOI: 10.3346/jkms.2019.34.e16

13. Fokom-Domgue J., Combescure C., Fokom-Defo V. et al. Performance of alternative strategies for primary cervical cancer screening in sub-Saharan Africa: Systematic review and metaanalysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies. BMJ 2015;3(351):h3084. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.h3084

14. Peeters E., Wentzensen N., Bergeron C., Arbyn M. Meta-analysis of the accuracy of p16 or p16/Ki-67 immunocytochemistry versus HPV testing for the detection of CIN 2+/CIN 3+ in triage of women with minor abnormal cytology. Cancer Cytopathol 2019;127(3):169–80. DOI: 10.1002/cncy.22103

15. Roelens J., Reuschenbach M., von Knebel Doeberitz M. et al. p16INK4a immunocytochemistry versus human papillomavirus testing for triage of women with minor cytologic abnormalities: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer Cytopathol 2012;25;120(5):294–307. DOI: 10.1002/cncy.21205

16. Li T., Li Y., Yang G.X. et al. Diagnostic value of combination of HPV testing and cytology as compared to isolated cytology in screening cervical cancer: A meta-analysis. J Cancer Res Ther 2016;12(1):283–9. DOI: 10.4103/0973-1482.154032

17. Pan Q.J., Hu S.Y., Guo H.Q. et al. Liquid-based cytology and human papillomavirus testing: A pooled analysis using the data from 13 population-based cervical cancer screening studies from China. Gynecol Oncol 2014;133(2):172–9. DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.03.008

18. Bouchard-Fortier G., Hajifathalian K., McKnight M.D. et al. Cotesting for detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and cancer compared with cytology alone: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Public Health (Oxf) 2014;36(1):46–55. DOI: 10.1093/pubmed/fdt057

19. Onyango C.G., Ogonda L., Guyah B. et al. Novel biomarkers with promising benefits for diagnosis of cervical neoplasia: A systematic review. Infect Agent Cancer 2020;16;15(1):68. DOI: 10.1186/s13027-020-00335-2

20. Elfström K.M., Arnheim-Dahlström L., von Karsa L., Dillner J. Cervical cancer screening in Europe: Quality assurance and organisation of programmes. Eur J Cancer 2015;51(8):950–68. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2015.03.008

21. Jansen E.E.L., Zielonke N., Gini A. et al. Effect of organised cervical cancer screening on cervical cancer mortality in Europe: A systematic review. Eur J Cancer 2020;127:207–23. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2019.12.013

22. Wentzensen N., Arbyn M. HPV-based cervical cancer screening – facts, fiction, and misperceptions. Prev Med 2017;98:33–5. DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.12.040

23. Wang W., Arcà E., Sinha A. et al. Cervical cancer screening guidelines and screening practices in 11 countries: A systematic literature review. Prev Med Rep 2022;8(28):101813. DOI: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2022.101813

24. Chrysostomou A.C., Stylianou D.C., Constantinidou A., Kostrikis L.G. Cervical cancer screening programs in Europe: The transition towards HPV vaccination and population-based HPV testing. Viruses 2018;10(12):E729. DOI: 10.3390/v10120729

25. Maver P.J., Poljak M. Primary HPV-based cervical cancer screening in Europe: Implementation status, challenges, and future plans. Clin Microbiol Infect 2020;26(5):579–83. DOI: 10.1016/j.cmi.2019.09.006

26. Peirson L., Fitzpatrick-Lewis D., Ciliska D., Warren R. Screening for cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Syst Rev 2013;24:35. DOI: 10.1186/2046-4053-2-35

27. Teptsova T.S., Musina N.Z., Omelyanovskiy V.V. Assessment of the reference values of incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the Russian healthcare system. Pharmacoeconomics. Sovremennaya farmakoekonomika i farmakoepidemiologiya = Current Pharmacoeconomics and Pharmacoepidemiology 2020;13(4):367–76. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.17749/2070-4909/farmakoekonomika.2020.071