African Region (AFR)
Objective: To estimate the financial and economic costs and the cost–effectiveness of thermal ablation compared to cryotherapy and loop diathermy within a screen-and-treat approach to cervical cancer screening in Zambia.
Methods: We analysed costs within a randomized controlled trial in which women eligible for ablative treatment after cervical cancer screening were assigned to one of three treatment arms: thermal ablation, cryotherapy or loop diathermy. We used a microcosting approach to calculate programme, personnel, equipment and consumable costs for two groups: women treated without follow-up (screened-and-treated) and women who completed follow-up (follow-up-completed). We also estimated trial costs and projected costs if the screen-and-treat approach were to be integrated into routine cervical cancer services. To assess how cost-effective the treatments were, we used a decision tree model.
Findings: Out of the 3124 women who were screened-and-treated, 2386 (76.4%) completed follow-up. In the trial scenario, costs for thermal ablation were lower than cryotherapy and loop diathermy, both per screened-and-treated woman (39.6 United States dollars (US$) versus US$ 42.3 and US$ 50.6, respectively) and per follow-up-completed woman (US$ 55.1 versus US$ 57.9 and US$ 66.2, respectively). In the routine scenario, costs for thermal ablation were also lower than for other treatments (US$ 12.7 versus US$ 15.6 and US$ 34.9, respectively, for screen-and-treat) due to significantly lower personnel costs. Thermal ablation was cost-effective compared to cryotherapy and loop diathermy.
Conclusion: Our study suggests that thermal ablation is a cost-effective option for the screen-and-treat approach to cervical cancer screening compared with cryotherapy and loop diathermy.