Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 May 14;16(5):e0251688. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0251688

Is the HPV-test more cost-effective than cytology in cervical cancer screening? An economic analysis from a middle-income country

Diama Bhadra Vale 1,*, Marcus Tolentino Silva 2, Michelle Garcia Discacciati 1, Ilana Polegatto 1, Julio Cesar Teixeira 1, Luiz Carlos Zeferino 1
Editor: Luca Giannella3
PMCID: PMC8121350  PMID: 33989331

Abstract

Objective

To report a modelling study using local health care costs and epidemiological inputs from a population-based program to access the cost-effectiveness of adopting hrHPV test.

Methods

A cost-effectiveness analysis based on a microsimulation dynamic Markov model. Data and costs were based on data from the local setting and literature review. The setting was Indaiatuba, Brazil, that has adopted the hrHPV test in place of cytology since 2017. After calibrating the model, one million women were simulated in hypothetical cohorts. Three strategies were tested: cytology to women aged 25 to 64 every three years; hrHPV test to women 25–64 every five years; cytology to women 25–29 years every three years and hrHPV test to women 30–64 every five years (hybrid strategy). Outcomes were Quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) and Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER).

Results

The hrHPV testing and the hybrid strategy were the dominant strategies. Costs were lower and provided a more effective option at a negative incremental ratio of US$ 37.87 for the hybrid strategy, and negative US$ 6.16 for the HPV strategy per QALY gained. Reduction on treatment costs would influence a decrease in ICER, and an increase in the costs of the hrHPV test would increase ICER.

Conclusions

Using population-based data, the switch from cytology to hrHPV testing in the cervical cancer screening program of Indaiatuba is less costly and cost-effective than the old cytology program.

Introduction

Screening has reduced cervical cancer incidence rates in the past 50 years [1]. Although many screening activities have been taking place in low and middle-income countries (LMIC), this reduction was not as prominent as those observed in high-income countries (HIC), where population-based organized screening programs were adopted [2]. The fragility of the public health systems in LMIC is a barrier to high-quality programs [3]. The adoption of more efficient technologies can improve screening performance, avoiding abrupt changes in the current practices.

The choice of the test to be offered is a core constituent of a screening program. It must be sensitive and present a high negative predictive value. It should be easy to perform and widely accepted [4]. Cytology is the conventional test in cervical cancer screening, but its sensitivity is low [5]. The recognition of the fundamental role of the HPV infection in the natural history of cervical cancer supports the use of high-risk DNA-HPV (hrHPV) tests in screening. Randomized clinical trials have shown that, compared to cytology, the use of hrHPV-test results in higher rates of detection of precursor lesions, higher negative predictive value, and decreased cervical cancer mortality rates [6, 7].

The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that, when resources are available, settings using cytology in screening should consider the transition to hrHPV testing based programs [8]. HIC cost-effectiveness studies have demonstrated the superiority of using hrHPV testing compared to cytology [916]. In low-income countries, health systems are usually developing, whereas, in middle-income countries (MIC), a better health framework makes it possible to design and implement more sophisticated programs. Unfortunately, population-based cost-effectiveness studies are scarce in MIC, limiting the incorporation of new technologies [3, 17].

Indaiatuba is a city far 100 km from São Paulo’s city and represents a medium-sized Brazilian city. In October 2017, the public health system adopted to all women targeted primary hrHPV testing in the screening program, replacing the cytology-based program [18]. The following research question was designed: which test is more cost-effective in cervical cancer screening at the public health system: cytology or hrHPV test? A modelling study using local health care costs and epidemiological inputs from the program was developed to answer the question. The results can support the planning for regional strategies and intend to reference others, optimizing resource allocation.

Material and methods

Context and population

The present study is a cost-effectiveness analysis based on a microsimulation dynamic Markov model. Data and costs were based on data from the local setting and literature review. Indaiatuba city is located in the state of São Paulo, Brazil, and has about 250,000 inhabitants. The main economic activities are industry and commerce, and the Human Development Index is 0.79, above the average of the state and the country [19].

In Brazil, the public health system runs through the ’Unified Health System’ (SUS), free of charge to all citizens. It is hierarchical, with a gateway through primary care, where cancer screening activities take place. The population can also co-use private health services through health insurance paid by the customer or employer.

In 2017 Indaiatuba adopted the hrHPV test to replace cytology in cervical cancer screening. A detailed description of the program was previously published by Teixeira and colleagues [18]. In summary, the hrHPV test chosen provides individual results on the highest risk genotypes—HPV 16 and HPV 18—and an aggregated results on the twelve other hr-HPV genotypes (types 31, 33, 35, 39, 45, 51, 52, 56, 58, 59, 66 and 68). The negative test indicates a repetition in five years. A specific law regulated the new program. Since SUS has not yet incorporated the hrHPV test, the municipality was responsible for financing the test, subsidized by the Roche® laboratory. Parallel to the implementation, a research team from the University of Campinas assessed the program’s performance and cost-effectiveness [18].

In Brazil, the target women for cervical cancer screening are those aged 25 to 64 [20]. The hrHPV test performance is lower in women aged 25 to 29 due to the reduction of its specificity and high prevalence of transient HPV infections. Thus, many recommend that the test be offered only from 30 years old, and cytology should to women aged 25 to 29 [8, 21, 22]. However, the policymakers of Indaiatuba considered that if both technologies were available (hrHPV and cytology), it would induce the misuse of them. Furthermore, it would be necessary to maintain both logistics at the same time. They choose a more straightforward design for the program: the hrHPV test offered to all women aged 25 to 64, and cytology only for triage of positive results (reflex test) [18].

Study perspective

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was assessed from the financing system’s perspective, the Brazilian "SUS". It included direct costs such as screening logistics and referral for treatment: outpatient care, treatment procedures, relapse treatment, complications procedures, inpatient care and medications. Indirect and intangible costs were disregarded.

Interventions

Three cervical cancer screening strategies were compared. The descriptions of the interventions can be seen in Fig 1.

Fig 1.

Fig 1

Cervical cancer screening strategies: Conventional cytology (right) and primary hrHPV test (left). The hybrid strategy is a mix of cytology for women aged 25 to 29 years and hrHPV test for women aged 30 to 64 years.

  1. Cytology strategy (Brazilian standard screening program): conventional cytology to women aged 25 to 64 every three years;

  2. hrHPV strategy (new ongoing screening program): hrHPV test to women aged 25 to 64 every five years, with triage of positive tests by liquid-based cytology;

  3. Hybrid strategy (hypothetical): conventional cytology to women aged 25 to 29 years old every three years, and hrHPV test to women aged 30 to 64 every five years, with triage of positive tests by liquid-based cytology.

Study design

Since cervical cancer is a long-term disease from HPV infection to the invasive lesion, the Markov model with microsimulation was chosen [23]. The model establishes health status, possible transitions, the probabilities of each status transition and values of costs and effects for each state. The TreeAge Pro 2018® software, Williamstown/USA, was used for economic modelling.

The model considered local data and international literature by age-groups. For population data and women’s survival table, official data from São Paulo’s statistical agency were used [24]. For the natural history of HPV infection, consequences of clinical management of precursor lesions, and cancer survival by stage, data from the literature review were used [25]. The probabilities of hrHPV infection were obtained from results of the first 30 months of the current program (data yet to be published). Data from the cytology-based old program were used for the prevalence of precursor lesions: aggregate data generated by the referral laboratory from the Women’s Hospital at Unicamp. Data were obtained from recent data of long-term prospective studies for cytology and colposcopy/biopsy results after a hrHPV test [26]. The prevalence of cervical cancer stages in the region was obtained from local data [27]. The probability of adhering to the screening intervals and health services coverage to search for cases were also considered by the literature [28].

Some probabilities used by the model are in Table 1. In Fig 2 the prevalence of hrHPV and the prevalence of precursor lesions according to age are presented. The cumulative probabilities of dying from cervical cancer, based on the model, increase to 50 years old. After that, it becomes stable. It reaches the risk of six deaths per every thousand women without any intervention while screening by cytology or by hrHPV test decreases respectively to three or two deaths per every thousand women.

Table 1. Probabilities used by the model to compare screening strategies in Indaiatuba, Brazil.

Variable Probability
Primary health care coverage [28] 0.39
Satisfactory cytology [29] 0.93
Normal cytology (Unicamp, 2019) (local data) 0.98
Access to cytology result [30] 0.76
Abnormal Colposcopy [31] 0.06
Transition from CIN 1 to 2/3 [32] 0.02 to 0.08
Transition from CIN 2/3 to FIGO Stage I [32] 0.10
Transition from FIGO Stage I to II [32] 0.23
Transition from FIGO Stage II to III [32] 0.33
Transition from FIGO Stage III to IV [32] 0.54

CIN: cervical intraepithelial neoplasia; FIGO: International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics.

Fig 2. Prevalence and 95% confidence intervals used for modelling of hrHPV and precursor lesions.

Fig 2

A discount rate of 5% per year was used, with a sensitivity analysis of 0–10%, according to the Economic Evaluation Guideline of the Ministry of Health [33]. The results were compared with the Brazilian epidemiological models identified in the literature [34]. One million women were simulated in hypothetical cohorts after calibrating the model. The outcomes of cervical cancer were evaluated for the life expectancy of women.

The Ethics Committee of UNICAMP approved the study protocol (CAAE 43815315.9.0000.5404) and waived the Informed Consent Form’s need.

Effectiveness measures

According to imperfect states of health, the primary outcome assessed was quality-adjusted life-years (QALY), a two-dimensional measure of well-being, which adjusts years of life. The value is between zero (death) and one (perfect health). Negative values are also possible to state worse than death. QALY data by age were derived from the literature [35] and adjusted by cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) lesions or cervical cancer by the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) [36].

Estimated resources spent and costs

The resource items were based on the detailed clinical management description by the literature review and specialists consults. A mixed micro- and macro-costing technique obtained the measurement of resources. Micro-costing detailed the screening strategies by the observational method of all expenditures and collection of primary data. Macro-costing was based on administrative data from the Indaiatuba and the Women’s Hospital of Unicamp, the cancer treatment referral centre.

The valuation of resources used triangulation of methods: direct measurement of costs at the primary health care facility where screening takes place, and at the laboratory of the Women’s Hospital at the Unicamp, accounting method (costing by a cost) and standard unit costs (based on the Management Table System of SUS procedures and the Health Price Bank, available at the SUS Information Department) [37]. Costs were calculated in Reais (R$—Brazilian currency unit) and then converted to Dollars (US$) to facilitate interpretation and comparability (currency on July 1, 2020, US$ 1 = R$ 5,318). The main costs used are seen in Table 2.

Table 2. Valuation of costs used by the model to compare screening strategies in Indaiatuba/SP, Brazil.

Variable Cost (US$)
Biopsya US$ 20.73
Conventional cytologya US$ 13.16
Liquid-based cytologya US$ 26.32
HPV testingb US$ 30.00
Colposcopya US$ 7.63
Outpatient appointment in primary health carea US$ 4.37
Cervical cancer FIGO stage I treatmentc US$ 599/5 years
Cervical cancer FIGO stage II treatmentc US$ 1,517/5 years
Cervical cancer FIGO stage III treatmentc US$ 2,273/5 years
Cervical cancer FIGO stage IV treatmentc US$ 2,423/5 years

aTotal expenditures involved in the procedure;

bOnce HPV testing is not standard in Brazil, we used an estimated price for the public health setting;

cTotal expenditures for treatment in five years at the referral free of charge hospital (Unicamp).

Once the hrHPV test is not approved at the public health setting in Brazil, the cost was estimated by the top literature values that are being used in international locations (from US$ 10.00 to 30.00). The price at the private market in Brazil for one single test is around US$ 50.00.

Sensitivity analysis

Analyzes of the adopted parameters’ robustness were carried out, considering the variations in the probabilities, outcomes, and costs. Variations in the parameters were evaluated in univariate analyzes on a ’Tornado Diagram’. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was also used to explore the uncertainties in terms of costs and effects on the model’s parameters.

Willingness to pay threshold

Brazil has no standard recommendation about the economic or health value on the willingness to pay threshold (WPT) but admits that economic valuations would accept the value of one to three times the per capita gross domestic product (pcGDP) per QALY [33]. In 2018 the Brazillian pcGDP was US$ 6,317.00 (R$ 33,593.82) [38].

Results

Compared to conventional cytology, hrHPV testing with liquid-based cytology for triage of positive results and the hybrid strategy were dominant strategies for cervical cancer screening. Costs were lower and provided a more effective option at an economy of US$ 37.87 for the hybrid strategy and an economy of US$ 6.16 for the HPV strategy, per QALY gained (Table 3). The values indicate the hypothetical value of how much it would have to be spent per women to add one more year in good health with the strategies proposed.

Table 3. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio results of modelling cervical cancer screening strategies in a population-based program in Indaiatuba, Brazil.

Strategy Cost QALY ICER
Cytology (25-64y) US$ 181.64 386.98 ---
Cytology (25-29y) + hrHPV (30-64y) US$ 89.49 389.41 (—) US$ 37.87
hrHPV (25-64y) US$ 158.12 390.80 (—) US$ 6.16

QALY: quality-adjusted life-years; ICER: incremental cost-effectiveness ratio; (—): negative value.

Sensitivity analysis

The univariate sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the stability of the model’s assumptions on the study findings (Fig 3). Reduction in treatment costs would influence a reduction in ICER in both analyses. An increase in the costs of the hrHPV test would increase ICER. An increase in primary health care access coverage to the tests would discretely affect the hybrid strategy.

Fig 3.

Fig 3

Tornado diagram of the sensitivity analysis for the hrHPV (a) and hybrid (b) versus cytology strategies models. The diagram shows the range of the Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER).

Discussion

Main findings

According to this modelling analyze that has incorporated setting-specific information into the risks and costs, the switch from cytology to hrHPV testing in the cervical cancer screening program of Indaiatuba is cost-effective and less costly [39]: the amount to spend to obtain one year with quality of life was far below the willingness to pay threshold (negative ICER of US$ 37.87 in the cytology plus hrHPV strategy and of US$ 6.16 in the hrHPV strategy, for a thereshold of US$ 6,317.00). The variables that most influenced the ICER were the cost of the hrHPV test and the treatment’s total costs.

Strengths and limitations

There are two main strengths of this study. First, it used for modelling local screening data of past cytology-based and the current hrHPV testing screening program. Secondly, the program implemented is population-based, not a pilot study, as observed in the literature. We ignore another population-based modelling study coming from a low or middle-income country.

Models in economic analysis are based on many assumptions, some of which may be more accurate than others. They simplify real-life and fix performance parameters such as coverage, excess tests and others. The main limitation of this study is the inadequate precision of the cost of the hrHPV test. However, the sensitivity analysis has shown that the cost-effectiveness would happen under various scenarios.

Interpretation

The hrHPV test cost is addressed as the main limitation for the implementation of a hrHPV-based screening program. In our model, representing an urban city from a middle-income country, the hrHPV testing strategy was more cost-effective considering the international literature’s top price. However, it is essential to note that the model works in a fixed perspective, where tests are performed regularly. An opportunistic scenario expects lower intervals (excess tests), which would probably reduce the strategy’s cost-effectiveness. It is indispensable that a shift to a hrHPV-based screening strategy would be followed by plans to improve the program’s performance.

Other modelling studies have shown that hrHPV test screening is more cost-effective than cytology [916]. The reduction in screening costs associated with the lower cancer incidence and mortality when more precursor lesions are detected and treated is the main argument for noting positive results on cost-effectiveness when switching from cytology to hrHPV test, regardless of the attendance on screening [11, 40, 41]. The increase significantly influences the cost-savings in the screening interval. The results are positive even when varying the settings of the studies. Few reports have incorporated local settings data. Jansen et al. reported similar results after the first years of hrHPV screening implementation in the Dutch program [11].

The cost of the treatment was another variable that influenced the result. In Brazil, treatment is free of care, so a reduction in incidence and advanced cases may significantly impact public health. Almost three in every four cervical cancer cases in Brazil are diagnosed in Stages II or more advanced [42]. In this study, it was assumed that all patients were diagnosed and received appropriate standard treatment. It may have overestimated the long term effects of screening.

The influence on the results of coverage on screening was discrete in the sensitivity analysis. High coverage should be the main target of any screening program, organized or opportunistic. However, in modelling studies, the inputs consider a fixed assurance of screening components: invitation, testing, and further assessment. Quality assurance was not accessed in this study. An economic evaluation post-implementation is expected to address these issue.

Another critical query in screening programs is the superiority of hrHPV test accuracy when compared to cytology accuracy. It is widely known that the conventional cytology’s sensitivity is under the threshold desirable, particularly in LMIC [5]. In places where the quality control of cytology screening is fragile, the WHO suggests that a switch to hrHPV testing or even visual inspection with acetic acid (VIA) should be considered [8]. The automation in processing samples in hrHPV test is expected to improve the sensitivity and the accuracy of the screening test.

However, in our modelling study, the cytology’s accuracy–conventional or liquid-based did not influence the results. It might be explained by the high impact expected of cytology in screening, even when sensitivity is moderate to low. Historical evidence pointed to a cervical cancer risk reduction of 46% with a single life-time cytology test [43]. Even considering that cervical cancer incidence rates are still moderate to high in low and middle-income countries, a significant reduction was observed in countries with established opportunistic cytology-based screening programs [1]. The recommendation to consider switching to hrHPV testing should be evaluated under this perspective.

The hrHPV test performance is improved when women are over 30 years old, bypassing its low specificity in young women. In Brazil, target women for screening are those from 25 to 64 years old. When implementing hrHPV testing in screening, some would not be comfortable testing women under 30 years old. The policymakers of Indaiatuba choose to use a widely licensed hrHPV testing with genotyping HPV16 and 18 to increasing specificity in youngers and apply to all target women, arguing that keeping both logistics (cytology and hrHPV test) would be confusing and costly. This study showed that the decision might be correct by the economic view: the hrHPV testing strategy would be as cost-effective as the hybrid strategy. The results of the economic evaluation post-implementation probably will support this decision.

Conclusions

Based on real-life data, the decision to switch to hrHPV testing in Indaitauba was cost-effective. This result may support Brazil and other middle-income countries policymakers to similar practices. The best implementation strategy is yet to be defined, but we believe that the single hrHPV strategy should be recommended, avoiding logistics challenges regarding a hybrid strategy. Still, the results showed in this modelling study are in line with the literature. There is a clear tendency to support hrHPV testing on screening, even when coverage is not as high as observed in organized screening programs.

Data Availability

The data underlying this study are available on Dryad (www.doi.org/10.17605/osf.io/f3ygd).

Funding Statement

This project is funded by UNICAMP (Women's Hospital), Indaiatuba City (SUS), and Roche Diagnostics, as detailed below: This study proposal (screening program implementation and cost-effectiveness analyses) was designed by researchers from UNICAMP and introduced by the Indaiatuba City Hall. Both UNICAMP and the municipality use the existing and functioning structure to place the new screening program and carry out the proposed study at no additional cost. The supplies and equipment required to perform HPV testing (for one round in five years), computer system development support, two lab technicians, and a screening program coordinator are provided or supported by Roche Diagnostics. Roche Diagnostics supports an external statistician defined by researchers to develop a model and perform the planned cost-effectiveness analyses. There are no planned compensations or cash transfers provided to any institution or researchers stated in the parties' cooperation agreement.

References

  • 1.Vaccarella S, Lortet-Tieulent J, Plummer M, Franceschi S, Bray F. Worldwide trends in cervical cancer incidence: impact of screening against changes in disease risk factors. Eur J Cancer. 2013;49: 3262–3273. 10.1016/j.ejca.2013.04.024 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Bray F, Jemal A, Grey N, Ferlay J, Forman D. Global cancer transitions according to the Human Development Index (2008–2030): a population-based study. The lancet oncology. 2012;13: 790–801. 10.1016/S1470-2045(12)70211-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Vale DB, Teixeira JC, Bragança JF, Derchain S, Sarian LO, Zeferino LC. Elimination of cervical cancer in low- and middle-income countries: Inequality of access and fragile healthcare systems. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2020. 10.1002/ijgo.13458 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Arbyn et al., editors. European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Cervical Cancer Screening. Second edition. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; 2008. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Basu P, Mittal S, Bhadra Vale D, Chami Kharaji Y. Secondary prevention of cervical cancer. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2017. 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2017.08.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Ronco G, Dillner J, Elfström KM, Tunesi S, Snijders PJF, Arbyn M, et al. Efficacy of HPV-based screening for prevention of invasive cervical cancer: follow-up of four European randomised controlled trials. Lancet. 2014;383: 524–532. 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62218-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Koliopoulos G, Nyaga VN, Santesso N, Bryant A, Martin-Hirsch PP, Mustafa RA, et al. Cytology versus HPV testing for cervical cancer screening in the general population. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;8: CD008587. 10.1002/14651858.CD008587.pub2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.World Health Organization, editor. WHO guidelines for screening and treatment of precancerous lesions for cervical cancer prevention. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2013. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Georgalis L, de Sanjosé S, Esnaola M, Bosch FX, Diaz M. Present and future of cervical cancer prevention in Spain: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Eur J Cancer Prev. 2016;25: 430–439. 10.1097/CEJ.0000000000000202 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Diaz M, Moriña D, Rodríguez-Salés V, Ibáñez R, Espinás JA, de Sanjosé S. Moving towards an organized cervical cancer screening: costs and impact. Eur J Public Health. 2018;28: 1132–1138. 10.1093/eurpub/cky061 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Jansen E, Naber SK, Aitken CA, de Koning HJ, van Ballegooijen M, de Kok I. Cost-effectiveness of HPV-based cervical screening based on first year results in the Netherlands: a modelling study. BJOG. 2020. 10.1111/1471-0528.16400 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Lew J-B, Simms K, Smith M, Lewis H, Neal H, Canfell K. Effectiveness Modelling and Economic Evaluation of Primary HPV Screening for Cervical Cancer Prevention in New Zealand. PLoS One. 2016;11: e0151619. 10.1371/journal.pone.0151619 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Burger EA, Ortendahl JD, Sy S, Kristiansen IS, Kim JJ. Cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening with primary human papillomavirus testing in Norway. Br J Cancer. 2012;106: 1571–1578. 10.1038/bjc.2012.94 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Huh WK, Ault KA, Chelmow D, Davey DD, Goulart RA, Garcia FAR, et al. Use of primary high-risk human papillomavirus testing for cervical cancer screening: Interim clinical guidance. Gynecologic Oncology. 2015;136: 178–182. 10.1016/j.ygyno.2014.12.022 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Pista A, Costa C, Saldanha C, Moutinho JAF, Moutinho JM, Arrobas F, et al. Budget impact analysis of cervical cancer screening in Portugal: comparison of cytology and primary HPV screening strategies. BMC Public Health. 2019;19: 235. 10.1186/s12889-019-6536-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Petry KU, Barth C, Wasem J, Neumann A. A model to evaluate the costs and clinical effectiveness of human papilloma virus screening compared with annual papanicolaou cytology in Germany. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2017;212: 132–139. 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2017.03.029 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Pilleron S, Cabasag CJ, Ferlay J, Bray F, Luciani S, Almonte M, et al. Cervical cancer burden in Latin America and the Caribbean: Where are we? Int J Cancer. 2020. 10.1002/ijc.32956 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Teixeira JC, Vale DB, Bragança JF, Campos CS, Discacciati MG, Zeferino LC. Cervical cancer screening program based on primary DNA-HPV testing in a Brazilian city: a cost-effectiveness study protocol. BMC Public Health. 2020;20: 576. 10.1186/s12889-020-08688-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.PNUD Brasil. [cited 19 Nov 2020]. Available: https://www.br.undp.org/
  • 20.Instituto Nacional de Câncer. Diretrizes Brasileiras para o Rastreamento do Câncer do Colo do Útero 2016—segunda edição. INCA; 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Morris CP, Chowsilpa S, Mustafa S, Chan I, Miller D, Maleki Z, et al. Impact of the Current US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendations for Cervical Cancer Screening in Young Women 21 to 29 Years Old. Am J Clin Pathol. 2020;153: 734–742. 10.1093/ajcp/aqaa012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Zeferino LC, Bastos JB, Vale DBAP do, Zanine RM, Melo YLMF de, Primo WQSP, et al. Guidelines for HPV-DNA Testing for Cervical Cancer Screening in Brazil. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2018;40: 360–368. 10.1055/s-0038-1657754 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Komorowski M, Raffa J. Markov Models and Cost Effectiveness Analysis: Applications in Medical Research. Secondary Analysis of Electronic Health Records. Cham (CH): Springer; 2016. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK543650/ [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Fundação SEADE F. Estatísticas | Fundação Seade. [cited 22 Nov 2020]. Available: https://www.seade.gov.br/lista-produtos/ [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Campos NG, Burger EA, Sy S, Sharma M, Schiffman M, Rodriguez AC, et al. An updated natural history model of cervical cancer: derivation of model parameters. Am J Epidemiol. 2014;180: 545–555. 10.1093/aje/kwu159 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Egemen D, Cheung LC, Chen X, Demarco M, Perkins RB, Kinney W, et al. Risk Estimates Supporting the 2019. ASCCP Risk-Based Management Consensus Guidelines. J Low Genit Tract Dis. 2020;24: 132–143. 10.1097/LGT.0000000000000529 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Teixeira JC, Santos DZ, Campos CS, Vale DB, Bragança JF, Zeferinor LC. Cervical cancer in women under 25 years of age and outside the screening age: Diagnosis profile and long-term outcomes. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2020. 10.1002/ijgo.13553 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Malta DC, Santos MAS, Stopa SR, Vieira JEB, Melo EA, dos Reis AAC. Family Health Strategy Coverage in Brazil, according to the National Health Survey, 2013. Cien Saude Colet. 2016;21: 327–338. 10.1590/1413-81232015212.23602015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Ribeiro WA, Andrade M, Fassarella BPA, Santana PPC, Coutinho VVA, Oliveira LS, et al. Análise das amostras insatisfatórias do exame citopatológico do colo do útero nas regiões brasileiras: um estudo retrospectivo. Revista Pró-UniverSUS. 2018;9: 53–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Vasconcelos CTM, Cunha D de FF, Coelho CF, Pinheiro AKB, Sawada NO. Factors related to failure to attend the consultation to receive the results of the Pap smear test. Rev Lat Am Enfermagem. 2014;22: 401–407. 10.1590/0104-1169.3132.2430 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Viscondi JYK. Análise de custo-efetividade de estratégias de rastreamento do câncer do colo do útero no Brasil. Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo; 2017. Available: https://teses.usp.br/teses/disponiveis/5/5137/tde-20022018-091434/publico/JulianaYukariKodairaViscondiVersaoCorrigida.pdf [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Myers ER, McCrory DC, Nanda K, Bastian L, Matchar DB. Mathematical model for the natural history of human papillomavirus infection and cervical carcinogenesis. Am J Epidemiol. 2000;151: 1158–1171. 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a010166 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Ribeiro RA, Neyeloff JL, Itria A, Santos VCC, Vianna CM de M, da Silva EN, et al. Diretriz metodológica para estudos de avaliação econômica de tecnologias em saúde no Brasil. J bras econ saúde (Impr). 2017; 174–184. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Levi JE, Martins TR, Longatto-Filho A, Cohen DD, Cury L, Fuza LM, et al. High-Risk HPV Testing in Primary Screening for Cervical Cancer in the Public Health System, São Paulo, Brazil. Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2019;12: 539–546. 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-19-0076 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Silva MT, Caicedo Roa M, Galvao TF. Health-related quality of life in the Brazilian Amazon: a population-based cross-sectional study. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2017;15: 159. 10.1186/s12955-017-0734-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Goldie SJ, Kohli M, Grima D, Weinstein MC, Wright TC, Bosch FX, et al. Projected clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness of a human papillomavirus 16/18 vaccine. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004;96: 604–615. 10.1093/jnci/djh104 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Brazil, Ministry of Health. SIGTAP—Sistema de Gerenciamento da Tabela de Procedimentos, Medicamentos e OPM do SUS. 2020. Available: http://sigtap.datasus.gov.br/tabela-unificada/app/sec/inicio.jsp
  • 38.Brazil, Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics. Produto Interno Bruto—PIB | IBGE. [cited 24 Nov 2020]. Available: https://www.ibge.gov.br/explica/pib.php
  • 39.World Health Organization. WHO | WHO-CHOICE. In: WHO [Internet]. World Health Organization; 2020. Available: https://www.who.int/choice/cost-effectiveness/en/ [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Bains I, Choi YH, Soldan K, Jit M. Clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of primary cytology versus human papillomavirus testing for cervical cancer screening in England. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2019. 10.1136/ijgc-2018-000161 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Mendes D, Bains I, Vanni T, Jit M. Systematic review of model-based cervical screening evaluations. BMC Cancer. 2015;15: 334. 10.1186/s12885-015-1332-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Vale DB, Sauvaget C, Muwonge R, Thuler LCS, Basu P, Zeferino LC, et al. Level of human development is associated with cervical cancer stage at diagnosis. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2018; 1–5. 10.1080/01443615.2018.1463976 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Peirson L, Fitzpatrick-Lewis D, Ciliska D, Warren R. Screening for cervical cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Syst Rev. 2013;2: 35. 10.1186/2046-4053-2-35 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Luca Giannella

19 Mar 2021

PONE-D-21-05775

Is the HPV-test more cost-effective than cytology in cervical cancer screening? An economic analysis from a middle-income country

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Vale,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 03 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Luca Giannella

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Competing Interests section:

"This project is funded by UNICAMP (Women's Hospital), Indaiatuba City (SUS), and Roche Diagnostics, as detailed below: This study proposal (screening program implementation and cost-effectiveness analyses) was designed by researchers from UNICAMP and introduced by the Indaiatuba City Hall. Both UNICAMP and the municipality use the existing and functioning structure to place the new screening program and carry out the proposed study at no additional cost. The supplies and equipment required to perform HPV testing (for one round in five years), computer system development support, two lab technicians, and a screening program coordinator are provided or supported by Roche Diagnostics. Roche Diagnostics supports an external statistician defined by researchers to develop a model and perform the planned cost-effectiveness analyses. There are no planned compensations or cash transfers provided to any institution or researchers stated in the parties' cooperation agreement."

We note that you received funding from a commercial source: Roche Diagnostics.

Please provide an amended Competing Interests Statement that explicitly states this commercial funder, along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, marketed products, etc.

Within this Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests).  If there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include your amended Competing Interests Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

3. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thank you for the opportunity to read this paper. This issue is of great interest for implementation in a country like Brazil. The cost-effectiveness analysis of screening strategies of the most prevalent gynecological cancer in Brazil is extremely relevant.

I would like to express some comments and make some questions. Their are small corrections and suggestions for the text.

1) The test used includes the analysis of which hrHPV? Only 16/18? In the different states of Brazil, we know that the prevalence of HPV types is different and, depending on the analysis, it could eventually impair the analysis.

2) Line 93: I believe that you meant from 30 years old and not until 30 years old.

3) The sentence: "HPV vaccination in Brazil started in 2014, and the first cohort of vaccinated girls will not reach the age of screening until 2026." is out of context in my point of view.

4) The paragraph of line 100 could be omitted and references should only be cited when necessary.

5) In several parts of the text, the FIGO classification is written in Arabic numbers and I believe that Roman numbers would be better even to avoid confusing the reading of CIN 2/3.

6) In line 160 there is an extra comma.

7) In the paragraph of line 166, you mentioned that QUALY is a two-dimensional measure and that it varies between zero and one. Based on this afirmation, could you better explain the data in Table 3, please?

8) Line 229, it was not clear which was the value of willingness to pay for the new proposition.

9) In your opinion, the hrHPV test is the best strategy for Brazil?

I wait for your considerations. Thank you so much.

Reviewer #2: Dear authors,

I think you need to clarify deeply the clinically validated HPV assays that you used. Moreover, a clear and sound explanation with results/facts from the population studied about the effectiveness/detection of precursor lesions/ difference in morbidity and mortality in support of HPV testing.

Data should be made available.

The cost-effectiveness should be made obvious.

Reviewer #3: In this article, the authors discussed screening methods for precancerous lesions of cervical cancer. In particular, They were considering cost-effectiveness in low-income and middle-income countries.

I think it is very informative and interesting. It is well accepted without any particular indication. I think it is suitable and acceptable for this journal.

I don't have much to point out, so I don't feel the need for correction. The strengths and limitations are also well considered.

It's close to what has already been reported, but I think it's a great treatise that reflects the realities of the region rather than novelty.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 May 14;16(5):e0251688. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0251688.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


21 Apr 2021

Response to the Editor

Dear editor,

I have made some changes marked at cover letter upon your request.

Best regards,

DBV.

Response to Reviewers

Reviewer #1:

1. The test used includes the analysis of which hrHPV? Only 16/18? In the different states of Brazil, we know that the prevalence of HPV types is different and, depending on the analysis, it could eventually impair the analysis.

R: The test used is the Cobas® HPV Test (Roche Molecular Systems, Pleasanton, CA) that provides HPV 16 and HPV 18 genotyping and pooled 12-other hrHPV (types 31, 33, 35, 39, 45, 51, 52, 56, 58, 59, 66 and 68). HPV16 and 18 predominate in all places in the world, including in different Brazilian regions. After 30 months of the Indaiatuba program, preliminary results exhibited 173 HSIL/AIS detected with 59% related to HPV16 and/or 18 (expected 50%). Among 17 cervical cancer detected, 76% were related to HPV16 and/or 18 (expected 70%). The performance of the chosen test was higher than expected, and we believe that the possible low differences in the HPV type distribution by region are not a relevant concern.

We added some information about the program and the HPV test considered:

Lines 85-86: In 2017 Indaiatuba adopted the hrHPV test to replace cytology in cervical cancer screening. A detailed description of the program was previously published by Teixeira and colleagues [18]. In summary, the hrHPV test chosen provides individual results on the highest risk genotypes - HPV 16 and HPV 18 - and an aggregated results on the twelve other hr-HPV genotypes (types 31, 33, 35, 39, 45, 51, 52, 56, 58, 59, 66 and 68). The negative test indicates a repetition in five years.

Lines 300-302: The policymakers of Indaiatuba choose to use a widely licensed hrHPV testing with genotyping HPV16 and 18 to increasing specificity in youngers and apply to all target women, arguing that keeping both logistics (cytology and hrHPV test) would be confusing and costly.

2. Line 93: I believe that you meant from 30 years old and not until 30 years old.

R: Corrected in the text.

3. The sentence: "HPV vaccination in Brazil started in 2014, and the first cohort of vaccinated girls will not reach the age of screening until 2026." is out of context in my point of view.

R: Removed from the text.

4. The paragraph of line 100 could be omitted and references should only be cited when necessary.

R: Removed from the text.

5. In several parts of the text, the FIGO classification is written in Arabic numbers and I believe that Roman numbers would be better even to avoid confusing the reading of CIN 2/3.

R: Corrected in the text.

6. In line 160 there is an extra comma.

R: Removed from the text.

7. In the paragraph of line 166, you mentioned that QUALY is a two-dimensional measure and that it varies between zero and one. Based on this afirmation, could you better explain the data in Table 3, please?

R: Added the following sentence in Results: “The values indicate the hypothetical value of how much it would have to be spent per women to add one more year in good health with the strategies proposed.”

8. Line 229, it was not clear which was the value of willingness to pay for the new proposition.

R: Added the following sentence: “…negative ICER of US$ 37.87 in the cytology plus hrHPV strategy and of US$ 6.16 in the hrHPV strategy, for a thereshold of US$ 6,317.00. “

9. In your opinion, the hrHPV test is the best strategy for Brazil?

R: Added the following sentence in the conclusion: “…we believe that the single hrHPV strategy should be recommended, avoiding logistics challenges regarding a hybrid strategy.”

Reviewer #2:

1. I think you need to clarify deeply the clinically validated HPV assays that you used. Moreover, a clear and sound explanation with results/facts from the population studied about the effectiveness/detection of precursor lesions/ difference in morbidity and mortality in support of HPV testing.

R: Dear reviewer. We appreciate and agree that the clinical results are extremely important, and we are drafting another publication in this issue. The final analysis is still not ready. However, this is not the objective of this study. This paper aims to report the economic analysis of cost-effectiveness by the public health system's perspective. This is the research question at the moment in Brazil regarding cervical cancer; that is why we are focusing on the publication of these results.

2. Data should be made available.

R: We appreciate your recommendation and created a repository with the files: www.doi.org/10.17605/osf.io/f3ygd

3. The cost-effectiveness should be made obvious.

R: This feedback is essential, and it is in line with some of the comments of “Reviewer #1”. We added some sentences expecting to improve the writing to make this question clear: 1) R: Added the following sentence in Results: “The values indicate the hypothetical value of how much it would have to be spent per women to add one more year in good health with the strategies proposed.”; 2) R: Added the following sentence: “… negative ICER of US$ 37.87 in the cytology plus hrHPV strategy and of US$ 6.16 in the hrHPV strategy, for a thereshold of US$ 6,317.00.”; 3) R: Added the following sentence in the conclusion: “…we believe that the single hrHPV strategy should be recommended, avoiding logistics challenges regarding a hybrid strategy.”

Reviewer #3:

I think it is very informative and interesting. It is well accepted without any particular indication. I think it is suitable and acceptable for this journal.

I don't have much to point out, so I don't feel the need for correction. The strengths and limitations are also well considered.

R: We really appreciate your comments and sincerely expect that our results will be informative to support decisions regarding screening in Brazil and other middle-income countries.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Indaiatuba_ResponseReviewers_PO.docx

Decision Letter 1

Luca Giannella

3 May 2021

Is the HPV-test more cost-effective than cytology in cervical cancer screening? An economic analysis from a middle-income country

PONE-D-21-05775R1

Dear Dr. Vale,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Luca Giannella

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Luca Giannella

6 May 2021

PONE-D-21-05775R1

Is the HPV-test more cost-effective than cytology in cervical cancer screening? An economic analysis from a middle-income country

Dear Dr. Vale:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Luca Giannella

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Indaiatuba_ResponseReviewers_PO.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    The data underlying this study are available on Dryad (www.doi.org/10.17605/osf.io/f3ygd).


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES