Base case results.

ObjectivesThe World Health Organization supports both the screen-and-treat (ST) approach and the screen, triage and treat (STT) approach to cervical cancer screening using high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) testing. For Uganda, the sequence of hrHPV-ST and hrHPV-STT could be similar, with visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) after positive hrHPV tests in both. To consider potential tradeoffs (overtreatment in ST versus missed cancer cases in STT), we compared hrHPV-STT with VIA triage (STT-VIA), and STT with HPV 16/18 genotyping risk stratification, to hrHPV-ST for Uganda, in terms of overtreatment, cervical cancer incidence, and life years, for the general female population of Uganda.MethodsA microsimulation model of cervical cancer was adapted. Incremental benefit-harm ratios of STT were calculated as ratios of prevented overtreatment to reduced life years, and to increased cancer cases. Additional scenarios with 20% difference in intra- and inter-screening follow-up between ST and STT were modeled.ResultsBoth STT strategies resulted in life year losses on average compared to ST. STT-VIA prevented more overtreatment but led to increased cervical cancer incidence and life year losses. STT-G-VIA resulted in better harm-benefit ratios and additional costs. With better follow-up, STT prevented overtreatment and improved outcomes.DiscussionFor Uganda, the STT approach appears preferrable, if the screening sequences of hrHPV-based ST and STT are similar in practice. While VIA triage alone would reduce overtreatment the most, it could also result in more cancer cases. Risk stratification via genotyping could improve STT. Potential follow-up differences and resource availability should be considered by decision-makers when planning Uganda’s hrHPV-based screening strategy.