State-level disparities in cervical cancer prevention and impact on outcomes in the U.S.: A modeling study - Alarid-Escudero, Fernando; Gracia, Valeria; Wolf, Marina; Zhao, Ran; Easterly, Caleb W.; Kim, Jane J.; Canfell, Karen; de Kok, Inge M.C.M.; Barnabas, Ruanne V.; Kulasingam, Shalini (medRxiv, 2024)
Background Despite the availability of HPV vaccines for over a decade, coverage across the United States (US) is varied. While some states have made concerted efforts to increase HPV vaccination coverage, most model-based analyses have estimated vaccine impact on the US. We estimated the impact of hypothetical changes in HPV vaccination coverage at the state level for three states with varying levels of HPV vaccination coverage and cervical cancer incidence (California, New York, Texas) using a mathematical model.Methods We developed a new mathematical model of HPV transmission and cervical cancer tailored to state-level cancer incidence and mortality. We quantified the public health impact of increasing HPV vaccination coverage to 80% by 2025 or 2030 and the effect on time to elimination in the three states.Results Increasing vaccination coverage to 80% in Texas in 10 years could reduce cervical cancer incidence by 50.9% (95%-CrI: 46.6-56.1%) by 2100. In New York and California, achieving the same coverage could reduce incidence by 27.3% (95%-CrI: 23.9-31.5%) and 24.4% (95%-CrI: 20.0-30.0%), respectively. Achieving 80% coverage in 5 years will slightly increase the reduction. If 2019 vaccination coverage continues, cervical cancer elimination would be reached in the US by 2051 (95%-Crl: 2034-2064). However, the timeline by which individual states reach elimination could vary by decades.Conclusion Achieving an HPV vaccination coverage target of 80% by 2030 will benefit states with low vaccination coverage and high cervical cancer incidence the most. Our results highlight the value of more geographically focused analyses to inform priorities.Competing Interest StatementKC is co-PI of an investigator-initiated trial of cervical screening, "Compass", run by the Australian Centre for Prevention of Cervical Cancer (ACPCC), which is a government-funded not-for-profit charity. Compass receives infrastructure support from the Australian government and the ACPCC has received equipment and a funding contribution from Roche Molecular Diagnostics, USA. KC is also co-PI on a major implementation program, Elimination of Cervical Cancer in the Western Pacific, which has received support from the Minderoo Foundation and the Frazer Family Foundation and equipment donations from Cepheid Inc.Funding StatementThis work was funded by the National Institutes of Health’s National Cancer Institute as part of the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET), Grant Number U01CA253912. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. The funding agencies had no role in the design of the study’s interpretation of results or writing the manuscript. The funding agreement ensured the authors’ independence in designing the study, interpreting the data, writing, and publishing the report.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesI 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.YesI 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).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesModel outputs underpinning the analysis are available from the authors upon reasonable request.