Cost effectiveness of different cervical screening strategies in Islamic Republic of Iran: a middle-income country with a low incidence rate of cervical cancer

Objective: Invasive cervical cancer (ICC) is the fourth most common cancer among women worldwide. Cervical screening programs have reduced the incidence and mortality rates of ICC. We studied the cost-effectiveness of different cervical screening strategies in the Islamic Republic of Iran, a Muslim country with a low incidence rate of ICC. Methods: We constructed an 11-state Markov model, in which the parameters included regression and progression probabilities, test characteristics, costs, and utilities; these were extracted from primary data and the literature. Our strategies included Pap smear screening and human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing plus Pap smear triaging with different starting ages and screening intervals. Model outcomes included lifetime costs, life years gained, quality-adjusted life years (QALY), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). One-way sensitivity analysis was performed to examine the stability of the results. Results: We found that the prevented mortalities for the 11 strategies compared with no screening varied from 26% to 64%. The most cost-effective strategy was HPV screening, starting at age 35 years and repeated every 10 years. The ICER of this strategy was $8,875 per QALY compared with no screening. We found that screening at 5-year intervals was also cost-effective based on GDP per capita in Iran. Conclusion: We recommend organized cervical screening with HPV DNA testing for women in Iran, beginning at age 35 and repeated every 10 or 5 years. The results of this study could be generalized to other countries with low incidence rates of cervical cancer

Cost-effectiveness of 11 different strategies for cervical screening.

<p>Strategies standing on the curve are dominant strategies, indicating that they cost less and had more effect. Strategies located out of the curve are dominated strategies, i.e. their costs were much higher than their effects.</p

Incidence, mortality, cost, effectiveness, ICER, and undiscounted ICER of 11 strategies compared with no screening strategy.

<p>Incidence, mortality, cost, effectiveness, ICER, and undiscounted ICER of 11 strategies compared with no screening strategy.</p

The most cost-effective strategies (CES) based on different calculation methods.

<p>The cost-effectiveness of 11 strategies were estimated with different methods. Effectiveness was measured with QALY, LYG, and undiscounted QALY.</p