The effectiveness of implementing HPV DNA testing in healthcare services: an integrative review
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5327/JBG-2965-3711-177Keywords:
hpv-dna tests, effectiveness, health servicesAbstract
Introduction: Cervical cancer remains among the leading causes of female morbidity and mortality, especially in socioeconomically vulnerable regions. Given technological advancements, the test for the detection of human papillomavirus deoxyribonucleic acid (HPV-DNA) has been proposed as an alternative to the Pap smear for disease screening. Objective: To understand the effectiveness of implementing HPV-DNA tests in healthcare services. Methods: This is an integrative review. The search was conducted in the PubMed, BVS, Web of Science, Scopus, and Embase databases between June and October 2025, using Boolean operators AND and OR. A total of 381 studies were identified, of which 16 met the inclusion criteria after screening by title, abstract, and full-text assessment. Results: The results show a predominance of studies conducted in developed countries, highlighting cost-effectiveness analyses and comparisons between screening strategies. The literature indicates that the HPV-DNA test presents greater sensitivity, better clinical performance, the possibility of self-collection, and a longer safe interval between screenings, making it a superior option to the Pap smear. However, studies also highlight challenges to its implementation, such as the need to reorganize services, high initial costs, and structural limitations, especially in low-income countries. Conclusion: It is concluded that, although the HPV-DNA test represents an important advance in cervical cancer screening, its effectiveness is contingent upon adequate planning, the availability of infrastructure, and the implementation of health policies adapted to the local context.
Downloads
References
1. Ministério da Saúde. Instituto Nacional de Câncer. Estimativa 2026: incidência de câncer no Brasil [Internet]. Rio de Janeiro: INCA; 2026 [acessado em 1 ago. 2026]. Disponível em: https://ninho.inca.gov.br/jspui/bitstream/123456789/17914/1/Estima2026_completo%20%281%29.pdf
2. Instituto Nacional de Câncer José Alencar Gomes da Silva. Diretrizes brasileiras para o rastreamento do câncer do colo do útero. 2. ed. rev. atual. Rio de Janeiro: INCA; 2016 [acessado em 5 nov. 2025]. Disponível em: https://www.inca.gov.br/sites/ufu.sti.inca.local/files/media/document/diretrizesparaorastreamentodocancerdocolodoutero_2016_corrigido.pdf
3. Brasil. Ministério da Saúde. Secretaria de Ciência, Tecnologia, Inovação e do Complexo Econômico-Industrial da Saúde. Testagem molecular para detecção de HPV e rastreamento do câncer do colo do útero: Relatório de Recomendação nº 878 – Conitec [Internet]. Brasília: Ministério da Saúde; 2024 [acessado em 6 nov. 2025]. Disponível em: https://www.gov.br/conitec/pt-br/midias/relatorios/2024/testagem-molecular-para-deteccao-de-hpv-e-rastreamento-do-cancer-do-colo-do-utero/view
4. Brasil. Ministério da Saúde. Diretrizes brasileiras para o rastreamento do câncer do colo do útero: Parte I – rastreamento organizado utilizando testes moleculares para detecção de DNA-HPV oncogênico [Internet]. Brasília: Ministério da Saúde; 2025 [acessado em 10 nov. 2025]. Disponível em: https://www.gov.br/saude/pt-br/assuntos/pcdt/r/rastreamento-cancer-do-colo-do-utero/view
5. Mendes KDS, Silveira RCCP, Galvão CM. Revisão integrativa: método de pesquisa para a incorporação de evidências na saúde e na enfermagem. Texto Contexto Enferm. 2008;17(4):758-64. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-07072008000400018
6. Souza MT, Silva MD, Carvalho R. Revisão integrativa: o que é e como fazer. Einstein (São Paulo). 2010;8(1):102-6. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1679-45082010RW1134
7. Organização Pan-Americana da Saúde. Por um futuro sem câncer de colo do útero: o primeiro compromisso global para eliminar um câncer [Internet]. Genebra: OPAS; 2020 [acessado em 28 jan. 2026]. Disponível em: https://www.paho.org/pt/noticias/17-11-2020-por-um-futuro-sem-cancer-colo-do-utero-primeiro-compromisso-global-para
8. Singh D, Vignat J, Lorenzoni V, Eslahi M, Ginsburg O, Lauby-Secretan B, et al. Global estimates of incidence and mortality of cervical cancer in 2020: a baseline analysis of the WHO Global Cervical Cancer Elimination Initiative. Lancet Glob Health. 2023;11(2):e197-e206. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2214-109x(22)00501-0
9. World Health Organization. Global strategy to accelerate the elimination of cervical cancer as a public health problem [Internet]. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2020 [acessado em 3 ago. 2026]. Disponível em: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240014107
10. Cooper CP, Saraiya M. Perceived effectiveness of HPV test as a primary screening modality among US providers. Prev Med. 2015;78:33-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2015.06.007
11. Terrazas S, Ibáñez C, Lagos M, Poggi H, Brañes J, Barriga MI, et al. Examen de detección de virus papiloma humano en el tamizaje de cáncer cervicouterino en un Servicio de Salud de Santiago, Chile. Rev Med Chil. 2015;143(1):56-62. http://doi.org/10.4067/S0034-98872015000100007
12. Chow IHI, Tang CH, You SL, Liao CH, Chu TY, Chen CJ, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of human papillomavirus DNA testing and Pap smear for cervical cancer screening in a publicly financed health-care system. Br J Cancer. 2010;103(12):1773-82. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6605974
13. Levin CE, Sellors J, Shi JF, Ma L, Qiao YL, Ortendahl J, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of cervical cancer prevention based on a rapid human papillomavirus screening test in a high-risk region of China. Int J Cancer. 2010;127(6):1404-11. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.25150
14. Kositamongkol C, Kanchanasurakit S, Mepramoon E, Talungchit P, Chaopotong P, Kengkla K, et al. Cost-utility and budget impact analyses of cervical cancer screening using self-collected samples for HPV DNA testing in Thailand. BMC Public Health. 2023;23(1):2413. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-17358-0
15. Van Rosmalen J, Kok IMCM, Ballegooijen MV. Cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening: cytology versus human papillomavirus DNA testing. BJOG. 2012;119(6):699-709. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2011.03228.x
16. Campos NG, Mvundura M, Jeronimo J, Holme F, Vodicka E, Kim JJ. Cost-effectiveness of HPV-based cervical cancer screening in the public health system in Nicaragua. BMJ Open. 2017;7(6):e015048. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015048
17. Bao H, Zhang Z, Bi H, Zhao Y, Fang L, Wang H, et al. How can a high-performance screening strategy be determined for cervical cancer prevention? Evidence from a hierarchical clustering analysis of a multicentric clinical study. Front Oncol. 2022;12:816789. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2022.816789
18. Georgalis L, Sanjosé S, Esnaola M, Bosch FX, Diaz M. Present and future of cervical cancer prevention in Spain: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Eur J Cancer Prev. 2016;25(5):430-9. https://doi.org/10.1097/CEJ.0000000000000202
19. Sherlaw-Johnson C, Gallivan S. The planning of cervical cancer screening programmes in eastern Europe: is viral testing a suitable alternative to smear testing? Health Care Manag Sci. 2000;3(4):323-9. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019074214801
20. Goldie SJ, Kuhn L, Denny L, Pollack A, Wright TC. Policy analysis of cervical cancer screening strategies in low-resource settings: clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness. JAMA. 2001;285(24):3107-15. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.285.24.3107
21. Zhang L, Xu XQ, Hu SY, Chen F, Zhang X, Pan QJ, et al. Durability of clinical performance afforded by self-collected HPV testing: a 15-year cohort study in China. Gynecol Oncol. 2018;151(2):221-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2018.09.012
22. Zhang X, Zhao G, Bi H, Zhou M, Wang X, Juan J. Exploring an appropriate method of cervical cancer screening in rural China. Asia Pac J Public Health. 2019;31(7):652-8. https://doi.org/10.1177/1010539519876411
23. Arrossi S. El impacto de la prueba de VPH en los programas de tamizaje en América Latina: el caso de Argentina. Salud Publica Mex. 2019;61(1):86-94. https://doi.org/10.21149/9257
24. Kim JJ, Burger EA, Regan C, Sy S. Screening for cervical cancer in primary care: a decision analysis for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 2018;320(7):706-14. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.19872
25. Mekuria SF, Timmermans S, Borgfeldt C, Jerkeman M, Johansson P, Linde DS. HPV self-sampling versus healthcare provider collection on the effect of cervical cancer screening uptake and costs in LMIC: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Syst Rev. 2023;12(1):103. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-023-02252-y
26. Tesfahunei HA, Ghebreyesus MS, Assefa DG, Zeleke ED, Acam J, Joseph M, et al. Human papillomavirus self-sampling versus standard clinician-sampling for cervical cancer screening in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Infect Agents Cancer. 2021;16(1):43. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13027-021-00380-5
27. Waly YM, Sharafeldin AB, Al-Majmuei A, Alatoom M, Fredericks S, Aloia AA. Assessment of HPV screening modalities within primary care: a systematic review. Front Med (Lausanne). 2025;12:1567509. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2025.1567509
