Emily A Burger1, Megan A Smith2, James Killen3, Stephen Sy4, Kate T Simms2, Karen Canfell5, Jane J Kim4. 1. Harvard T H Chan School of Public Health, Center for Health Decision Science, Boston, MA, USA; Department of Health Management and Health Economics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway. Electronic address: eburger@hsph.harvard.edu. 2. Cancer Research Division, Cancer Council NSW, Sydney NSW, Australia; School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 3. Cancer Research Division, Cancer Council NSW, Sydney NSW, Australia. 4. Harvard T H Chan School of Public Health, Center for Health Decision Science, Boston, MA, USA. 5. Cancer Research Division, Cancer Council NSW, Sydney NSW, Australia; School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Prince of Wales Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In May, 2018, the Director-General of WHO issued a global call to eliminate cervical cancer as a public health problem, which will involve ambitious screening and vaccination coverage targets. We aimed to assess the potential for, and timing of, cervical cancer elimination in the USA and whether this could be expedited by adopting ambitious coverage targets, using two cervical cancer simulation models. METHODS: In this modelling study, we used two independently-developed cervical cancer microsimulation models-Harvard and Policy1-Cervix-to estimate changes in the incidence of human papillomavirus (HPV)-induced cervical cancer over time in the USA, including herd effects from vaccination. We compared nine alternative scenarios for prophylactic HPV vaccination and cervical screening scale-up with a status quo scenario that involved no additional interventions in the context of a threshold for cervical cancer elimination of four or fewer cases per 100 000 women-years. We also estimated the number of cervical cancer cases that could be averted between 2019 and 2100 associated with the adoption of ambitious goals for cervical cancer screening and vaccination coverage, and other potential strategies. FINDINGS: Under status quo assumptions, the Havard and Policy1-Cervix models projected that cervical cancer incidence would decrease to less than four or fewer new cases per 100 000 women-years by the 2038 and 2046, respectively. Scaling up screening coverage to 90% in 2020, was the most effective intervention to expedite time to elimination (10-13-year reduction), averting a mean of 1400-2088 additional cases annually between 2019 and 2100. Increasing HPV vaccination coverage to 90% or vaccinating adults aged 26-45 years had relatively little effect on cervical cancer incidence. Sensitivity analysis using different population structures resulted in differences in time to elimination (range -10 years to +27 years) compared with status quo predictions. INTERPRETATION: The USA is on track to eliminate cervical cancer as a public health problem in the next two to three decades. Time to elimination could be expedited by 10-13 years by achieving higher screening coverage. Targeting of underscreened and under-vaccinated women remains key to achieving cervical cancer elimination for all women. FUNDING: US National Cancer Institute.
BACKGROUND: In May, 2018, the Director-General of WHO issued a global call to eliminate cervical cancer as a public health problem, which will involve ambitious screening and vaccination coverage targets. We aimed to assess the potential for, and timing of, cervical cancer elimination in the USA and whether this could be expedited by adopting ambitious coverage targets, using two cervical cancer simulation models. METHODS: In this modelling study, we used two independently-developed cervical cancer microsimulation models-Harvard and Policy1-Cervix-to estimate changes in the incidence of human papillomavirus (HPV)-induced cervical cancer over time in the USA, including herd effects from vaccination. We compared nine alternative scenarios for prophylactic HPV vaccination and cervical screening scale-up with a status quo scenario that involved no additional interventions in the context of a threshold for cervical cancer elimination of four or fewer cases per 100 000 women-years. We also estimated the number of cervical cancer cases that could be averted between 2019 and 2100 associated with the adoption of ambitious goals for cervical cancer screening and vaccination coverage, and other potential strategies. FINDINGS: Under status quo assumptions, the Havard and Policy1-Cervix models projected that cervical cancer incidence would decrease to less than four or fewer new cases per 100 000 women-years by the 2038 and 2046, respectively. Scaling up screening coverage to 90% in 2020, was the most effective intervention to expedite time to elimination (10-13-year reduction), averting a mean of 1400-2088 additional cases annually between 2019 and 2100. Increasing HPV vaccination coverage to 90% or vaccinating adults aged 26-45 years had relatively little effect on cervical cancer incidence. Sensitivity analysis using different population structures resulted in differences in time to elimination (range -10 years to +27 years) compared with status quo predictions. INTERPRETATION: The USA is on track to eliminate cervical cancer as a public health problem in the next two to three decades. Time to elimination could be expedited by 10-13 years by achieving higher screening coverage. Targeting of underscreened and under-vaccinated women remains key to achieving cervical cancer elimination for all women. FUNDING: US National Cancer Institute.
Authors: Cosette M Wheeler; William C Hunt; Jack Cuzick; Erika Langsfeld; Amanda Pearse; George D Montoya; Michael Robertson; Catherine A Shearman; Philip E Castle Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2012-06-20 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Jie-Bin Lew; Kate T Simms; Megan A Smith; Michaela Hall; Yoon-Jung Kang; Xiang Ming Xu; Michael Caruana; Louiza Sofia Velentzis; Tracey Bessell; Marion Saville; Ian Hammond; Karen Canfell Journal: Lancet Public Health Date: 2017-02-07
Authors: Jennifer S Smith; Noel T Brewer; Debbie Saslow; Kenneth Alexander; Mildred R Chernofsky; Richard Crosby; Libby Derting; Leah Devlin; Charles J Dunton; Jeffrey Engle; Maria Fernandez; Mona Fouad; Warner Huh; Walter Kinney; Jennifer Pierce; Elena Rios; Mitchel C Rothholz; Judith C Shlay; Rivienne Shedd-Steele; Sally W Vernon; Joan Walker; Theresa Wynn; Gregory D Zimet; Baretta R Casey Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2013-07-05 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Kate T Simms; Megan A Smith; Jie-Bin Lew; Henry C Kitchener; Philip E Castle; Karen Canfell Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2016-12-15 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Michaela T Hall; Kate T Simms; Jie-Bin Lew; Megan A Smith; Julia Ml Brotherton; Marion Saville; Ian H Frazer; Karen Canfell Journal: Lancet Public Health Date: 2018-10-02
Authors: Steffie K Naber; Suzette M Matthijsse; Kirsten Rozemeijer; Corine Penning; Inge M C M de Kok; Marjolein van Ballegooijen Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-01-29 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Alison M Berner; Dean J Connolly; Imogen Pinnell; Aedan Wolton; Adriana MacNaughton; Chloe Challen; Kate Nambiar; Jacob Bayliss; James Barrett; Christina Richards Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2021-07-29 Impact factor: 6.302
Authors: Jennifer C Spencer; Noel T Brewer; Tamera Coyne-Beasley; Justin G Trogdon; Morris Weinberger; Stephanie B Wheeler Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2021-09-09 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Megan A Smith; Emily A Burger; Alejandra Castanon; Inge M C M de Kok; Sharon J B Hanley; Matejka Rebolj; Michaela T Hall; Erik E L Jansen; James Killen; Xavier O'Farrell; Jane J Kim; Karen Canfell Journal: Prev Med Date: 2021-05-23 Impact factor: 4.637
Authors: Emily A Burger; Erik El Jansen; James Killen; Inge McM de Kok; Megan A Smith; Stephen Sy; Niels Dunnewind; Nicole G Campos; Jennifer S Haas; Sarah Kobrin; Aruna Kamineni; Karen Canfell; Jane J Kim Journal: J Med Screen Date: 2021-03-17 Impact factor: 1.687
Authors: Susanne K Kjaer; Mari Nygård; Karin Sundström; Christian Munk; Sophie Berger; Mensur Dzabic; Katrin Elisabeth Fridrich; Marianne Waldstrøm; Sveinung Wergeland Sørbye; Oliver Bautista; Thomas Group; Alain Luxembourg Journal: Hum Vaccin Immunother Date: 2020-12-16 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Ashish A Deshmukh; Ryan Suk; Meredith S Shiels; Haluk Damgacioglu; Yueh-Yun Lin; Elizabeth A Stier; Alan G Nyitray; Elizabeth Y Chiao; Gizem S Nemutlu; Jagpreet Chhatwal; Kathleen Schmeler; Keith Sigel; Kalyani Sonawane Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2021-06-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Mariel A Oyervides-Muñoz; Antonio A Pérez-Maya; Celia N Sánchez-Domínguez; Anais Berlanga-Garza; Mauro Antonio-Macedo; Lezmes D Valdéz-Chapa; Ricardo M Cerda-Flores; Victor Trevino; Hugo A Barrera-Saldaña; María L Garza-Rodríguez Journal: Viruses Date: 2020-03-31 Impact factor: 5.048