Section 5 -

Screening in Developing Nations Stephen S. Raab University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine Department of Pathology Pittsburgh , PA USA

Cervical cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death among women in developing nations, where more than 80% of new cases of cancer occur. The impact of this disease is likely to increase over time. On a global scale, cervical cancer is probably the most preventable form of cancer related deaths in women. In 1947, prior ot the widespread introduction of Pap test screening, the incidence rate of invasive cervical cancer in the United States was 44 per 100,000, which is similar to cervical cancer incidence rates reported for many developing nations today. By 1996 in the United States , the incidence rates of invasive cervical cancer had declined to 7.5 per 100,000. Similar remarkable reductions have been achieved in other industrialized nations. However, it is estimated that fewer than 5% of women in developing nations have ever received a Pap test. Hakama et al and Womack et al reported that the disproportionate burden of cervical cancer in developing nations is due largely to the absence of well-organized screening programs. In many developing nations, health care resources for cytologic screening programs compete for funding with other healthcare problems. Alternatives to Pap testing also are advocated and include visual screening, human papillomavirus testing (HPV) DNA testing, and HPV vaccines. Suba et al and Miller argued that past failures of Pap testing screening in developing nations were most likely secondary to failures in achieving adequate quality in programmatic components rather than technological failures. Sociopolitical obstacles limit effective screening practices. Currently, using Pap test screening in developing nations is controversial and debate frequently centers on data derived from theoretical cost effectiveness studies. Alternative to Pap testing: Visual screening . Visual screening of the cervix after application of acetic acid (referred to as direct visual inspection (DVI)) coupled with immediate cryosurgical treatment has been advocated as a point-of-care strategy in low resource settings. The single visit DVI eliminates the need for return visits and future colposcopy. The Royal Thai College of Obstetrics and Gynecology adopted the single visit DVI as a safe and acceptable policy and the single-visit DVI was recommended for immediate introduction to 54 districts in India. HPV vaccine . Infection with specific types of HPV DNA appears to be an essential step in the development of cervical cancer and its precursor lesion, squamous intraepithelial lesion (SIL). HPV DNA can be identified in more than 96% of invasive cervical cancers. Studies support the promise of effective vaccination for selected high-risk types of HPV DNA. Goldie et al reported that first generation vaccines will target young adolescents and it will take several decades to determine the effect of these vaccines on cervical cancer mortality rates. As some of the currently available vaccines target only several types of oncogenic HPV, a combination of screening and vaccination will be required. Mahoney and Maynard reported that even if vaccines are available, it could take up to 20 to 30 years for individuals in developing nations to have access to the vaccine. Suba et al and Kulasingam and Myers reported that the use of vaccines could result in more, rather than less, cervical cancer screening. However, many individuals believe that the future prevention of cervical cancer depends on the rapid and effective development of HPV vaccines. HPV DNA testing . Highly sensitive HPV DNA tests offer the potential replacement of conventional cytologic screening in settings where the cytologic screening programs have not been successful or have not been fully introduced. There are several methods of HPV testing. These methods include Hybrid Capture II, in situ hybridization, ligase chain reaction, Southern blot hybridization, and polymerase chain reaction. Each method has its advantages and disadvantages. Studies in developing nations has mainly focused on the use of Hybrid Capture II although labs in developing nations have the technology to develop polymerase chain reaction tests. These tests will have variable quality control and subsequent performance characterizes in HPV DNA detection and cervical cancer prevention. Analyses of cervical screening practices. Studies examining the introduction of cervical cancer screening services generally have examined practices in specific developing nations and it must be remembered that there are wide differences of cultures, infrastructures, and practices that effect adoption, success, and dissemination. Thus, cost effectiveness studies performed in one developing nation may not be applicable to other nations. Suba et al reported on the establishment and cost effectiveness of Pap test screening in the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam. The authors obtained their data from time motion studies based on actual personnel costs in Viet Nam. Suba et al argued that the cost per woman screened to establish cervical cancer prevention services was less than $0.53 USD. Suba et al argued that the assumed costs in other cost effectiveness studies comparing the costs of Pap test screening to other methods of screening (HPV DNA testing or DVI) artificially assumed high Pap testing costs that biased those studies against conventional Pap testing. For example, Mandleblatt et al assumed the reported Pap test cost of $7.50 USD for establishing services in Thailand although the mean country specific income was $1,970 USD. In contrast, the mean country specific income in Viet Nam was $410 USD. Similarly, Robyr et al reported that the cost of a Pap test in Cameroon was $13 and the mean country specific income was $570 USD. In the analysis of establishing Pap test services, Suba et al categorized costs with regard to personnel salaries, disposable supplies, equipment, space and overhead. Clearly, sensitivity analyses would indicate that if the cost of the Pap test were considerably higher, then the cost per women of cervical cancer prevention would escalate. Difficulties in establishing Pap test screening services depend on establishing a cytologic infrastructure including the creation of labs that could handle testing services. Suba et al argued for centralized lab processes in which all Pap tests would be sent to regional labs. A second challenge was in establishing return visit services following interpretation of Pap test results. Some authors have argued that return visits are impractical in some low resource settings and in some cultures. In studying a South African population, Denny et al argued that DVI approaches were safe and resulted in a lower prevalence of high grade cancer precursor lesions compared with delayed evaluation. Goldie et al reported that DVI or HPV DNA testing in one or two visits were a cost effective alternative to conventional three-visit cytology based screening programs in low resource settings. In the study by Goldie et al, HPV DNA testing was performed using Hybrid Capture II (Digene); the authors also considered a combined strategy in which visual inspection was followed a positive HPV DNA test. The authors considered that a three-visit strategy consisted of an initial screening test, colposcopy and biopsy in the case of positive results, and treatment of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. A two-visit strategy consisted of initial screening followed by treatment, without colposcopic evaluation, of all women with positive screening results. One-day screening incorporated same-day screening and treatment with positive screening results. Goldie et al reported that screening women once in a lifetime, at the age of 35 years, with one or two visit strategies, reduced the lifetime risk of cervical cancer by 25 to 36 percent and cost less than $500 per year of life saved. These studies clearly indicate that experts disagree on the most cost effective method of reducing cervical cancer in the developing world and some studies indicate that gynecologic cytologic services should not be further developed. Other studies conclude the opposite. The choice of cervical cancer screening depends only partly on these cost effective studies and also is affected by global public policies and resource allocation. References Brown AD, Raab SS, Suba EJ, Wright RG. Cost-effectiveness studies on cervical cancer. International consensus conference on the fight against cervical cancer, IAC Task Force 15 Summary, Chicago, Illinois, USA. Acta Cytol 2001;45:509-514. Suba EJ, Raab SS on behalf of the Viet/American Cervical Cancer Prevention Project. Papanicolaou screening in developing countries. An idea whose time has come. Am J Clin Pathol 2004;121:315-320. Koutsky LA, Ault KA, Wheeler CM, et al. A controlled trial of a human papillomavirus type 16 vaccine. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:1645-1651. Lowy DR, Schiller JT. Papillomaviruses: prophylactic vaccine prospects. Biochim Biophys Acta. 1998;1423:M1-M8. Nardelli-Haefliger D, Wirthner D, Schiller JT, et al. Specific antibody levels at the cervix during the menstrual cycle of women vaccinated with human papillomavirus 16 virus-like particles. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003;95:1128-1137. Sherman ME, Schiffman MH, Strickler H, et al. Prospects for a prophylactic HPV vaccine: rationale and future implications for cervical cancer screening. Diagn Cytopathol. 1998;18:5-9. Kulasingham SL, Myers ER. Potential health and economic impact of adding a human papillomavirus vaccine to screening programs. JAMA. 2003;290:781-789. Mahoney RT, Maynard JE. The introduction of new vaccines into developing countries. Vaccine. 1999;17:646-652. Parkin DM, Whelan SL. Ferlay J, et al. Cancer incidence in five continents. Vol VII. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 1997. IARC Scientific Publication 143. Stewart BW, Kleihues P, eds. Global Cancer Report. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2003. Miller AB. Quality assurance in screening strategies. Review. Virus Res. 2002;89:295-299. Hartmann KE, Nanda K. Hall S, et al. Technologic advances for evaluation orf cervical cytology: is newer better? Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2001;56:765-774. Screening for cervical cancer: file inventory, systematic evidence review Number 25. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2002. Available at: http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/prev/crvcainv.htm. Accessed December 14, 2003. Suba EJ, Hung NC, Duc NB, on behalf of the Viet/American Cervical Cancer Prevention Project. Do novo establishment and cost-effectiveness of Papanicolaou cytology screening services in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Cancer. 2001;91:928-939. Denny L, Kuhn L, Pollack A, et al. Direct visual inspection for cervical cancer screening. Cancer. 2002;94:1699-1707. Womack SD, Chirenje ZM, Blumenthal PD, et al. Evaluation of a human papillomavirus assay in cervical screening in Zimbabwe. F=BJOG. 2000;107:33-38. Kuhn L, Denny L, Pollack A. et al. Human papillomavirus DNA testing for cervical cancer screening in low-resource settings. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92:818-825. Goldie SJ, Kuhn L, Denny L, et al. Policy analysis of cervical cancer screening strategies in low-resource settings: clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness. JAMA. 2001;285:3107-3115. Mandelblatt JS, Lawrence WF, Gaffikin L, et al. Costs and benefits of different strategies to screen for cervical cancer in less-developed countries. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94:1469-1483. Robyr R, Nazeer S, Vassilakos P, et al. Feasibility of cytology-based cervical cancer screening in rural Cameroon. Acta Cytol. 2002;46:1110-1116. Suba EJ, Raab SS. Population-based Pap screening in Cameroon [letter]. Acta Cytol. 2003;47:948-949. The World Bank. Gross national income per capita in 2001, country-specific. Available at: http://www.worldbank.org/data/databytopic/GNIPC.pdf. Accessed April 5, 2003. Nguyen MQ, Nguyen CH, Parkin DM. Cancer incidence in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, 1995-1996. Int J Cancer 1998;76:472-479. Guzick DS. Efficacy of screening for cervical cancer: a review. Am J Public Health 1978;68:125-134. Ries LAG, Kosary CL, Hankey BF, Miller BA, Clegg L, Edwards BK, editors. SEER cancer statistics review, 1973-1996. Bethesda MD: National Cancer Institute, 1999. A WHO meeting: control of cancer of the cervix uteri. Bull World Health Organ 1986;64:607-618. Goldie SJ, Gaffikin L, Goldhaber-Fiebert JD, et al. Cost-effectiveness of cervical-cancer screening in five developing countries. N Eng J Med 2005;353:2158-2168. Koutsky LA, Ault KA, Wheeler CM, et al. A controlled trial of a human papillomavirus type 16 vaccine. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:1645-1651. Harper DM, Franco EL, Wheeler C, et al. Efficacy of a bivalent L1 virus-like particle vaccine in prevention of infection with human papillomavirus type 16 and 18 in young women: a randomized control trial. Lancet 2004;364:1757-1765. Denny L, Kuhn L, DeSouza M, Pollack AE, Dupree W, Wright Jr, TC. Screen-and-treat approaches for cervical cancer prevention in low-resource settings. A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2005;294:2173-2181. Goldie SJ, Grima D, Kohli M, et al. A comprehensive natural history model of HPV infection and cervical cancer to estimate the clinical impact of a prophylactic HPV-16/18 vaccine. Int J Cancer 2003;106:896-904. Ferenczy A. Screening techniques for cervical cancer: the next century. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 1996;2:14-21. Richard RM. Screening: the next century. Cancer. 1995;76:1919-1927. Wright TC Jr, Cox JT, Massad OLS, Twiggs LB, Wilkinson EJ. 2001 consensus guidelines for the management of women with cervical cytological abnormalities. JAMA 2002;287:2120-2129. Gaffikin L, Blumenthal PD, Emerson M, Limpaphayom K. Safety, acceptability, and feasibility of a single-visit approach to cervical-cancer prevention in rural Thailand: a demonstration project. Lancet. 2003;361:814-820. Jha P, Mills A, Hanson K, et al. Improving the health of the global poor. Science. 2002;295:2036-2039. Sankaranarayanan R,l Basu P, Wesley RS, et al. Accuracy of visual screening for cervical neoplasia: results from an IARC multicentre study in India and Africa. Int J Cancer. 2004;110:907-913. Raab SS. Human Papillomavirus reporting. Impact on Bethesda cytology reports. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2003;127:969-972.