From: Modeling optimal cervical cancer prevention strategies in Nigeria
Sensitivity analyses scenarios | 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 | 6.2 (-64%) | 6.0 (-66%) | 11.4 (-35%) |
Prevention cost plus 20% and CIN treatment costs plus 1 SD | 6.2 (-64%) | 5.9 (-66%) | 11.4 (-35%) |
Prevention costs minus 20% and CIN treatment costs minus 1 SD | 6.2 (-64%) | 6.1 (-65%) | 11.4 (-35%) |
CC treatment costs plus 1 SD | 6.2 (-64%) | 5.9 (-66%) | 11.4 (-35%) |
CC treatment costs minus 1 SD | 6.2 (-64%) | 6.3 (-64%) | 11.4 (-35%) |
Allow scenarios with two lifetime screenings | 6.1 (-65%) | 6.0 (-66%) | 11.2 (-36%) |
Allow scenarios with two or three lifetime screenings | 5.9 (-66%) | 6.0 (-66%) | 11.1 (-37%) |
Screening using HPV test | 6.2 (-65%) | 5.8 (-67%) | 11.3 (-35%) |
Vaccine duration of protection = 25 years, vaccine efficacy reduced by 20% | 7.3 (-58%) | 7.1 (-59%) | 12.0 (-31%) |
Alternative scenario (2 doses) * | Â | Â | Â |
Base case—mean treatment costs and one lifetime screening | 6.2 (-64%) | 5.9 (-66%) | 11.4 (-35%) |
Prevention cost plus 20% and CIN treatment costs plus 1 SD | 6.2 (-64%) | 5.9 (-66%) | 11.4 (-35%) |
Prevention costs minus 20% and CIN treatment costs minus 1 SD | 6.2 (-64%) | 5.9 (-66%) | 11.4 (-35%) |
CC treatment costs plus 1 SD | 6.2 (-64%) | 5.9 (-66%) | 11.4 (-35%) |
CC treatment costs minus 1 SD | 6.2 (-64%) | 5.9 (-66%) | 11.4 (-35%) |
Allow scenarios with two lifetime screenings | 6.1 (-65%) | 5.5 (-68%) | 11.2 (-36%) |
Allow scenarios with two or three lifetime screenings | 5.9 (-66%) | 5.3 (-70%) | 11.1 (-37%) |
Screening using HPV test | 6.2 (-65%) | 5.8 (-67%) | 11.3 (-35%) |
Vaccine duration of protection = 25 years, vaccine efficacy reduced by 20% | 8.1 (-54%) | 7.7 (-56%) | 12.3 (-29%) |