OP81 Cost Effectiveness Of Human Papillomavirus Extended Genotyping For Cervical Cancer Screening In Singapore

Abstract

IntroductionThe World Health Organization recommends the human papillomavirus (HPV) test for cervical cancer screening. HPV partial genotyping (PGT) identifies HPV16 and HPV18 individually and the 12 other high-risk HPV genotypes (hrHPV) collectively. In contrast, HPV extended genotyping (XGT) identifies six hrHPV individually (HPV16,18,31,45,51, and 52) and the other eight in three groups (HPV33/58, HPV56/59/66, and HPV35/39/68). XGT allows better risk stratification for patient management and monitoring of persistent same-genotype infections (PSGI), which convey a higher risk for cervical cancer. This study compared the cost, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and resource use of XGT with PGT when used as the primary cervical cancer screening method in Singapore.MethodsA discretely integrated condition event simulation was developed for screening 500,122 women aged 30 to 69 years over five years from the health system perspective, using a three percent annual discount. For XGT, women with HPV35/39/51/56/59/66/68 and reflex cytology of atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance were recalled for a repeat screening in one year, instead of the immediate colposcopy referral that occurs with PGT. At repeat screening, colposcopy was only provided for women with PSGI on XGT. Published data from Singapore were used for inputs and supplemented with data from international literature. Deterministic and probabilistic uncertainty analyses were conducted. Scenario analysis was conducted to simulate various HPV burdens among women. XGT was cost effective when the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) relative to PGT was below SGD100,000 (USD118,906) (gross domestic product per capita in 2021).ResultsXGT was cost effective relative to PGT (ICER SGD16,370 [USD19,465]), with fewer colposcopies (n=7,130; 19%), liquid-based cytology tests (n=6,027; 7%), and clinic consultations (n=9,787; 2%) but more HPV tests (n=2,446; 0.5%). The ICER was most sensitive to the relative cost of XGT and the cost of PGT. XGT remained cost effective in one-way sensitivity analysis in all 1,000 probabilistic uncertainty simulations and in scenario analysis with various HPV burdens.ConclusionsXGT can provide a cost effective, risk-based approach to primary cervical cancer screening, with lower resource utilization than PGT.