From: Modeling optimal cervical cancer prevention strategies in Nigeria
Sensitivity analyses scenario | Screening and vaccine coverage constraints | ||
---|---|---|---|
 | 20% screening, 95% vaccination | 40% screening, 95% vaccination | 20% screening, 50% vaccination |
Base case (3 doses) | Â | Â | Â |
Base case—mean treatment costs and one lifetime screening | 12.0 (-31%) | 11.6 (-34%) | 12.1 (-31%) |
Prevention cost minus 20% and CIN treatment costs minus 1 SD | 11.6 (-34%) | 10.8 (-38%) | 12.3 (-29%) |
Prevention costs plus 20% and CIN treatment costs plus 1 SD | 12.3 (-29%) | 12.3 (-29%) | 12.1 (-31%) |
CC treatment costs minus 1 SD | 10.7 (-38%) | 10.4 (-40%) | 11.7 (-33%) |
CC treatment costs plus 1 SD | 13.5 (-23%) | 13.1 (-25%) | 13.5 (-23%) |
Allow scenarios with two lifetime screenings | 12.0 (-31%) | 11.6 (-34%) | 12.1 (-30%) |
Allow scenarios with two or three lifetime screenings | 12.0 (-31%) | 11.6 (-34%) | 12.1 (-31%) |
Screening using HPV test | 11.6 (-34%) | 10.8 (-38%) | 12.0 (-31%) |
Vaccine (3 doses) duration of protection = 25 years, vaccine efficacy reduced by 20% | 12.8 (-27%) | 12.3 (-30%) | 13.1 (-25%) |
Alternative scenario (2 doses) * | Â | Â | Â |
Base case mean treatment costs and one lifetime screening | 9.4 (-46%) | 9.4 (-46%) | 11.0 (-37%) |
Prevention cost minus 20% and CIN treatment costs minus 1 SD | 8.8 (-50%) | 8.4 (-52%) | 11.0 (-37%) |
Prevention costs plus 20% and CIN treatment costs plus 1 SD | 9.4 (-46%) | 9.4 (-46%) | 11.1 (-36%) |
CC treatment costs minus 1 SD | 7.9 (-55%) | 7.9 (-55%) | 11.0 (-37%) |
CC treatment costs plus 1 SD | 11.4 (-35%) | 11.4 (-35%) | 11.6 (-33%) |
Allow scenarios with two lifetime screenings | 9.4 (-46%) | 9.4 (-46%) | 11.0 (-37%) |
Allow scenarios with two or three lifetime screenings | 9.4 (-46%) | 9.4 (-46%) | 11.0 (-37%) |
Screening using HPV test | 8.8 (-49%) | 8.5 (-51%) | 11.3 (-35%) |
Vaccine (2 doses) duration of protection = 25 years, vaccine efficacy reduced by 20% | 10.8 (-38%) | 10.6 (-39%) | 12.3 (-29%) |