Cost-Effectiveness of Offering Cervical Cancer Screening with HPV Self-Sampling among African-American Women in the Mississippi Delta.

BACKGROUND

African-American women in the United States have an elevated risk of cervical cancer incidence and mortality. In the Mississippi Delta, cervical cancer disparities are particularly stark.

METHODS

We conducted a micro-costing study alongside a group randomized trial that evaluated the efficacy of a patient-centered approach ("Choice" between self-collection at home for HPV testing or current standard of care within the public health system in Mississippi) versus the current standard of care ["Standard-of-care screening," involving cytology (i.e., Pap) and HPV co-testing at the Health Department clinics]. The interventions in both study arms were delivered by community health workers (CHW). Using cost, screening uptake, and colposcopy adherence data from the trial, we informed a mathematical model of HPV infection and cervical carcinogenesis to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing the "Choice" and "Standard-of-care screening" interventions among un/underscreened African-American women in the Mississippi Delta.

RESULTS

When each intervention was simulated every 5 years from ages 25 to 65 years, the "Standard-of-care screening" strategy reduced cancer risk by 6.4% and was not an efficient strategy; "Choice" was more effective and efficient, reducing lifetime risk of cervical cancer by 14.8% and costing $62,720 per year of life saved (YLS). Screening uptake and colposcopy adherence were key drivers of intervention cost-effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

Offering "Choice" to un/underscreened African-American women in the Mississippi Delta led to greater uptake than CHW-facilitated screening at the Health Department, and may be cost-effective.

IMPACT

We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of an HPV self-collection intervention to reduce disparities.