Next Article in Journal
Factors Correlating with Functional Capacity in Older People with Chronic Pain
Previous Article in Journal
Coronary Artery Disease and Inflammatory Activation Interfere with Peripheral Tissue Electrical Impedance Spectroscopy Characteristics—Initial Report
Previous Article in Special Issue
For Whom the Price Escalates: High Price and Uncertain Value of Cancer Drugs
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 20
Issue 3
10.3390/ijerph20032746
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Economic Burden of Cervical Cancer in Bulgaria

by
Hristina Lebanova
1,*,
Svetoslav Stoev
1,
Emilia Naseva
2,
Violeta Getova
3,
Wei Wang
4,
Ugne Sabale
5 and
Elina Petrova
6
1
Faculty of Pharmacy, Medical University-Pleven, 5800 Pleven, Bulgaria
2
Faculty of Public Health “Prof. Tsekomir Vodenicharov, MD, DSc”, Medical University of Sofia, 1527 Sofia, Bulgaria
3
Faculty of Pharmacy, Medical University of Sofia, 1000 Sofia, Bulgaria
4
Center for Observational and Real-World Evidence, Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ 07065, USA
5
Center for Observational and Real-World Evidence, Merck Sharp & Dohme, 11330 Stockholm, Sweden
6
Market Access, MSD, 1407 Sofia, Bulgaria
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20(3), 2746; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20032746
Submission received: 25 November 2022 / Revised: 1 February 2023 / Accepted: 2 February 2023 / Published: 3 February 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Burden of Cancer Treatment)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Bulgaria is among the European Union (EU) countries with the highest burden of cervical cancers and life expectancy below the EU average. The majority of cervical cancer cases (more than 95%) are caused by the human papillomavirus (HPV). The aim of this retrospective, cost of illness study is to identify direct healthcare costs of cervical cancer in Bulgaria from the payer perspective and to calculate indirect costs and the associated years of life lost. Costs data were sourced from the National Health Insurance Fund from January 2018 to December 2020. Years of life lost were calculated based on the country and gender-specific life expectancy. Indirect costs due to productivity loss were calculated using the human capital approach. The total treatment costs for 3540 patients with cervical cancer are EUR 5,743,657 (2018), EUR 6,377,508 (2019), and EUR 6,751,182 (2020). The costs associated with drug acquisition and administration accounted for the majority (63%) of total healthcare costs followed by hospital management costs (14%). An estimated total of 20,446 years of life were lost due to cervical cancer for the period 2018–2020. The costs of productivity losses are estimated at EUR 7,578,014. Our study showed that the economic burden of cervical cancer in Bulgaria is substantial. Focus on cervical cancer prevention via vaccination against the human papillomavirus, timely screening, early diagnosis, and higher vaccine coverage rates could reduce its economic burden in Bulgaria.

1. Introduction

Cervical cancer (CC) is the fourth most common type of cancer, diagnosed in female patients, and a leading cause of mortality among women. CC accounts for 6.5% of all malignancies in the female population. In 2020, an estimated 604,127 women were diagnosed with cervical cancer worldwide and about 342,000 women died from the disease [1,2]. Cervical cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in 23 countries and is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths in 36 countries. The vast majority of these countries are in sub-Saharan Africa, Melanesia, South America, and South-Eastern Asia [3]. Moreover, there is a significant difference in incidence rates between countries in Western and Eastern Europe [4]. The human papillomavirus (HPV) is established as a leading cause of cervical cancer [5]. HPV vaccines are generally included in routine vaccination programs in developed countries with a target vaccination rate of 90% of girls fully vaccinated with the HPV vaccine by the age of 15 in Europe by 2030 [4,6]. However, cervical cancer is still a major public health problem, even in developed countries: 54,517 newly diagnosed cases of invasive cervical cancer are registered each year in Europe and 24,874 women die each as a consequence of cervical malignancies [7]. Cervical cancer is the second leading cause of cancer deaths for women between 15 and 44 years in Bulgaria [8]. Bulgaria is among the countries with the lowest health expenditures in the European Union (7.3% of GDP in 2018, 7.1% in 2019, and 8.5% in 2020) [9].
The prevalence of cervical cancer in Bulgaria is increasing according to the data from the National Statistical Institute, with increasing prevalence rates ranging from 15,691 cases in 2017 to 16,006 in 2019 [10,11]. The five years’ net survival from cervical cancer in Bulgaria is below the average for the EU (49.2% (95% CI 47.6–50.7) for 2000–2004 and 54.8% (95% CI 53.3–56.3) for 2010–2014) [12].
HPV is a group of more than 200 related viruses. Sexually transmitted HPV types fall into two groups, low risk and high risk. Low-risk HPVs mostly cause no disease. However, a few low-risk HPV types can cause warts on or around the genitals, anus, mouth, or throat. High-risk HPVs can cause several types of cancer. There are about 14 high-risk HPV types including HPV 16, 18, 31, 33, 35, 39, 45, 51, 52, 56, 58, 59, 66, and 68. Seven of these, HPV 16, 18, 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58, are responsible for most HPV-related cancers [13].
HPV 16/18’s attributable fraction among HPV+ cases is 72.8% (70.8–74.7) and HPV 16/18/31/33/45/52/58 are estimated to be responsible for 89.0% (95% CI: 87.5–90.3) of cases in Europe [14,15]. According to a Bulgarian study, close to 30% of all women between 15 and 54 years of age are infected with at least one HPV subtype with the highest prevalence in women between 15 and 34 years of age [5]. The most common subtype is HPV 16, followed by HPV subtypes HPV 56 and HPV 33. Interestingly HVP 18 was not detected in this study [16]. Another study found a very low rate of HPV 18 among women diagnosed with cervical cancer [17]. The most common low-risk HPV subtypes in women between 15 and 34 are HPV 16, HPV 11, and HPV 42 [16].
Vaccination against HPV and screening and treatment of pre-cancer lesions is a cost-effective way to prevent cervical cancer [1]. HPV vaccination is estimated to prevent up to 90% of HPV-related cancers [13]. There are studies proving cost-effectiveness of the vaccination prevention even with an estimated efficacy of 70%. Part of the key prerequisites for such conclusions is the combination of vaccine prevention and HPV screening [18].
Since 2012, the HPV vaccine has been recommended and fully funded by the Bulgarian Government for girls 12–13 years old [19]. In 2021, the cohort was extended to ages 10–13 [7]. However, the target vaccination coverage rate of 75% was never achieved with vaccine coverage rates (VCR) for the last 6 years being below 10% [20]. These data are very alarming, especially if no improvement in screening and treatment strategies is achieved [21].
Cervical cancer imposes a considerable economic burden on society and individuals [5]. Understanding the clinical and economic burden of the disease is crucial for public health policy makers in the course of the decision-making process and budget planning [22]. Having in mind the current evidence of HPV vaccination preventing up to 90% of diseases attributed to this infection, a reasonable approach would be to evaluate the economic burden of cervical cancer to figure out an effective strategy for prioritization and allocation of resources for the prevention of cervical cancer [13]. The WHO also encourages decision makers in European countries to reinforce actions in eliminating cervical cancer by using the available preventative tools [23]. The relative burden of cervical cancer varies between different countries depending on local epidemiology, established type of disease management, and costs of treatment alternatives [24,25,26,27,28,29].
To our current knowledge, only one study has been conducted to calculate the burden of cervical cancer in Bulgaria [30]. Although widely referred to, the data are already outdated and may not reflect the current burden of cervical cancer in Bulgaria. The lack of recent country-specific burden of disease data makes informed governmental decisions for the improvement of public awareness, physician’s education, and immunization programs even harder to support. Data from other European countries suggest that the economic burden of cervical cancer is substantial [25,26,27,28,29]. The largest contributor to total healthcare costs is the inpatient care, accounting for 48% of costs for patients with cervical cancer [31].
Health services offered by the National Health Insurance Fund (NHIF) consist mainly of curative services and the majority of funds go to the hospital level and medicines’ acquisition [32]. Preventive services such as vaccination programs are funded by the Ministry of Health but in practice are vastly underrated [7]. Poor access to prevention services will shift and increase health services in secondary and tertiary care for cervical cancer [33]. An adequate and sustainable rate of HPV vaccination has the potential to decrease the burden and costs of HPV-related cancers over time as HPV vaccination has been found to be a cost-effective or even cost-saving strategy from both healthcare payer and societal perspectives [34,35,36]. Yet, due to poor prevention and low vaccination coverage rate in Bulgaria, morbidity and mortality of cervical cancer remain high [37].
Although the disease burden of cervical cancer in Bulgaria can be well described in terms of mortality, little is known about the direct economic burden of the disease and the burden expressed in the number of life years lost.
This cost of illness study aims to identify direct healthcare costs of cervical cancer in Bulgaria and to calculate indirect costs and years of life lost associated with cervical cancer.

2. Methods

2.1. Direct Costs

A prevalence-based cost of illness study was conducted based on data sourced from the Bulgarian national databases and registries for the period 2018–2020. For the identification of cervical cancer-specific healthcare resource utilization and associated costs, ICD-10 codes specific to cervical cancer (C53.0 (Malignant neoplasm of endocervix), C53.1 (Malignant neoplasm of exocervix), C53.8 (Malignant neoplasm of overlapping sites of cervix uteri), and C53.9 (Malignant neoplasm of cervix uteri, unspecified)) were used to identify the target population. The aggregated cost information was collected from the NHIF database without having access to patient-level information. Data were obtained based on ICD-10 codes for cervical cancer without any personal identifiers such as initials, age, city, etc.
Direct costs in the study include resource utilization for inpatient and outpatient care services related to the treatment and follow-up of cervical cancer patients. Publicly available and officially requested data for cervical cancer (ICD C53) management in Bulgaria were extracted from the National Health Insurance Fund (NHIF) database [38]. It provides information on the number of patients (by ICD-code), respective treatment, hospitalizations (by clinical pathway), and treatment costs (hospitalization, drug therapy, laboratory tests, ambulatory procedures, ambulatory visits, etc.). Data include primary care services, ambulatory health services, laboratory and imaging, hospitalization, treatments (chemotherapy, radiotherapy, brachytherapy, and palliation), clinical pathways, and the prevalence of cervical cancer. The clinical pathway is defined in the Bulgarian legislation as a system of requirements and guidelines for the behavior of different health professionals during diagnostic and treatment procedures of patients requiring hospitalization. Each hospitalization in the Bulgarian healthcare system is valued and paid to the provider according to the relevant clinical pathway.
The number of healthcare resources used associated with cervical cancer treatment per year was collected for the respective ICD C53 code (C53.0, C53.1, C53.8, and C53.9) and costed based on local tariffs within the National Framework Agreement 2020–2022 [32]. All identifiable costs are included in the estimate and were converted from Bulgarian lev (BGN) to Euro (EUR) using the fixed exchange rate of the Bulgarian National Bank (EUR 1 = 1.95583 BGN since 5 July 1997) [39]. All direct costs were estimated from the Bulgarian healthcare-payer perspective.

2.2. Indirect Costs

Country- and gender-specific life expectancy were sourced from the National Statistical Institute [40]. The years of life lost at the country level were calculated by summing the number of cervical cancer-specific deaths for a given age multiplied by the expected life years remaining at the mid-point for each age. The years of working life lost as a result of premature death due to cervical cancer were calculated by subtracting the age at death from the retirement age of 61 years. Years of life lost and years of working life lost were calculated for each age and then summed up. The number of deaths up to 61 years of age was then multiplied by the Gross Domestic Product per employed individual–current prices for the respective year and lost GDP per year were calculated. The human capital approach was used to estimate the indirect costs due to productivity loss. Lost productivity was defined as productivity loss as % of GDP incurred to society due to cancer-specific premature mortality.

2.3. Data Analysis and Statistical Methods

Data provided by the National Health Insurance Fund on drug therapy, inpatient, and outpatient costs were divided into categories (drug acquisition costs, inpatient, and outpatient costs) and were presented as a total healthcare cost for each year.
Data on drug consumption was presented according to the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification system where the active substances are divided into different groups according to the organ or system on which they act and their therapeutic, pharmacological and chemical properties. All drug costs were aggregated at ATC level 2 (pharmacological or therapeutic subgroup) and presented accordingly.
Data were analyzed and presented using descriptive statistics. The proportions of deaths up to 61 years of age were compared by using a t-test for two proportions. The results were considered as significant if p-values were smaller than 0.05. MS Office package (2019) as well as add-ons and SPSS v.22 were used.

2.4. Study Sample

The study sample consisted of the total number of patients diagnosed with C53.0, C53.1, C53.8, and C53.9 on treatment for the period 2018–2020 indexed in the NHIF database (Table 1). The number of patients who received inpatient treatment during the study period was consistent across the years. The most prevalent cervical cancer among hospital-treated patients was the malignant neoplasm of the exocervix (C53.1).

3. Results

3.1. Direct Costs

3.1.1. Drug Acquisition Costs

The highest drug acquisition costs were observed in the C53.1 population, which corresponded with the number of patients diagnosed with malignant neoplasm of the exocervix (Table 2). An increase of 13% in drug acquisition costs is observed in 2019 vs. 2018. The 2020 costs remained at the 2019 levels.
The most commonly prescribed drug classes were the antineoplastic agents (ATC level L01), followed by the immunostimulants (ATC level L03) (Table 3). The increased drug acquisition costs in 2019 and 2020 vs. 2018 were due mainly to the increase in expenditures for antineoplastic agents (L01) and immunostimulants (L03).

3.1.2. Drug Administration Costs

Drug administration costs were identified through clinical pathway P240 “Long-term systemic parenteral drug treatment of malignant solid tumors and related complications”. They were estimated at EUR 367,910.30 (2018), EUR 377,762.89 (2019), and EUR 442,040.46 (2020) representing 14%, 13%, and 15% of the total drug acquisition costs.

3.1.3. Inpatient Costs

Inpatient costs consisted of radiotherapy costs, staging costs, and inpatient procedures costs. The relevant costs were extracted through the respective clinical pathways presented in Table 4. The largest share (55%) of the inpatient costs is associated with the costs of the procedures (mainly systemic radical excision of the lymph nodes). A significant increase was observed in robotic-assisted surgeries ranging from 39 procedures in 2018 to 105 in 2020 (an increase of 269%). The shares of the other inpatient cost categories remained stable. The expenditures on robotic-assisted surgeries were also the main driver for the increase in inpatient costs from EUR 1,505,268 in 2018 to EUR 2,047,723 in 2020. The higher inpatient costs were also a result of the higher prices for procedures set in the National Framework Agreement signed in 2020.

3.1.4. Outpatient Costs

Outpatient procedure costs were also identified in the analysis. They consisted of monitoring the therapeutic response, determining a treatment plan, and PET/CT and SPEC/CT procedures. Costs of diagnostic tests (blood count, ultrasound tests, NMR, X-ray, etc.) were also included in this category (Table 5). Between 2018 and 2020, an increase of 3% was recorded. The 10% decrease in outpatient physician visits was mainly caused by COVID-19-related restrictions in 2020.

3.1.5. Total Direct Costs

The direct costs of cervical cancer in Bulgaria range from EUR 5,375,747 in 2018 to EUR 6,309,141 in 2020 (Table 6). The observed increase is a result of a larger share of drug acquisition and inpatient costs (Figure 1).

3.2. Years of Life Lost and Indirect Costs

The human capital approach was used to estimate the indirect costs due to productivity loss. A 20% increase in the number of deaths by cervical cancer was recorded from 304 deaths in 2018 to 364 deaths in 2020. This trend is observed also in the group of deaths up to 61 years of age: a 30% increase in the number of deaths was observed in 2020 vs. 2018 (173 in 2020 vs. 137 in 2018). The proportion of deaths up to 61 years of age seems to decrease in 2019 and then increase again in 2020, but no significant difference is proven (p > 0.05).
For the study period, a total of 5092 years of working life were lost (1624 for 2018, 1507 for 2019, and 1961 for 2020). The mean years of life lost per person (±SD) are 20.7 (±11.2) for 2018, 20.1 (±10.8) for 2019, and 21.3 (±10.7) for 2020. The indirect costs associated with productivity losses range between 2 and 3 million euros per year based on the lost gross domestic product (GDP) per employed person (Table 7).

4. Discussion

Data from the NHIF database indicate that the overall costs (drugs, hospitalizations, outpatient, diagnostic) related to cervical cancer represent a significant burden to the Bulgarian healthcare system, with a total of more than EUR 6.7 million annually, which accounts for 0.27% of the total NHIF budget [41]. The largest share is attributed to drug acquisition and administration costs (62–64%) followed by inpatient treatment costs (17.59% in 2020). The findings are consistent with previous studies which found that chemotherapy costs are the main driver of cervical cancer expenditures [31,42]. Our results show that the increase in direct costs in 2019 vs. 2018 was 11% and in 2020 vs. 2019 it was 6%. The observed increase is not due to annual inflation, as it was 3.1% in 2019 and 1.7% in 2020. The increase in hospital management and outpatient costs in 2020 is partially due to the adoption of a new National Framework Agreement defining the costs of healthcare services [32]. An important aspect of the study results is the rather low diagnostic costs which are generally due to high-rate out-of-pocket costs in this category–data that are not present in the NHIF databases [43,44].
It is difficult to directly compare the economic burden of cancer in Bulgaria (and cervical cancer in particular) with previously published data from other European countries due to differences in incidence and prevalence rates [4]. An analysis by Hofmarcher et al. outlines other factors such as differences related to the economic strength of the countries (GDP per capita), drug pricing systems, population earning levels reflecting productivity losses, etc. [45].
The decrease in the number of newly diagnosed cervical cancer patients (844 in 2020 vs. 892 in 2019) is likely due to restricted access to the healthcare system at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic than to the vaccination coverage rates (VCR) [46]. A considerable decrease is observed also in the number of outpatient visits in 2020, which is inevitably influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic and the associated restricted access to primary healthcare services [47]. Moreover, during the first year of the pandemic, much of the resources in the healthcare system were directed toward the management of the COVID-19 infection distribution.
A previously published study assessed an estimated annual burden of cervical cancer in Europe including Bulgaria [48]. The study reported that in 2013, the estimated mean number of new HPV-related cervical cancers in Bulgaria was 1094 (95% CI 1029–1159) with 974 (95% CI 913–1035) attributable to HPV16/18/31/33/45/52/58 [48]. The estimated mean annual number of cervical cancer cases in Bulgaria aligns with the number of cases reported in our study.
Our study showed that the cumulative direct costs of cervical cancer amount to EUR 17.68 million for 2018–2020. Considering that 89% of cervical cancer is linked to HPV, EUR 15.74 million (89%) can potentially be attributed to HPV [15]. These results highlight the importance of preventing HPV infection, which is also a major means of preventing cervical cancer cases.
The results of our study indicate that the number of years of life lost due to cervical cancer is gradually increasing. This increase is caused partly by the increased incidence (850 newly diagnosed patients in 2018 and 892 in 2019) and the potential effect of the COVID-19 pandemic in Bulgaria as the high level of excess mortality could be one of the reasons for the higher number of cervical cancer deaths registered in 2020 vs. 2019 (364 vs. 318) [49]. Late diagnosis, low vaccination coverage, and prevention are the other factors that affect mortality [7].
Currently, the HPV vaccine is recommended and fully funded by the Bulgarian Government for girls 12–13 years with the cohort being extended to 10–13 in 2021 [7]. However, the target vaccination coverage rate of 75% was never achieved, with VCR for the last 6 years being below 10% [7]. The VCR was 4% in 2018, which is one of the lowest VCRs in Europe [50]. Given the link between HPV infection and the number of cervical cancer cases as well as the associated costs, an adequate and sustainable rate of HPV vaccination is expected to significantly decrease the burden and costs of HPV-related cancers over time [48].
Numerous previously published studies prove that HPV vaccination is essential for cervical cancer elimination [15,48,51,52]. The addition of HPV31/33/45/52/58 to the current vaccine types currently available in Bulgaria (HPV 16/18/6/11) could prevent up to 90% of cervical cancers attributed to oncogenic HPV types [15]. Extrapolated to Bulgarian data, this could lead to 760 cases yearly if the current incidence rate is sustained. A modeling study from Sweden estimated that when younger birth cohorts no longer transmit HPV to women > 35 years of age, the HPV infection will no longer be sustained among older women [52]. Using Swedish population data, Dillner et al. estimated that at 18 years of age, the monthly incidence of HPV16 is 1.6%, whereas, above 35 years of age, it is <0.1%. Based on R0 values, the infections will rapidly disappear from women older than 35 years of age if the older population is no longer fed with new infections from the younger population, thus underlying the importance of HPV vaccination in younger ages [52]. Previously published cost-effectiveness studies consistently concluded that adolescent female-only, population-based HPV vaccination programs are cost-effective compared with cervical cancer screening alone [35,36,53]. Moreover, gender neutral vaccination was found to further decrease the cumulative incidence of HPV-related diseases and is found to be a cost-effective strategy compared to female-only programs [54].
To conclude, health education as well as the development and implementation of prevention strategies in children and young adults are key to maintaining public health and economic sustainability [55].

5. Limitations

Our study has several limitations that merit acknowledgment. First, data on costs are provided by the National Health Insurance Fund, which provides data from the public sector only. The results do not include out-of-pocket patients’ costs for outpatient visits, diagnostic tests, and follow-ups, which are suspected to be considerable. This makes our estimates conservative as the true economic burden of cervical cancer in Bulgaria is expected to be higher.
Second, it is impossible to measure the effect of COVID-19 on C53-related deaths in 2020, thus the suspicion of overestimation of years of life lost and productivity loss for 2020.

6. Conclusions

The economic burden of cervical cancer in Bulgaria is considerable, primarily driven by drug acquisition and administration costs followed by inpatient treatment costs. Focus on cervical cancer prevention, timely screening, early diagnosis, and higher HPV vaccine coverage rates could reduce the economic burden of cervical cancer in Bulgaria.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, H.L., E.P. and U.S.; methodology, H.L., U.S., W.W. and E.P.; validation, H.L. and E.N.; formal analysis, E.N.; investigation, H.L., S.S. and V.G.; resources, H.L. and S.S.; data curation, E.N. and H.L.; writing—original draft preparation, H.L.; writing—review and editing, E.N., V.G., S.S., U.S., W.W. and E.P.; visualization, H.L.; supervision, H.L.; project administration, E.P.; funding acquisition, E.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was funded by MSD Bulgaria. The funding sponsor approved the design of the study and the final version of the manuscript. The sponsor had no role in the collection, analysis, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The current study obtained approval by the Ethics Committee for Clinical Trials (Ministry of Health, Republic of Bulgaria) as a non-interventional cost of illness study (notification letter # ECCT-1116/16.03.2022).

Data Availability Statement

Data presented in this study are available in the article.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Neycho Todorov, MD for recognizing the need for local data generation in this field.

Conflicts of Interest

H.L. was compensated by MSD Bulgaria for the conduction of the study research and development of the manuscript. Ugne Sabale and Elina Petrova are employees of MSD subsidiaries of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA, the manufacturer of the HPV vaccine, and may own stocks and/or stock options in Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA. Co-author (W.W.) is an employee of Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA, and may hold stock in Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA.

References

  1. WHO One-Dose Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccine Offers Solid Protection against Cervical Cancer. Available online: https://www.who.int/news/item/11-04-2022-one-dose-human-papillomavirus-(hpv)-vaccine-offers-solid-protection-against-cervical-cancer (accessed on 21 September 2022).
  2. Globocan Cancer Today. Available online: https://gco.iarc.fr/today/fact-sheets-cancers (accessed on 1 September 2022).
  3. Sung, H.; Ferlay, J.; Siegel, R.L.; Laversanne, M.; Soerjomataram, I.; Jemal, A.; Bray, F. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA. Cancer J. Clin. 2021, 71, 209–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Arbyn, M.; Gultekin, M.; Morice, P.; Nieminen, P.; Cruickshank, M.; Poortmans, P.; Kelly, D.; Poljak, M.; Bergeron, C.; Ritchie, D.; et al. The European Response to the WHO Call to Eliminate Cervical Cancer as a Public Health Problem. Int. J. Cancer 2021, 148, 277–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Kovachev, S.; Slavov, V. Prevalence of Human Papillomavirus Infection in Women in Bulgaria: A 2017 Update. J. Med. Virol. 2018, 90, 1142–1149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Bruni, L.; Diaz, M.; Barrionuevo-Rosas, L.; Herrero, R.; Bray, F.; Bosch, F.X.; de Sanjosé, S.; Castellsagué, X. Global Estimates of Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Coverage by Region and Income Level: A Pooled Analysis. Lancet Glob. Health 2016, 4, e453–e463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Ministry of Health. National Program for Primary Prevention of Cervical Cancer in the Republic of Bulgaria 2021–2024; Ministry of Health: Sofia, Bulgaria, 2021.
  8. Bruni, L.; Albero, G.; Serrano, B.; Mena, M.; Collado, J.; Gómez, D.; Muñoz, J.; Bosch, F.; de Sanjosé, S.; ICO/IARC Information Centre on HPV and Cancer (HPV Information Centre). Human Papillomavirus and Related Diseases in Bulgaria. Summary Report 22 October 2021. Available online: https://hpvcentre.net/statistics/reports/BGR.pdf (accessed on 21 September 2022).
  9. OECD. Health Expenditure and Financing; OECD: Paris, France, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  10. National Statistical Institute. Healthcare 2019 (in Bulgarian); National Statistical Institute: Sofia, Bulgaria, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  11. National Statistical Institute. Healthcare 2020 (in Bulgarian); National Statistical Institute: Sofia, Bulgaria, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  12. OECD/European Union. Health at a Glance: Europe 2018; Health at a Glance: Europe; OECD: Paris, France, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  13. National Cancer Institute—SEER Program Cervical Cancer Prevention (PDQ®)–Health Professional Version—NCI. Available online: https://www.cancer.gov/types/cervical/hp/cervical-prevention-pdq#_210 (accessed on 21 September 2022).
  14. Chelimo, C.; Wouldes, T.A.; Cameron, L.D.; Elwood, J.M. Risk Factors for and Prevention of Human Papillomaviruses (HPV), Genital Warts and Cervical Cancer. J. Infect. 2013, 66, 207–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. de Sanjose, S.; Quint, W.G.V.; Alemany, L.; Geraets, D.T.; Klaustermeier, J.E.; Lloveras, B.; Tous, S.; Felix, A.; Bravo, L.E.; Shin, H.R.; et al. Human Papillomavirus Genotype Attribution in Invasive Cervical Cancer: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Worldwide Study. Lancet Oncol. 2010, 11, 1048–1056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Todorova, I.; Ganchev, G.; Shikova, E. Human Papillomavirus Prevalence in Invasive Cervical Carcinomas in Bulgaria. J. Clin. Pathol. 2010, 63, 1121–1123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Farghaly, S. Gynecologic Cancers—Basic Sciences, Clinical and Therapeutic Perspectives; IntechOpen Limited: London, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  18. Berkhof, J.; Bogaards, J.A.; Demirel, E.; Diaz, M.; Sharma, M.; Kim, J.J. Cost-Effectiveness of Cervical Cancer Prevention in Central and Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Vaccine 2013, 31, H71–H79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Ministry of Health. National Programme for Primary Prevention of Cervical Cancer 2017–2020; Ministry of Health: Sofia, Bulgaria, 2017.
  20. National Statistical Institute. Deaths by Causes, Sex and Age Groups in 2020; National Statistical Institute: Sofia, Bulgaria, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  21. Simms, K.T.; Steinberg, J.; Caruana, M.; Smith, M.A.; Lew, J.B.; Soerjomataram, I.; Castle, P.E.; Bray, F.; Canfell, K. Impact of Scaled up Human Papillomavirus Vaccination and Cervical Screening and the Potential for Global Elimination of Cervical Cancer in 181 Countries, 2020-99: A Modelling Study. Obstet. Gynecol. Surv. 2019, 74, 345–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Grigorov, E.; Vaseva, V.; Getov, I.N. Applied Pharmacoeconomics—Methodology, Structuring and Conductionf of Pharmacoeconomical Studies. Int. J. Sci. Publ. Econ. Bus. 2013, 7, 540–551. [Google Scholar]
  23. World Health Organization (WHO). Seventy-Second Regional Committee for Europe: Tel Aviv, 12–14 September 2022: Roadmap to Accelerate the Elimination of Cervical Cancer as a Public Health Problem in the WHO European Region 2022–2030; World Health Organization (WHO): Geneva, Switzerland, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  24. Eberth, J.M.; Prarelkar, P.; Nguyen, H.; Sun, C.; Irvin-Vidrine, J.; Elting, L.S. The Human and Economic Burden of Cervical Cancer in Texas. Texas Public Health J. 2013, 65, 51–55. [Google Scholar]
  25. Borget, I.; Abramowitz, L.; Mathevet, P. Economic Burden of HPV-Related Cancers in France. Vaccine 2011, 29, 5245–5249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Ngcamphalala, C.; Östensson, E.; Ginindza, T.G. The Economic Burden of Cervical Cancer in Eswatini: Societal Perspective. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0250113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Shah, R.; Nwankwo, C.; Kwon, Y.; Corman, S.L. Economic and Humanistic Burden of Cervical Cancer in the United States: Results from a Nationally Representative Survey. J. Women’s Health 2020, 29, 799–805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Wu, Q.; Jia, M.; Chen, H.; Zhang, S.; Liu, Y.; Prem, K.; Qian, M.; Yu, H. The Economic Burden of Cervical Cancer from Diagnosis to One Year after Final Discharge in Henan Province, China: A Retrospective Case Series Study. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0232129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Annemans, L.; Rémy, V.; Lamure, E.; Spaepen, E.; Lamotte, M.; Muchada, J.P.; Largeron, N. Economic Burden Associated with the Management of Cervical Cancer, Cervical Dysplasia and Genital Warts in Belgium. J. Med. Econ. 2008, 11, 135–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Petrova, G.; Stoimenova, A.; Tsenova, A. Profitability of HVP Vaccination. Worldwide Practice and Application in Bulgaria (in Bulgarian). Medinfo 2010, 10, 1–4. [Google Scholar]
  31. Yue, X.; Pruemer, J.M.; Hincapie, A.L.; Almalki, Z.S.; Guo, J.J. Economic Burden and Treatment Patterns of Gynecologic Cancers in the United States: Evidence from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey 2007–2014. J. Gynecol. Oncol. 2020, 31, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. National Health Insurance Fund. National Framework Agreement 2020–2022; National Health Insurance Fund: Sofia, Bulgaria, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  33. Yong, P.L.; Saunders, R.S.; Olsen, L. Missed Prevention Opportunities. In Medicine, Institute of Medicine (US) Roundtable on Evidence-Based; National Academies Press (US): Columbia, WA, USA, 2010; Volume 1, pp. 219–238. ISBN 978-0-309-18683-4. [Google Scholar]
  34. Mahumud, R.A.; Alam, K.; Keramat, S.A.; Ormsby, G.M.; Dunn, J.; Gow, J. Cost-Effectiveness Evaluations of the 9-Valent Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccine: Evidence from a Systematic Review. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0233499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Seto, K.; Marra, F.; Raymakers, A.; Marra, C.A. The Cost Effectiveness of Human Papillomavirus Vaccines: A Systematic Review. Drugs 2012, 72, 715–743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Marra, F.; Cloutier, K.; Oteng, B.; Marra, C.; Ogilvie, G. Effectiveness and Cost Effectiveness of Human Papillomavirus Vaccine: A Systematic Review. Pharmacoeconomics 2009, 27, 127–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Karcheva, M.; Yordanov, A.; Kostadinov, S. An Overview of Cervical Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention in Bulgaria. GERMS 2020, 10, 322–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. NHIF National Health Insurance Fund. Available online: https://www.en.nhif.bg/ (accessed on 21 September 2022).
  39. Bulgarian National Bank. Macroeconomic Indicators. Available online: https://www.bnb.bg/ (accessed on 1 September 2022).
  40. National Statistical Institute Deaths by Causes and Mortality by Causes | National Statistical Institute. Available online: https://nsi.bg/en/content/3348/deaths-causes-and-mortality-causes (accessed on 21 September 2022).
  41. National Health Insurance Fund Annual Financial Reports. Available online: https://www.nhif.bg/page/2301 (accessed on 1 September 2022).
  42. Kamijo, Y.; Ichikawa, M. Cost Information of Chemotherapy for Cervical and Endometrial Cancer in Japan. Japan J. Nurs. Sci. 2014, 11, 190–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Atanasova, E.; Pavlova, M.; Groot, W. Out-of-Pocket Patient Payments for Public Health Care Services in Bulgaria. Front. Public Health 2015, 3, 175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Atanasova, E.; Pavlova, M.; Moutafova, E.; Rechel, B.; Groot, W. Out-of-Pocket Payments for Health Care Services in Bulgaria: Financial Burden and Barrier to Access. Eur. J. Public Health 2013, 23, 916–922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Hofmarcher, T.; Lindgren, P.; Wilking, N.; Jönsson, B. The Cost of Cancer in Europe 2018. Eur. J. Cancer 2020, 129, 41–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. NCPHA. Newly Diagnosed Malignant Neoplasms by Localisation; NCPHA: Sofia, Bulgaria, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  47. Džakula, A.; Banadinović, M.; Lovrenčić, I.L.; Vajagić, M.; Dimova, A.; Rohova, M.; Minev, M.; Scintee, S.G.; Vladescu, C.; Farcasanu, D.; et al. A Comparison of Health System Responses to COVID-19 in Bulgaria, Croatia and Romania in 2020. Health Policy 2022, 126, 456–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Hartwig, S.; Baldauf, J.J.; Dominiak-Felden, G.; Simondon, F.; Alemany, L.; de Sanjosé, S.; Castellsagué, X. Estimation of the Epidemiological Burden of HPV-Related Anogenital Cancers, Precancerous Lesions, and Genital Warts in Women and Men in Europe: Potential Additional Benefit of a Nine-Valent Second Generation HPV Vaccine Compared to First Generation HPV Va. Papillomavirus Res. 2015, 1, 90–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Rangachev, A.; Marinov, G.K.; Mladenov, M. The Demographic and Geographic Impact of the COVID Pandemic in Bulgaria and Eastern Europe in 2020. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Bonanni, P.; Faivre, P.; Lopalco, P.L.; Joura, E.A.; Bergroth, T.; Varga, S.; Gemayel, N.; Drury, R. The Status of Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Recommendation, Funding, and Coverage in WHO Europe Countries (2018–2019). Expert Rev. Vaccines 2020, 19, 1073–1083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Bogani, G.; Raspagliesi, F.; Sopracordevole, F.; Ciavattini, A.; Ghelardi, A.; Simoncini, T.; Petrillo, M.; Plotti, F.; Lopez, S.; Casarin, J.; et al. Assessing the Long-Term Role of Vaccination against Hpv after Loop Electrosurgical Excision Procedure (Leep): A Propensity-Score Matched Comparison. Vaccines 2020, 8, 717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Dillner, J.; Elfström, K.M.; Baussano, I. Prospects for Accelerated Elimination of Cervical Cancer. Prev. Med. 2021, 153, 106827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Rosettie, K.L.; Joffe, J.N.; Sparks, G.W.; Aravkin, A.; Chen, S.; Compton, K.; Ewald, S.B.; Mathew, E.B.; Michael, D.; Velandia, P.P.; et al. Cost-Effectiveness of HPV Vaccination in 195 Countries: A Meta-Regression Analysis. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0260808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Simoens, S.; Bento-Abreu, A.; Merckx, B.; Joubert, S.; Vermeersch, S.; Pavelyev, A.; Varga, S.; Morais, E. Health Impact and Cost-Effectiveness of Implementing Gender-Neutral Vaccination with the 9-Valent Human Papillomavirus Vaccine in Belgium. Front. Pharmacol. 2021, 12, 359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Sundström, K.; Miriam Elfström, K. Advances in Cervical Cancer Prevention: Efficacy, Effectiveness, Elimination? PLoS Med. 2020, 17, e1003035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Ijerph 20 02746 g001 550
Figure 1. Distribution of healthcare costs among categories (2018–2020).
Figure 1. Distribution of healthcare costs among categories (2018–2020).
Ijerph 20 02746 g001
Table
Table 1. Study sample.
Table 1. Study sample.
Year201820192020
Patients indexed in the database (N)119412141132
Patients in inpatient treatment (N)916904937
C53.0-N (%)259 (28.20%)219 (24.23%)220 (23.48%)
C53.1-N (%)428 (46.78%)472 (52.21%)537 (57.31%)
C53.8-N (%)103 (11.26%)112 (12.39%)86 (9.18%)
C53.9-N (%)126 (13.77%)101 (11.17%)94 (10.03%)
Source: National Health Insurance Fund, data on file.
Table
Table 2. Drug acquisition costs 2018–2020.
Table 2. Drug acquisition costs 2018–2020.
201820192020
C53.0EUR 798,688.28EUR 561,907.84EUR 555,624.44
C53.1EUR 1,050,666.20EUR 1,704,137.42EUR 1,707,315.97
C53.8EUR 288,619.32EUR 324,911.68EUR 313,153.13
C53.9EUR 436,603.60EUR 339,557.72EUR 348,601.33
TotalEUR 2,574,577.39EUR 2,930,514.67EUR 2,924,694.87
Table
Table 3. Drug acquisition costs by class.
Table 3. Drug acquisition costs by class.
201820192020
B03 (antianemic preparations)EUR 31,974.58 EUR 41,298.87 EUR 49,082.88
H02 (corticosteroids for systemic use)EUR 3512.06 EUR 1120.80 EUR 1039.06
L01 (antineoplastic agents)EUR 2,313,134.90 EUR 2,606,511.40 EUR 2,633,022.18
L03 (immunostimulants)EUR 153,031.71 EUR 208,452.83 EUR 179,339.12
M05 (drugs for treatment of bone diseases)EUR 8116.77 EUR 11,910.69 EUR 6813.92
N02 (analgesics)EUR 64,797.37 EUR 50,789.60 EUR 47,320.74
V03 (all other therapeutic products)EUR -EUR 10,345.50 EUR 8076.96
MissingEUR 10.00 EUR 84.98 EUR -
TotalEUR 2,574,577.39 EUR 2,930,514.67 EUR 2,924,694.87
Table
Table 4. Inpatient costs.
Table 4. Inpatient costs.
Description of Procedures **2018 2019 2020
NCosts (EUR, %)NCosts (EUR, %)NCosts (EUR, %)
Radiotherapy costs
High-tech radiotherapy for oncological and non-oncological diseases 3 days without radiation chemotherapy (P250.1) 461EUR 436,055.28 (65%)524EUR 495,646.35 (71%)423EUR 420,657.73 (63%)
Intensity-modulated radiotherapy for oncological and non-oncological diseases hospital stay 5 days or not less than 5 procedures (P251.1) 173EUR 238,824.44 (35%) 145EUR 200,170.77 (29%) 179EUR 248,937.79 (37%)
Total costs radiotherapyEUR 674,879.72EUR 695,817.12EUR 669,595.52
Staging costs
Diagnostic procedures for staging and assessment of the therapeutic response in patients with malignant solid tumors and hematological diseases with CT of at least two zones or bone marrow examination with ICD-code 41.31 in persons over 18 years (P241.3)0EUR 0.00 - *402EUR 82,215.73 789EUR 190,812.60
Inpatient procedures costs
Non-radical hysterectomy (P160) 36EUR 20,247.16 (2%)37EUR 20,809.58 (2%)24EUR 15,117.88 (1%)
Radical removal of female genitals (P161) 104EUR 58,491.79 (7%)87EUR 48,930.63 (5%)87EUR 68,600.75 (6%)
Lower access surgical interventions to remove disease changes or invasive examination of the female genitalia (P163) 536EUR 90,437.31 (11%)566EUR 95,499.10 (10%)470EUR 98,862.38 (8%)
Systemic radical excision of lymph nodes (pelvic and/or paraaortic and/or inguinal) as a stand-alone intervention or combined with radical removal of female genitals. Pelvic exenteration (P167) 446EUR 501,679.59 (60%)426EUR 479,182.75 (50%)415EUR 574,175.67 (48%)
Robot-assisted gynecological surgery for malignancies (P168) 39EUR 159,523.07 (19%)78EUR 319,046.13 (33%)105EUR 430,558.89 (36%)
Total inpatient procedures costsEUR 830,378.92EUR 963,468.19EUR 1,187,315.57
Total inpatient costsEUR 1,505,258.64EUR 1,741,501.04EUR 2,047,723.69
* no costs were reported by the NHIF. ** codes according to the National Framework Agreement [32].
Table
Table 5. Outpatient costs.
Table 5. Outpatient costs.
Description of Procedures **2018 2019 2020
NCost (EUR, %)NCost (EUR, %)NCost (EUR, %)
Outpatient procedures costs
Systemic drug treatment of malignant solid tumors and haematological diseases (A06)710EUR 54,452.59
(6%)		1049EUR 80,451.78
(9%)		1113EUR 85,360.18
(9%)
Outpatient follow-up/medical examination for malignant diseases and congenital haematological diseases (A07)0EUR - 0EUR -0EUR -
Monitoring of the therapeutic response in patients on home treatment with targeted oral antitumor therapy and oral chemotherapy (A08)0EUR - 0EUR -1EUR 127.82
(0.01%)
Positron emission tomography with computed tomography (PET/CT) (PET/CT) (A35)174EUR 6227.54
(1%)		177 EUR 6631.97
(1%)		100EUR 3936.95
(0.42%)
Single-photon emission computed tomography with computed tomography-SPECT/CT on a hybrid scanner (A36)772EUR 789,434.66
(92%) 		960EUR 785,344.33
(89%)		1032EUR 844,245.15
(89%)
Determining a treatment plan and monitoring the therapeutic response in patients receiving expensive drugs under Art. 78, para 2 of the Health Insurance Act (A37)69EUR 12,347.70
(1%)		70EUR 12,974.03
(1%)		63EUR 12,401.38
(1%)
Total outpatient costsEUR 862,462.49EUR 885,402.11 €EUR 946,071.49
Diagnostic tests
Blood count, at least eight or more of the following indicators: haemoglobin, erythrocytes, leukocytes, haematocrit, platelets, MCV, MCH, MCHC (01.01)1071EUR 1084.24
(8%)		1040EUR 1052.85
(7%)		930EUR 1093.65
(7%)
Ultrasound diagnosis of abdominal and retroperitoneal organs (06.34)234EUR 1647.47
(13%)		201EUR 1415.14
(9%)		200EUR 1585.00
(10%)
Nuclear magnetic resonance (10.02)35EUR 4033.76
(31%)		50EUR 5762.52
(37%)		45EUR 5636.99
(37%)
Computed axial or spiral tomography (10.01)142EUR 5586.11
(43%)		177EUR 6962.97
(44%)		139EUR 6396.26
(42%)
X-ray examination of the oesophagus, stomach * (06.37)0EUR - 0EUR - 0EUR -
Radiography of the pelvis (06.33)7EUR 49.28
(0.38%)		6EUR 42.24
(0.27%)		7EUR 55.48
(0.36%)
Cytological examination of two cytosmear samples from female genitals (07.09)111EUR 505.11
(4%)		110EUR 500.55
(3%)		111EUR 539.16
(4%)
Total diagnostic costsEUR 12,905.97EUR 15,736.27EUR 15,306.55
Follow up costs
Physicians’ outpatients visits (A07)6327EUR 420,542.69 6418EUR 426,591.27 5647EUR 375,344.48
Total outpatient costsEUR 1,295,911.15EUR 1,327,729.65EUR 1,336,722.51
* no costs were reported by NHIF. ** codes according to the National Framework Agreement [32].
Table
Table 6. Total healthcare costs of cervical cancer (2018–2020).
Table 6. Total healthcare costs of cervical cancer (2018–2020).
201820192020
Drug acquisition costs EUR 2,574,577.39EUR 2,930,514.67EUR 2,924,694.87
Inpatient costsEUR 1,505,258.64EUR 1,741,501.04EUR 2,047,723.69
Outpatient costsEUR 1,295,911.15EUR 1,327,729.65EUR 1,336,722.51
Total direct costsEUR 5,375,747.18EUR 5,999,745.36EUR 6,309,141.07
Table
Table 7. Indirect costs due to productivity loss.
Table 7. Indirect costs due to productivity loss.
201820192020
N of deaths (all ages)304318364
Average age of death (years, range)62.33 (24–96)62.97 (21–93)61.47 (30–90)
N of deaths up to 61 years of age137 (45.1%)133 (41.8%)173 (47.5%)
Years of life lost6294.756401.937749.71
Mean YLL per person (±SD)20.7 (±11.2)20.1 (±10.8)21.3 (±10.7)
Years of working life lost162415071961
Mean years of working life lost per person (±SD)11.9 (±7.9)11.3 (±8.2)11.3 (±7.5)
GDP per employed–current prices (EUR) *EUR 15,965.23EUR 17,420.61EUR 17,767.83
Lost GDP (not produced GDP), EUR per yearEUR 2,187,236.80EUR 2,316,941.70EUR 3,073,835.04
* National Statistical Institute.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Lebanova, H.; Stoev, S.; Naseva, E.; Getova, V.; Wang, W.; Sabale, U.; Petrova, E. Economic Burden of Cervical Cancer in Bulgaria. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 2746. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20032746

AMA Style

Lebanova H, Stoev S, Naseva E, Getova V, Wang W, Sabale U, Petrova E. Economic Burden of Cervical Cancer in Bulgaria. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2023; 20(3):2746. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20032746

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lebanova, Hristina, Svetoslav Stoev, Emilia Naseva, Violeta Getova, Wei Wang, Ugne Sabale, and Elina Petrova. 2023. "Economic Burden of Cervical Cancer in Bulgaria" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 20, no. 3: 2746. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20032746

APA Style

Lebanova, H., Stoev, S., Naseva, E., Getova, V., Wang, W., Sabale, U., & Petrova, E. (2023). Economic Burden of Cervical Cancer in Bulgaria. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(3), 2746. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20032746

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop