Background Cervical cancer (CaCx) remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality, especially among women in sub-Saharan Africa, where only 15% of women have undergone screening. To address these substantial screening gaps, the WHO recommends human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA detection as the primary screening method. One strategy to improve screening coverage is the use of limited HPV genotype target tests which can be offered as true point-of-care (POC) tests. However, understanding the conditions under which limited-genotype tests can compete with existing full genotype testing remains a barrier to their development and adoption. We explored the trade-offs between accessibility, retention, costs, and test performance to inform the development of new POC limited-genotype tests.

Methods We developed a once-off HPV screening model to investigate the potential use-cases and required specifications of limited-target POC tests. We estimated the proportion of cases of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2+ (CIN2+) and the testing costs per case identified for three scenarios: (1) limited-genotype tests alone, (2) full-genotype tests, and (3) limited-genotype rule-in tests followed by full-genotype testing for those screening negative. We compared screening program performance across ranges of screening coverage, genotype target capture, loss to follow-up, and test price to identify the conditions where limited-genotype screening was non-inferior to full-genotype screening.

Results When coverage and retention following full-genotype screening were high, limited-genotype tests were only competitive at a very low cost. However, with either modest increases (≥5%) in screening coverage or higher loss to follow-up after full-genotype screening (≥19.8%), an 8-target limited-genotype test could identify the same number of CIN2+ cases as full-genotype screening, but must cost <US$8.50 to be cost-equivalent. Adding full-genotype testing following a rule-in 4-target test would be as effective as full-genotype screening in the number of CIN2+ cases identified; the limited-genotype test must cost <US$2.20 to be cost-equivalent.

Conclusions Our modeling supports screening with an 8-target limited-genotype HPV POC test priced at <US$8.50 for cost-equivalence with full-genotype screening. A rule-in 4-target test will be cost-equivalent if priced at <US$2.20. These insights can enhance CaCx screening access and support the goal of eliminating CaCx in sub-Saharan Africa.

The authors have declared no competing interest.

With support from Canada's Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development (DFATD)

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes