Cancer screening programs in South-east Asia and Western Pacific.

BACKGROUND: The burden of cancer can be altered by screening. The field of cancer screening is constantly evolving; from the initiation of program for new cancer types as well as exploring innovative screening strategies (e.g. new screening tests). The aim of this study was to perform a landscape analysis of existing cancer screening programs in South-East Asia and the Western Pacific. METHODS: We conducted an overview of cancer screening in the region with the goal of summarizing current designs of cancer screening programs. First, a selective narrative literature review was used as an exploration to identify countries with organized screening programs. Second, representatives of each country with an organized program were approached and asked to provide relevant information on the organizations of their national or regional cancer screening program. RESULTS: There was wide variation in the screening strategies offered in the considered region with only eight programs identified as having an organized design. The majority of these programs did not meet all the essential criteria for being organized screening. The greatest variation was observed in the starting and stopping ages. CONCLUSIONS: Essential criteria of organized screening are missed. Improving organization is crucial to ensure that the beneficial effects of screening are achieved in the long-term. It is strongly recommended to consider a regional cancer screening network.

Correction: Chua et al. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of HPV Extended versus Partial Genotyping for Cervical Cancer Screening in Singapore. Cancers 2023, 15, 1812.

The authors wish to revise two words in Table 1 row 3, and the first paragraph of Section 2 [...].

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of HPV Extended versus Partial Genotyping for Cervical Cancer Screening in Singapore.

Human papillomavirus (HPV) partial genotyping (PGT) identifies HPV16 and HPV18 individually, alongside 12 other high-risk HPV genotypes (hrHPV) collectively. HPV extended genotyping (XGT) identifies four additional hrHPV individually (HPV31, 45, 51, and 52), and reports the remaining eight in three groups (HPV33|58; 56|59|66; 35|39|68). Quality-adjusted life years (QALY), health care resource use, and costs of XGT were compared to PGT for cervical cancer screening in Singapore using DICE simulation. Women with one of the three hrHPV identified by XGT (HPV35|39|68; 56|59|66; 51), and atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS) on cytology, are recalled for a repeat screening in one year, instead of undergoing an immediate colposcopy with PGT. At the repeat screening, the colposcopy is performed only for persistent same-genotype infections in XGT, while with PGT, all the women with persistent HPV have a colposcopy. Screening 500,122 women, aged 30-69, with XGT, provided an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) versus PGT of SGD 16,370/QALY, with 7130 (19.4%) fewer colposcopies, 6027 (7.0%) fewer cytology tests, 9787 (1.6%) fewer clinic consultations, yet 2446 (0.5%) more HPV tests. The XGT ICER remains well below SGD 100,000 in sensitivity analyses, (-SGD 17,736/QALY to SGD 50,474/QALY). XGT is cost-effective compared to PGT, utilizes fewer resources, and provides a risk-based approach as the primary cervical cancer screening method.

Health care provider's experience and perspective of cervical cancer screening in Singapore: A qualitative study.

Background: In Singapore, the current cervical cancer screening (CCS) coverage rate of 48% falls below the national target of 70%. Health care providers (HCPs) play a critical role in promoting CCS uptake. However, there is limited understanding of the perspectives of HCPs regarding CCS. Hence, we aimed to understand the challenges encountered by HCPs delivering CCS in different care settings in the Singapore health system. We also aimed to explore perspectives on newer features of CCS such as self-sampling and HPV genotyping. Methods: Physicians, nurses, program administrators and laboratory technicians involved with CCS were invited for a one-on-one semi-structured interview conducted over Zoom between May to August 2021. The interviews were transcribed and analyzed using thematic analysis. Results: Eighteen HCPs from 12 institutions were interviewed. Most participants were women (61.1%) and worked in public health institutions (72.2%). For factors influencing CCS, nine key themes were identified and organized into four categories: (1) patient factors, (2) HCP factors, (3) health system factors and (4) health promotion factors. Key themes commonly highlighted by study participants were related to patients' preferences and acceptance for screening, the processes of delivering CCS, the national priority for cervical cancer and the effectiveness of existing health promotion efforts. Five key themes were identified for CCS innovations. Self-sampling was viewed favorably to increase CCS uptake, while primary HPV screening with HPV partial genotyping had higher sensitivities to detect pre-cancers and cancers compared to cytology. Extended HPV genotyping beyond HPV16/18 could play an important role in CCS with increasing HPV vaccination coverage, as well as in the management of persistent HPV infection. Conclusion: In Singapore, HCPs face multiple challenges for CCS in practice. Insights from this study are directly relevant to, and useful for developing policies around national CCS programs and treatment guidelines.

Barriers to and Facilitators of Cervical Cancer Screening among Women in Southeast Asia: A Systematic Review.

In Southeast Asia, cervical cancer is the second most common cancer in women. Low coverage for cervical cancer screening (CCS) becomes a roadblock to disease detection and treatment. Existing reviews on CCS have limited insights into the barriers and facilitators for SEA. Hence, this study aims to identify key barriers and facilitators among women living in SEA. A systematic literature review was conducted on Pubmed, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and SCOPUS. Primary qualitative and quantitative studies published in English that reported barriers and facilitators to CCS were included. The Mix Methods Appraisal Tool was used for the quality assessment of the included studies. Among the 93 included studies, pap smears (73.1%) were the most common screening modality. A majority of the studies were from Malaysia (35.5%). No studies were from Timor-Leste and the Philippines. The most common barriers were embarrassment (number of articles, n = 33), time constraints (n = 27), and poor knowledge of screening (n = 27). The most common facilitators were related to age (n = 21), receiving advice from healthcare workers (n = 17), and education status (n = 11). Findings from this review may inform health policy makers in developing effective cervical cancer screening programs in SEA countries.