Cost-Effectiveness of Computer-Assisted Cytology in a Primary hrHPV-Based Cervical Cancer Screening Programme

Computer-assisted screening (CAS) shows equal performance compared to manual screening, although results are heterogeneous. Furthermore, using CAS may save costs through a potentially increased screening productivity of technicians, therefore also offering a solution for temporary and structural capacity shortage. We evaluated the circumstances under which CAS will be cost-effective compared to manual cytology triage in a primary HPV-based cervical screening programme.

Microsimulation model MISCAN-Cervix was used to evaluate 198 different CAS scenarios with varying probabilities to detect cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 1 (CIN1) and CIN3 and cost reductions per test, compared to manual cytology triage. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated by costs per (quality-adjusted) life year ((QA)LY) gained.

CAS will be cost-effective in all scenarios, except for the following combinations: (1) no cost reduction and an increased probability of detecting CIN1, (2) a cost reduction of €2 per test and an increased probability of detecting CIN1 from 4% onwards or (3) a cost reduction of €4 per test and an increased probability of detecting CIN1 from 6% onwards, compared to manual cytology triage. All CAS scenarios with any reduction in the probability of detecting CIN1 (i.e., increased CIN2+ specificity), or a reduction in costs from €6 per test onwards suggested a more cost-effective strategy compared to manual cytology triage.

As we based our analysis on a realistic range in costs and test performance, the implementation of CAS is likely to be cost-effective. Our results can be used as a guideline to advise when to choose CAS instead of manual cytology triage.