forwomenseyesonly

Radical Changes to Pap Testing in Australia

As of December 1, 2017, Australia introduced some big changes to its cervical cancer screening program.   The outdated pap test has been replaced with a new HPV test, and intervals between testing have extended from once every two years to testing once every five years.  There is also a new recommended age to begin testing.  Australian women were previously encouraged to begin screening at age 18, but women are now advised to begin screening at age 25.

The reason for the changes is due to the improved accuracy of the HPV test. Experts claim that HPV testing is more accurate than the pap test, and therefore does not need to be done as often (source).

403 comments

  2. There’s no prostate screening program here, you’re encouraged to chat to your GP and make an informed decision, it’s fine to pass on the PSA test, many do, including my husband. The DRE is no longer recommended, hasn’t been for some time. Men do get mixed messages here, some sporting groups urge men to “get screened”…confusing when there’s no screening program. I know some urologists recommend both the DRE and PSA test, it’s controversial, but there’s lots of real information around to help make an informed decision – it’s a VERY different approach.
    It was very hard to find real information on cervical screening, not as difficult with breast screening.

    The bowel screening test is not fully funded, so the tests are sent out at various ages, starting from 50 – I hear that only about 38% are sent back so it seems like a huge waste of money, they probably should ask people to tick a box if they actually want the test.
    “By 2020, all Australians aged between 50 and 74 years of age will be offered free screening every two years. This means about 4 million Australians will be invited to screen each year and more than 12,000 suspected or confirmed cancers will be detected each year”

    Reply

    • I’m not making excuses for these programs, good God no, but I think that part of the problem in this different attitude towards women’s cervical and breast cancer screening is that both these programs were conceived and developed in the 1970-80s when attitudes to women were very different from today. I felt it was wrong in the 1980’s. I had a gut feeling it wasn’t right to force this on women, but like a lot of women at the time I didn’t have the knowledge to fight it. These 2 programs are a fixed product from this era, and many scientists have said such programs would never run today, but we are stuck with them, as the vested interests dig their heels in. I know that the National Screening Committee in the UK has been set up to prevent this problem ever happening again. They carefully investigate all new screening ideas to make sure we are not stuck with screening programs like this ever again. I think that part of the reason the HPV vaccination program was brought in so quickly was to wind down the pap smear test business before info on the damage it has caused gets out.
      By the way, I posted on the discussion forum about the Vicky Phelan case. What do others think of this?

      Reply

  3. Hi Ada
    I’d certainly hope these programs would not be permitted today but I cringe when I see some in the medical world desperately trying to find a continuing use for the Pap test, and I couldn’t believe we were actually extending our breast screening program. (we now screen up to age 74)
    I knew it would be difficult to follow the evidence and start HPV testing at age 30, there was already concern about pushing the age up to 25 – most women here have had a “scare” or “treatment”…many believe they’d be dead without that early pap test.

    When you mislead women for decades, it’s not easy to suddenly change that advice, unless you can find a way to do it safely like “we have new evidence”. It might mean women walk away or heaven forbid, seek legal advice. It was also necessary to appease vested interests who’ve been making a fortune from over-screening and over-treatment.
    So women here will be subjected to an invasive HPV test and because we’ll be testing far too often and starting at 25, there’s still a lot of meat on the bone for vested interests, we’ll still worry and harm lots of women, especially young women.

    I hoped (probably naively) we’d see more being done to pull doctors and these programs into line.
    It was only a few years ago when the head of the AMA (who felt the Pill should remain on script) said something like, “I doubt many doctors would prescribe the Pill without a current Pap test on file and, of course, women need their breast checks”…
    I didn’t see a single challenge anywhere…
    I thought someone might at least point out that routine breast exams have not been recommended for many years. No, not a word. The cone of silence is still in place…
    Crazy thing is the GP’s Red Book clearly states routine breast exams are not recommended at any age. I thought the fear to challenge clearly incorrect information would have eased by now, but it seems there’s still a firm understanding that most won’t challenge anything said to promote and protect women’s cancer screening. (and to keep the Pill on script)

    I was reading a decision by the Medical Board from approx. 2010, a male doctor allegedly refused to issue a repeat script for the Pill until the young woman agreed to a Pap test, when she declined, he tried to kiss her when she was leaving the room. Now this would have been an opportunity for the Board to make a clear statement about the practice of holding scripts to force women into cancer screening but no, they simply said that it was up to the woman if she wanted to have a Pap test.
    How can it be up to the woman if a refusal means the GP will hold the script?
    It would have been safe to make a clear statement, most women wouldn’t see the statement, but many doctors would…but no, IMO, they chose to protect coercion.
    It’s this continuing reluctance to empower and inform women, discipline doctors and change a dysfunctional and abusive system that frustrates and annoys me.

    There’s still very little said about informed consent with cervical screening, we had (I think) the first article on the subject in the MJA a couple of years ago, and it was such a gentle suggestion, “now we have a new program, perhaps, we should consider informed consent”…
    So it seems the attitude is pretty much the same, our legal rights are just something they might choose to consider.

    Reply

    • There is a woman who has posted on Kiwicelts link below: was diagnosed with “CIN3 cancer” soon after first sex, and although HPV negative was given a conisation giving her problems today. She still believes she has been saved, and is dismissing the idea that the cancer takes years to develop, and she probably got this treatment for nothing.

      Reply

      • The doctors would know a HPV- woman would not need a conization, I think by making it the “test of cure” here, that gave them some cover, HPV- after the procedure, they’d sorted you out, life savers, when most of these women were HPV- before they had the procedure. Huge amounts of over-treatment ticked off with the test of cure. It’s horrible to think that went on for so long, completely unnecessary and damaging treatments on HPV- women.
        The woman who posted on that thread – I’ll bet she was young when she produced the CIN 3 Pap test = false positive, before age 25 and the risk of a false positive is very high, the risk of cancer VERY low…the system did the rest of the damage.

      • What infuriates me is the phrase “not getting screened is the biggest cause of cervical cancer”. It’s being used a lot in the UK when the actual research shows about 53% of women with diagnoses are regular screeners, but they don’t shout about that as it would prove the innaccuracy of the test. By saying that not screening is a cause of cancer is so wrong: it puts blame on those who get this cancer, says it is their own fault, and suggests that being female is an illness that needs correcting by the normalisation of regular medical treatments. It’s so wrong to mislead people like this and these people should know better.

      • Thank you, wonderful woman. I try to post as often as I can on these articles in the hope that someone will read it. That Dr Sykes is a researcher and knows all about overdiagnosis but not a mention.

  5. I just tried to get the Harding Centre Risk Literacy graphic about cervical screening to send to someone but I can not access it from the website.It seems to have been taken down?

    Reply

  6. I keep getting “You are not authorised to access this page”. I can only access the breast screening one. I looked about Christmas time and couldn’t find anything on cervical at all. I’ve never seen it.

    Reply

    • Adawells that is what I was getting. Luckily I have it printed off. It basically says if you screen 100 000 women over 20, per year you, prevent 25 cases of Ca cervix and 3 deaths BUT 4950 women are incorrectly diagnosed with Ca cervix or told they are high risk. Pretty damning, that’s probably why it has been removed. Elizabeth may be able to link it. I have emailed the Harding Centre to question it’s removal.

      Reply

  7. https://www.lshtm.ac.uk/newsevents/news/2018/little-evidence-any-direct-impact-national-cancer-policies-short-term-survival

    This piece of news has created a stir. Evidence from this study has shown that none of the cancer policies in England have made any difference to survival or closed deprivation gaps between rich and poor. The full article can be read. The researchers found that a very small closing of the deprivation gap occured in cervical and endometrial cancers but nothing of significance.

    Reply

  8. This is the reply to the email I sent the Harding Centre for Risk Literacy.
    You are right. We removed the fact box for cervical cancer early detection by screening with the Pap test because it was outdated and there is new medical evidence available.
    We hope to puplish an updated version at some time but as we are only a small research group, I cannot say when this will be the case.

    Meanwhile, I would like to refer you to this site which offers evidence based and transparent information on health topics:
    https://www.informedhealth.org/cervical-cancer.2109.en.html

    I hope this helps.
    With best regards,
    Ines Lein

    Reply

  9. Thanks for doing this. I browsed their website a while back and noticed there was a gap in the cervical screening pages. I doubt they’ll get back to it somehow – as the vaccinated cohorts move through over the years there will be a sharp year on year change in the statistics anyway.
    Interesting to see the system from the German point of view – I can’t seem to access it now, but I noticed the bit about how women have a choice how frequently they want to get tested, not if they want to test at all.

    Reply

    • I love the quote from the doctors, that the women should “carry on with their lives”.

      Wonderfully dismissive, they are clearly saying there’s nothing to see here. It’s all just propaganda.

      Reply

    • Kiwi, she is amazing, and the movement is growing more and more. Also Prof Susan Bewley is another who has been particularly outspoken on the breast screening fiasco, and led the letter to The Times saying that mammography was more harm than good and women shouldn’t look the gift horse in the mouth.
      As I said before, there’s something very funny going on in the UK. All this month, the Irish cervical screening programme finds thousands were not recalled due to computer glitsch. Inquiry launched. A week later, ditto the UK breast screening programme, 6 month inquiry launched, and then only yesterday the Daily Fail finds 90 unsent “invitations” in the UK cervical programme. I think the government wants to privatise them, but can’t figure out what’s happening. Will we find that the progs are not fit for purpose and the lot shut down soon?

      Reply

      • I’m not sure if it’s a domino effect, one is causing people to look into and dig up failings in the other but I agree that the timing it very weird. It’s a lot at once.

        It does feel like they are trying to set something up perhaps.

        I think we should start referring to an “invitation” as ” unsolicited junk mail”. That’s exactly what they are to women who don’t want to screen.

      • In the Irish screening programme, they are saying that some of the slides were misread by an American lab and women went on to develop Ca cervix believing there results were normal. Cervical check knew about this but never informed the women concerned. Vicky Phelan found out and refused to sign a confidentiality agreement and be paid out. She won her case in court. It is good because now they will have to tell women about the inherent inaccuracies of the LBC test. Unfortunately it will pave the way nicely for the primary HPV test introduction. Sorry that this happened but we have a much better test for you now etc etc. Hopefully some will research for themselves.
        Adawells, I agree that the timing of the Breast screening fiasco is interesting.
        Must be tricky. How can they backpedal and tell women the truths about screening when they have indoctrinated women for years.
        It will take women themselves, rejecting the testing in numbers, maybe that’s what they are going to encourage.

    • Sounds like a great article, I will see if I can get it from my work as behind a paywall.

      New news from our wonderful NHS breast screening programme!
      They’d slightly over-estimated! What a surprise! Instead of 450,000 missed being sent a summons letter, that figure has gone down to 174,000, and the number who may have had their lives shortened? That now stands at less than 75, after a previous estimate of 270. All guesswork modelling, of course. We wait to see how many have rushed to take up the extra appointment, but services have said they can fit everybody in along with the usual screeners. I’m sure they’ll be able to as the uptake goes down 1% every year.

      Reply

  14. I tried from our local library today, but they only have online up to March. They have a 3 month embargo on new journals. Might just have to be patient until September.
    I’ve an idea that it’s about the harms of LETZ treatments and preterm births. Nothing we don’t know already, but a slow thaw of the screening dictatorship.

    Reply

    • I haven’t seen the whole article, not sure I’d want to pay for it as the opening paragraphs pissed me off no end! But as far as I’m aware, the article contains an interview with a lady who runs a FB group dealing with complications after LLetz – not just the acknowledged problems with pre-term birth, but emotional and physical trauma, including sexual problems. So slightly different angle, but we still have the usual pompous ass denying that their ‘life-saving treatments’ could possibly be causing any long-term harm.

      Reply

      • I also tried but am loathed to pay for it! I doubt it’s anything we don’t know but it’s good to see word out there via another site.

  15. “but it’s good to see word out there via another site”
    …but behind a pay wall to ensure it doesn’t cause any damage to the precious program and it’s target!

    A 66 year old woman living in the UK wants to buy a HPV self test kit – she went through hell trying to have a pap test at age 60, she’s obviously worried and wants to test – hopefully, she’ll then feel confident to move on with her life and forget all about cervical screening.
    Can anyone recommend an online service? I found a couple, both charging about 60 pounds, can she order the Delphi Screener direct from the Netherlands or is it available on a UK site?

    Reply

  16. Our screening authorities in NZ have announced that our screening age will not be raised to 25 until 2019 and we will now not be introducing Primary HPV testing until2021.

    They provide this information about the age change.
    Age range change for cervical screening
    The National Cervical Screening Programme will be changing the starting age for cervical screening from 20 to 25 years in 2019.
    This decision has been made because there is now a strong body of evidence that screening women between the ages of 20 and 24 provides little benefit to women and can cause harm. The primary reason for this is the human papillomavirus (HPV) that causes more than 90 per cent of cervical cancers is common in younger age groups and often clears up on its own.

    Since the inception of the NCSP in 1990, there has been no reduction in cervical cancer incidence rates and mortality for women under 25 years. Screening in this age group provides little benefit to women, and can cause harm.

    Increasing the age that women first start screening will reduce the potential harm of overtreatment of women under 25, such as over-diagnosis, increased stress and anxiety associated with additional tests and treatments and unnecessary colposcopy.

    The age change is in line with that of many other countries including Australia, England, Scotland, the Netherlands, France, Belgium, Ireland, Italy, and Norway. The World Health Organisation’s International Agency for Research on Cancer also recommends cervical screening begins at age 25.

    The HPV vaccination programme in schools offers the best protection to younger age groups from HPV infections and invasive cancer. Progress with the programme’s coverage rates has been accelerated with boys now being offered the vaccination since 2017.

    Until the screening age is raised to 25 years old, women aged between 20 to 24 years of old should continue screening as previously, and as directed by their GP or other cervical screening provider. Any women, including those outside the screening age range, who have concerning symptoms such as unusual vaginal bleeding should see their health care provider who will arrange appropriate tests.

    Reply

  17. Our screening Nazis provide information about the harms of screening young women and then there is this…….

    “Frequently asked questions for providers
    On this page you will find answers to frequently asked questions about the age range change for cervical screening in 2019.
    On this page:

    Should women aged 20 to 24 years old continue to have cervical screening prior to raising the age for screening?

    Until the age of screening is raised to 25 years old, women age between 20 and 24 years old should continue to have cervical screening according to the current pathway. This includes commencing screening at 20 years old if ever sexually active, with a repeat smear one year after the first and three yearly thereafter.

    What should happen for women aged 20 to 24 years old who have had abnormal smears?

    Women with abnormal smears should continue with the current investigation and management pathway.

    If there is little benefit to screening women aged 20 to 24 years old, why can’t I stop screening them now?

    The pathways for women aged 20 to 24 during this transition period are in development, and will be provided as part of the communications prior to the age change in 2019. To ensure that women continue to receive screening in a timely manner, we recommend that the current screening continue until the age of screening is raised to 25 years old.

    When the age is raised to 25, what should happen for women aged 20 to 24 years old who have already started screening?

    Further information about pathways for women depending on screening history will be provided as part of the communications prior to the age change in 2019.

    When the age is raised to 25, what should happen for women aged 20 to 24 years old who have had an abnormal smear?

    Further information about pathways for women depending on screening history will be provided as part of the communications prior to the age change in 2019.

    When the age is raised to 25, what should I tell women aged 20-24 who request a smear?

    Page last updated: 07 June 2018

    So we know that screening harms young women but continue anyway! There is no mention about informing women about the harms and allowing them to make an informed decision!!!!

    Reply

    • The evidence is now on the table that screening under 25 harms, and yet they still do it. It was the same in Scotland and Wales. England changed age commencement from 20 to 25 about 2006, but Scotland and Wales continued pestering those aged 19 and a half for smear tests until June 2016. I am convinced it was purely to use these women as an early test to see if the HPV vaccine was effective or not, as a lot of the results on HPV reductions have come from Scotland.

      Reply

      • I totally agree with you. I feel our young women are also being used as research fodder for the HPV vaccination. There is also the possibility that they are a complete bunch of incompetent policymakers who couldn’t organise a piss up in a brewery. I am going to make a formal complaint to the Health and Disability commission in NZ citing lack of informed consent.

      • That’s the reason change was help up here, one of our prominent doctors actually said we had a rare opportunity to test the effectiveness of the HPV vaccine because many other countries no longer pap tested women under 25. (so we should leave the program unchanged until the research was complete, they actually cross referenced the Pap tests of those under 25 with Gardasil records)
        It’s disgusting that statement went through to the keeper, no one questioned the ethics – no consent for cervical screening in many cases, little informed consent so no consent to use young women as guinea pigs is not really a problem – goes to show how the slippery slope works! We continued to screen (and “treat”) young women…and we seriously over-screened them, 2 yearly testing, and that went on until this year. Of course, some of the “treated” women are now worried about no pap testing (even if they’re HPV-) and waiting 5 years between testing. That’s why I always Q medical advice, is this really in MY best interests? Often the answer is NO

    • Kiwi, amongst all the pink vomit churned out by Jo’s Tosh this past “Awareness week” this has given me quite a laugh. Their whole glorious screening campaign has imploded and pitted screening nazi against nazi!
      They obviously monitor social media and tune their campaigns accordingly, as a few months ago there was a twitter frenzy about them using the words women/woman in their advertising. Men who had transformed to women complained that they were not being sent screening reminders for cervical screening even though they did not have a cervix. They claimed it was important for their gender identity and feelings of female inclusivity to be called up for a smear test as “it was all part of being a woman”. 😔 The NHS responded by putting these people onto the “NHS vagina database”. Huge howls of criticism (and jokes) followed about money being spent on smear tests for these trans people. So as not to offend LBGT sensitivites and women who don”t have a cervix, they’ve now been using the “anyone with a cervix” as their target phrase of attack, only to be confronted by feminists arguing that the word woman should not have been removed and be put back in the campaign.
      The people doing all the shouting are presumably those who are obsessive about screening, and are halfway up their own backsides anyway. What business is it of theirs what other people do? When will they realise that these awareness programs are nothing more than witch hunts, providing an excuse to go bashing some sector of society they don’t agree with. All their campaigns upset some person or other, and ever since they’ve come into being the numbers wanting the test dwindle. A sure sign that these campaigns don’t work. Would be interesting to see how it pans out.

      Reply

      • Adawells thank you for that beautiful summary of what is going on. I found the article hilarious and the comments even better! I was delighted to see the number of women ( or should I say people with a cervix available to be captured for screening), turning away from the charity and saying that they will no longer be donating, it made my day!!

  19. People with a cervix….hmmm. Says it all really..So much of our so called healthcare revolves around our cervix. I’m sure my doctor regarded me as just a vagina!

    Reply

  20. Yayyy ! The Jos Tosh Be cervix savvy roadside is hitting Scotland today for about six weeks. Apparently a quarter of Scotland’s people with a cervix don’t know what cervical screening is for….

    Reply

    • It’s pathetic isn’t it, Kat. Just how patronising and insulting can that creepy organisation get? It’s basically calling women, thick, stupid, ignorant failures.

      Reply

      • Ada I agree with you. But hopefully their support will go downhill after the latest fiasco

  21. http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/8/6/e021174

    I don’t know if any of you have seen this new article which has come out. It makes for very sad reading that women are so blind, brainless and besotted with screening, but it’s true. The sample group were all committed screeners, so that’s got to skew the results in a big way, but it’s all very clear how, even when the overdiagnosis revelation shocks them, they still want to be invited for screening.
    Whilst it calls for a culture change, (no doubt, they’ll want another ton of research cash to find out the best way to do that), there is no mention that the pink ribbon brainwashing campaigns are still endemic and in full swing. No mention that just stopping the promotion of mammography, would go a long way in letting attendance tail off naturally. I’ve noticed that those in the medical profession seem blindly unaware of the bullying, harrassmant and downright threats which are commonplace in doctors surgeries to get women to screen.

    Reply

    • Excellent!They haven’t put my last one up and I sent it twice! Interesting how the blokes feel they are missing out because they don’t have their own screening!

      Reply

    • Great job, both of you! Men are incredibly short sighted and naive if they think women’s healthcare needs are taking precedence over theirs. In reality it’s just the opposite – men are being protected from the harms of unreliable testing while women are not! Men receive informed consent and women don’t!

      Reply

    • You’ve both got loads of thumbs up. Where’s the resistance all gone? No-one replying. Perhaps they’ve got the message and been educated by your comments? Oh, hang on a minute, it’s the Daily Mail, so I expect they’re looking up cervical screening in Mein Kampf.

      Reply

      • Ada maybe times are changing. I remember a few years back there would be literally 100’s of comments on a piece about smears and any non screener or those critical of it would be shot down in flames. They would also get lots of red arrows. There’s not even many comments this time. Of course the HPV issue isn’t really new. A while ago the same daily fail ran a piece..screen women for HPV at the same time as their smear test. .as Elizabeth would say just assuming that all women DO have smears….

    • Just went and gave all your comments a thumbs up 🙂 I’m also really surprised at the absence of the militant screening brigade.

      I am also active on Twitter and it seems all the pro-screeners sending “just go, it will save your life” messages have gone fairly quiet too. Certainly quieter than they have been.

      Reply

  25. There are a few people out there with critical thinking skills, though unfortunately they’re woefully few and far between.

    Reply

  28. Hi ladies I just read piece in telegraph about STI infection. It mentions globally 291 million women “harbour the HPV virus. No mention of infection in men…

    Reply

      • Oh, I’m SURE that no one has EVER gotten HPV (or anything else!) from a speculum that had been rinsed between patients, and soaked in a disinfectant product that is proven to NOT kill HPV. Nor from the brush. Nor from the table itself. Nor from the community glove box.

  29. https://blogs.kcl.ac.uk/cancerprevention/2018/07/06/why-arent-we-seeing-the-effect-of-vaccination-against-hpv-16-18-on-cervical-cancer-registration-in-england/#comment-2

    I have recently posted on this site, but so far nothing has come up. Interesting to see that 1808 cases of cervical cancer were diagnosed in the UK in 2008, and 339 more in 2009 when Ms Goody died. Can’t quite see where the 3000 cases diagnosed every year come from that the media is always quoting. In another of their posts I read that the start age from cervical screening in UK has actually come down to 24 and a half, a few years ago. Don’t remember hearing about that happening…?

    Reply

    • Ada, I think they’re referring to the fig-leaf policy of sending out invites to women at 24 and a half. Ya know, the one they brought in to placate the baying mobs calling for the screening age to be lowered. After all, 25 is such an arbitrary age anyway, what does it matter? (adds another eyeroll).
      Seems that the definition and thresholds of diseases is constantly being changed, so frankly I wouldn’t trust any of the figures spewed out.

      Reply

      • The baying mobs screaming about lowering screening ages…. The evidence that lower screening ages is just pointless is never discussed in the media. The idea that funding is cut for “women’s health issues, is the political cause. Instead why are women not fighting for real women’s issues such as equal pay (or better, a living wage), affordable housing and affordable daycare? It seems that women’s cancer screening funding is the smoke screen of all women’s political issues. I will keep point that out until people understand.

    • Caroline, I have just posted some comments, one is up so far. Thanks for the information and the link. I have to say, seeing an article like this discussing HARMS of treatment following cervical screening is a bit of a first!

      Reply

      • It definitely is! There are various doctors on Twitter getting their panties in a bunch about the fact it’s discouraging women from attending smears, it’s therefore irresponsible etc.

        I’ve added a couple of comments, will try and do some more today.

    • The Kool-Aid is strong there! No actual arguments or refutations, not a one, merely and endless changed mantra of “pap smear save lives, how dare yousuggest they or the follow up are anything less than perfect!”

      These people are in a cult. A Heaven’s Gate level cult.

      Reply

    • Good woman! I saw one of your’s come up. Can you believe that poor lady on there, Love to be a Nanny who has been to all her Screening, had two cryo type treatments and two LLETZ procedures and is still dying of cervical cancer. She is still telling everyone quite firmly to have their smear tests and treatments!!! Surely you would be a bit pissed off and questioning the programme?

      Reply

  32. UK ladies alert on they work for you..Apparently the screening committee is going to look at self testing for HPV in autumn. ..Ada know any more? Or anyone else? I won’t say it’s about time with women leaving in droves…

    Reply

    • Kat, I’ll have a look into this and dig out anything I can find. I know nothing about it, but someone did tell me ages ago, self-testing would never be a part of the UK programme, but maybe they’ve caved in under the pressure. The research I’ve seen has said that no interventions to increase uptake actually work, except for self -testing and I know Jo’s Tosh are pushing for it. If it ever comes about, prepare to see them dance in pink glory for having striven so hard for it and saved all us ignorant defaulters our lives!

      Other good news is that the UK screening information leaflets were updated last May to include a link on how to opt out of screening. Yes! It may be on the very back page but the link is there on the online leaflets and on new paper ones, however they’ve still got a lot of the old ones which don’t have it on to use up. I wonder when these will run out? I think we’ll soon find out when the besotted pro-screeners start squawking about it in Huff Post and The Fail. Remember how shocked they were when they changed the leaflets to say women had a choice and Paula Sheriff stood up in Parliament to get this information removed in case women started to question screening?

      Reply

      • Unbelievable and sad how women can be other women’s worst enemies. It truly weakens us all and that’s part of how we got here in the first place with these horrid invasive tests and lack of informed consent

    • https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/health/105460577/auckland-researchers-trial-a-selfscreening-smear-test-to-overcome-cultural-taboos

      This is where we are at in NZ. They have delayed raising the screening age to 25 until 2019 and the new HPV Screening Programme won’t be introduced until 2021, it was supposed to happen at the end of 2018. Something is clearly wrong. I launched an OIA request but they redacted and withheld any relevant information. I am going to take this up with the Ombudsman.

      Reply

      • Is it not possible for NZ ladies to get hold of selt-test kits from overseas? It makes my blood boil that they keep saying it is embarrassment and cultural taboos which stop women from getting smeared. They use this line over and over again in the UK. The other group they target is the disabled. The fact that many disabled people may have made a consious decision not to have the test just passes them by.

      • The article is written as if they’ve just fathomed out women might have cultural taboos ( if they do. As we all know they might just not want it….Oh such a crime!!)

      • Robert Music stated “Our latest research found 86% of Scottish women would prefer to self-sample at home and I hope to see this offered as part of the programme soon.”
        So what the hell are they waiting for?
        No…instead they continue to target, encourage, spend another £5 million, more national marketing campaigns, taking cervical cancer to high streets and retail parks across Scotland!!! What a huge waste of money, there are sick patients denied medication as it is too expensive, lives are being shortened…even for children for goodness sake!
        I am happy to see the fall in younger women, they are accessing the info like we do & making their own decisions. But older women still seem to be screening…you’d think they would be wiser than this instead of blindly trusting the programme, info & staff.

      • Thank you for this Caroline.
        From the article

        “Cervical screening saves lives. That’s why we are continuing to carry out a range of work to encourage women to attend their screening appointments.

        “This includes a series of national marketing campaigns – the most recent of which particularly targeted younger women, where we know uptake is lower.

        “Up to £5 million of funding from the Cancer Strategy is being invested in the cancer screening programmes, including cervical screening, to encourage participation.”

        Public Health England are telling us that screening is a choice and we can opt out etc. However, if we do decline we are ” targeted” and encouraged to participate. It does my head in and the total waste of resources is disgusting.
        It will be us women who bring about change. It has to come from women themselves because no health system or government can admit that this should never have been instigated in the first place. That’s the only thing that keeps me pushing on. I will keep commenting on all the articles and hope that some will start to question.

    • The misallocation of health care resources that ChasUK describes in the post below is similar to what we have in the US – the healthy insured population is constantly targeted for screening tests, with all the accompanying false positives, over diagnosis etc. that use up even more resources, while those who are truly sick and in need of care, but may not be insured or are underinsured, go without. It’s truly a sad state of affairs.

      Reply

      • Judy this is so true. My sister is a health professional in San Francisco working in the community. The stories she tells are unbelievable. Her patients are in hostels etc. The divide between the haves and have-nots is very wide.

  37. Me too up-voted. So annoying they keep saying it’s the embarrassment and the societal taboo, when the elephant in the room is that shit stinks horribly and who wants to poop into an ice cream container and fiddle around with the sticks they give you to scrape it? You can understand people putting it off. Who on earth is embarrassed anyway to be in a room on their own with a lock on the door?

    Reply

    • As you guys know, I have removed myself from the bowel screening merry go round. I received a letter confirming my choice. It took less than a week to sort out. No drama. You may be surprised (!) to learn that it took months of phone calls and letters to remove myself from the cervical and breast screening databases. 🙄

      Reply

      • Chas I remember last year the terrible Scottish scare campaign stop fannying around and get tested with the flower that morphed into a vagina. It was meant to empower them to get tested..o viously worked well…..

      • How did you go about finally getting removed from the cervical screening databases – any tips on what to write Mint? My letters have failed miserably. I was ‘under the radar’ for about 10 years as I had been struck off my GP’s list out of the blue, presumably because I never went. I registered with a new one in Feb 2017 and received my first cervical screening summons in March 2017. I immediately wrote back, copy to GP, to opt out but received a further invite in August 2017. I wrote a strongly worded letter to the GP saying that I was surprised to receive a further invite as I had opted out and explaining, as quoted in PHE guidance, any further sharing of my details with screening authority would be a breach under Data Protection Act. I received my next invite in December and two more this year – April 2018 and now just yesterday – so 5 in total! I don’t want to be interrogated the next time I need to visit the surgery, so would rather get things sorted now. Thanks

      • Thanks Ada. Unfortunately, my letters are being ignored and I’m still receiving the invites. However, I’ve followed the link you mentioned and have printed off an opt-out template which I’ve filled in and will send back. Here’s hoping . . .

      • It is really terrible they are ignoring your letters as they have a legal obligation to follow your instructions. I’ve also read that they have a number of other little tricks up their sleeve:
        They may call you in and say you have to have a 1-2-1 “chat” with the GP about your decision before they can opt you out. I don’t think you are under any obligation to do this. All patients have a legal right to decline treatment without giving a reason, but you may want to go in and tell them straight that you are making an informed choice.
        I’ve also heard that some GP surgeries opt you out, but send you a “reminder of your opt out status” every 3 years in the hope that you may change your mind. It gives them an excuse to hassle you every 3 years as if you were still in the programme.
        Do let us know how you get on.

      • Hi Julie

        As Ada has already said, I wrote to my GP and copied in the Health Trust (as it was called then) and I continued to write and make phone calls until I received an opt-out form. I filled it in and the invitations stopped.

        I still had to be very firm with the GP, nurses and receptionists that I did not want screening no matter how many times I was asked. One of the nurses tried to talk me into a smear when I visited an asthma clinic with my son. She told me to “pop off my trousers and hop unto the couch” with my 10 year old son still in the room! She was unrepentant when I pointed out to her how unprofessional she was being. She tried to emotionally blackmail me by saying I should have one so that I could bring up my children. Shocking behaviour. I complained about her. I didn’t see her again at the surgery.

        Good luck.

      • Thanks Mint. I’m really shocked at the behaviour of the nurse, it’s just not acceptable that we have to put up with this when we visit healthcare providers.

  38. They’d probably given you up by then as a hopeless case lol. They finally seem to have given up with me on breast and cervical. Next year I’ll b”invited” to flexi sig at 55 lol b opting out of that then plus the s… kits. ..

    Reply

  39. Did you see in the daily fail piece 86% of Scottish women would prefer to self test at home? …shock horror really??? What will Mr Music and the programme do then??

    Reply

    • Hi Kat,
      I see Music is trying to get self-testing onto the programme, or at least, he claims he is. I’ve not been able to find any news on how the UK programme will change at all. Only that all UK nations will switch by end of 2019 to HPV testing, but no news at all that they will reduce the screening interval beyond 3 yearly. Wales will fully switch to HPV testing by end of this month, but they will continue to screen every 3 years from age 25 as usual. I’ve read somewhere that this will increase referrals in this age bracket by 80% until the vaccinated cohort moves through. For ladies in the UK in their early 20s right now, they are at risk of serious over referrals until the programme is changed. Seen loads of women posting that they are waiting over 12 weeks for results to come through, while they shut down the cytology labs.

      Reply

      • Ada maybe Music is realising jos tosh might soon be redundant if women continue leaving in droves. Self testing might keep them afloat. Not that he or anyone else is concerned with what women want of course. ..

      • Yes I agree. If self-testing ever comes about he’ll be claiming it was all down to him. Ever since Jo’s came into existence the uptake rate has been going down and down. They are always claiming their campaigning works and produces miraculous results. They run these little stands and claim they are getting women to test, but when the results come out they are always less than the year before.
        But anyway, we don’t want them to succeed anyway!

  40. Julie they continued to hassle me for a while even after I’d had confirmation from the screening authority of my opted out status. I avoided the doctor for 2 years as a result. Now I’m going again and it’s not been mentioned since though at 54 I’d be on 5 year” invites”. I opted out of mammography too…that’s never been mentioned. Next year I’ll be opting out of bowel screening as I’ll be “invited “for bowel scope screening. I hope finally they listen to you. Be warned the GP will probably not inform the screening authority you’ve opted out….they didn’t with me and I got “invites”from screening authority til I told them to do one lol…..

    Reply

    • Thanks Kat. I’ll bear this in mind. I’ve sent my little reply slip off to the screening authority (thanks to Ada’s link) so will see what happens…

      Reply

  41. Now that we are approaching the final months of 2018, I wondered how the Australian programme has been coming on? Is there a big demand for the self-testing option? How are people getting used to the idea that it’s dropped to every 5 years? I’m sure the screening Nazis in the UK are monitoring the situation before changing the UK programme, but I think we are years behind…

    Reply

    • We’re closing off 2019 (thank goodness, it’s been a horrendous year)
      The self testing option has been kept fairly quiet, not sure how many women actually get to use it, if you successfully plead your case and refuse the speculum, you have to use the self test at the doctor’s surgery – you can’t take it home to use in the privacy of your own bathroom.
      Of course, you can’t give women that sort of control, we’re all so hopeless…

      I think some women were holding off on the test waiting for the 5 yearly test, no doubt, sick to death of the 2 yearly Pap test – there were lots of articles – “women risking their lives by delaying their Pap tests!!!”

      Our young women are being thrown under the bus again, HPV testing from 25 is a definite no-no, basic research will tell you that – but we’re doing it anyway, in fact, we mislead young women by representing it as a vitally important preventative health check. The numbers having colposcopies and biopsies must be huge…just horrible. All so unnecessary…

      Thanks for your condolences, Ada, yes, hard to believe he’s gone at 50.
      I’m so sorry to hear about your sister, it’s hard enough when someone has an actual disease, but dreadful to have the nagging doubt – was it avoidable and unnecessary, over-treatment?

      I do wonder how many women go through hell simply because they followed the advice to have a mammogram every 2 years from 50 (or earlier) without knowing the dark side: over-diagnosis and over-treatment. It’s mentioned here now, but played down – and of course, the old chestnut thrown in, “we’re not sure what will or won’t progress so everything has to be treated”…doesn’t sound like a great screening test to me!

      Reply

      • https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30980039
        Eliz, my sister has always been very pro-screening and doesn’t share my views, so it was a huge shock earlier this year when a mammo detected DCIS and a mastectomy was automatically offered. She was absolutely distraught and wanted a 2nd opinion at a much larger hospital, so there were more delays and more biopsies.
        For a while it looked like she might get away with a lumpectomy but after more biopsies located more DCIS and “comedo necrosis” she opted for the full mastectomy with concurrent reconstruction from abdomen tissue – an 8 hour operation and a full week in hospital being kept at unbearably hot tropical temperatures to ensure the new tissue takes hold. It has been an absolute nightmare for her, and she has spent the best part of the waiting being ill through the stress of it all. I sent her a couple of papers and one about a trial for DCIS patients, but, as she said to me once, “how can anyone ever get off the conveyor belt with what I know now?” That is the problem because if you step on that conveyor belt there is no getting off.
        She’d been told me that a discovery of comedo necrosis means cancer within 3 years but I have never been able to substantiate this claim of theirs, and the linked paper shows they really don’t have a clue if comedo necrosis will go on to become cancer at all. Sounds familiar doesn’t it, like CIN in cervical cancer?
        I did send her a link to Mitzi Blennerhassett’s website, and she was surprised to discover that women getting a summons before age 50 were taking part in the dubious AgeX trial. She remembered getting her first mammo summons at age 48 and thinking it was unusual, but had gone along every 3 years, so had probably had about 5 mammograms already. She also told me she knew nothing about DCIS before being diagnosed with it, even though it was added to the leaflets about 2014. I think women only read the first leaflet they are sent and don’t bother reading subsequent ones, and many simply fail to understand that not all small cancers will develop. Like most women, they go along because they feel so well, and have absolutely not the slightest symptoms that anything could be wrong, so they assume they will get away with it again. They also mistakenly believe that catching it small, means small treatment. How wrong these assumptions are.

      • Caroline non of mine are appearing either. There were 12 comments on the article when I commented, maybe they are just not adding anymore. It does seem to be a bit odd.

    • Ugh. It just goes to show how stupid these pro-screening fanatics are. Years ago, it was all too easy to manipulate women who resisted testing into believing they were weird, that there was something wrong with them for feeling the way they did. You all know the lines… ‘other women don’t complain’, ‘all women have this test’ etc. etc…
      But now, by bringing attention to the fact that there’s actually a very large number of women saying no to the speculum, and that number is increasing year on year, the non-screeners out there are more likely to take comfort in that fact rather than rush to hop up on the couch!

      Reply

      • Hi Kate

        There is an absolute waft of screening articles on the net claiming there is a twenty year low of women having smear tests.

        They are claiming the usual suspects – embaressment, time constraints, women worried about pain etc etc. They’ve even touted that old chestnut about Jade Goody effect diminishing.

        Nowhere do the articles state that it is a women’s choice or that women are deciding the pros and cons of screening and making an informed choice. They are talking once again about opportunistic testing which in my opinion is an abomination to women.

        Of course Robert Music and PHE are crying thier eyes about falling numbers. Boo Hoo.

      • Caroline censor. I tried to comment too it said I was being moderated. Most of the comments up are ” don’t be embarrassed / it’s no big deal…..

      • Hi Linda… You know, if you nag someone relentlessly, one of two things will happen ; They either cave in to your demands to shut you up, or they get really angry and less inclined to so-operate. The pro-screeners don’t seem to realise that with the steady stream of bullcrap they spew out, they’re actually pissing people off! They really are deluded, poor dears.

        As for Robert Music, he’s just a government lackey, and I have nothing but contempt for the man and his money-grubbing ‘charity’.

  43. Agreed Kate and Linda…I love the latest. We’re not having smears because we’re scared our vaginas smell bad…it’d be funny if it wasn’t so insulting. .

    Reply

  44. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/10/181023085744.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily%2Fhealth_medicine%2Fcervical_cancer+%28Cervical+Cancer+News+–+ScienceDaily%29
    “HPV blood test shows promise for tracking head and neck cancer after treatment”

    So why the testing each and every cervix with a scrape & a poke??
    If HPV IS detectable by a blood test whatever the stage, be it cancer of the throat/neck/cervix then a blood test it should be for all!

    Reply

    • There was an interesting UK study back in 2014 concluding a urine test for hpv showed solid results, certainly more reliable than Pap testing.
      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5637711/#!po=38.0000

      Thing is they always argue a physician collected sample is better, not sure that’s true with something like the Delphi Screener. Also, with non-invasive options more women would probably test, but they clearly prefer to restrict alternative, better, and more comfortable self testing options to the “hard to reach” groups, the women they can’t capture any other way.
      Interesting, they’d prefer women not to test, rather than freely offer self testing.
      Of course, freeing up self testing would empower women, slash income from consults, overall lab costs, day procedure etc. etc.
      I’ve always felt misogynistic attitudes were behind these programs, no one who cared for and respected women would endorse this sort of medical abuse….and clearly doctors and others enjoy the massive income that flows from these programs, they don’t want anything better that reduces their level of control or income.
      I think that’s why non-invasive tests have never been of interest to doctors and other vested interests, it doesn’t suit them. Shameful they’d rather put a women through multiple speculum exams plus most end up having an unnecessary biopsy and/or treatment, rather than simply move to hpv self testing options.

      Reply

      • There was a prize awarded to a young woman who had developed a test from spit in a cup, but that all seems to have gone very quiet. Not heard anything about it since.
        I’m disappointed to see that HPV self testing is still being researched as a possibility, when it has been well under way for some time in some countries. I’m convinced that their main fear with self testing is their loss of control over patients. There would be a landslide in favour of it, I’m sure, and if the tests were sent out, they couldn’t be sure the sample submitted is actually that of the recipient. They don’t trust women with the test at all, and if there are a few ignorant dimwits like Ms Goody, then all women must be treated like that to “iron out inequalities” in healthcare.

    • It’s a pity they’re not giving us any news about future changes in the UK screening programme. Seen quite a few articles that look like things are being quietly run down a bit – some GP surgeries only offering smears on 1 day per week, no other time, 9 week waiting lists, or suggesting they try a private clinic. Certainly much less prevalent than it used to be. You couldn’t get out of the place without a smear test years ago, now women are being turned away. I sometimes wonder if all this smear test propaganda in the news is a smokescreen, while the services are reconfigured for a drastically reduced programme, if there is one planned at all? Seen Virgin touting for business on this and another clinic offering same. Also seen a report that chlamydia screening doesn’t work. This is a test they are trying on teens and young women opportunistically when they visit GP. The results are not showing there is any benefit if screened or not. I hope that knocks that one on the head, but I’m sure there’s bound to be a private company willing to take it up.

      Reply

  46. Ada maybe you hit the nail on the head when you said they’re maybe going to be winding the programme down…attendance has never been lower and women are leaving in droves. Maybe the reason they’re not looking at self testing or spit testing is because they don’t want to pour any more money in their programme. ..

    Reply

    • This looks like a great bit of news. There has been nothing about how the UK HPV screening programme is going to look for ages. All UK countries were supposed to have switched to the new
      HPV test next April, but now this has been postponed until December 2019, which will probably be in 2020. All being held up by a lack of computer system. Is one needed? Why can’t your GP surgery just send you a card every 3 years, when dentists seem to manage this recall task every year? However, they can’t let us off the hook so easily, can they. I’m unable to access the full text, but it seems to be hinting that the new recall system will allow different pathways for different wòmen. At last they seem to have realised, that not everybody wants this test so frequently, or at all. This will be a huge kick in the face for Jo’s Tosh who keep peddling those endless campaigns about who is not following the 3 years recall, and their shock tactics that those who don’t keep to the 3 yearly demands are dicing with death. If eveeyone has their own personal track, they can no longer keep running these bullying campaigns against women who want to do things differently.

      Reply

    • My above response was a bit too optimistic and premature.
      It seems to be this below. In other words you may stop at 55 if you have always had negative smears, so in the UK that only lets you off the very last 2 smears, and only if you have had a negative history until then, or you’ll be pestered as usual until you are 65.
      😩 Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose…
      https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-us/cancer-news/news-report/2018-11-02-computer-simulation-suggests-testing-for-hpv-first-could-mean-cervical-screening-can-be-stopped?utm_source=twitter_cr_uk&utm_medium=cruksocialmedia&utm_campaign=owntwitter_tweet

      Reply

  48. But the HPV test will remain as a speculum test collected by the Nurse/GP!
    I noticed that the risk lowered to 0.04%……………it’s only 0.65% risk now! Still not worth it for me!
    “If women attended screening up to age 55 with a negative HPV test and cytology, their estimated risk of developing cervical cancer in later life was 0.04%. And continuing screening to age 70 didn’t add much benefit for these women, according to the researchers.”

    Reply

    • So sorry this has taken so long. Scotland took about 10 years after England to change the age from 20 to 25. All that time the evidence was there that the test harms young women. It was purely to ascertain if the HPV vaccine was working that they wanted to keep a group of the population as guinea pigs.

      Reply

      • They held a meeting to discuss the proposed changes in 2016 which I went to and spoke at. I was very scathing about the incentive payments that Doctors were getting, among other things. A pathologist and several health care professionals didn’t know about them!I was the only member of the public there. I also wrote two submissions and gave loads of research.
        Interestingly, the method of incentivising Doctors changed fairly quickly. They still give incentives, kept quiet of course, mainly to ” capture” Maori and Pacific women. They call it an equity issue.

      • It was really great that you went along and made these points. My GP surgery has a patient participation group from which I get sent the minutes of their meetings. Totally pro-screening, but totally lacking in any knowledge about it. The two always go together. It is shocking how little these health care people know that incentives are used. That’s been the problem in the UK. We have really intelligent people like Angela Raffle trying to educate people on what is a very complex topic, but it is delivered by people in the NHS with brains the size of a small potato. They are obsessed by uptake, targets and bullying with no understanding of the topic, and unfortunately these are the people we are stuck with when we are told to discuss our choices.

  51. https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/9/10/e029319

    De-intensifying screening.
    What they really mean is how to let them down gently after decades of false information and brainwashing. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment hardly discussed as women find these concepts hard to understand and some were shocked by them. What matters most is not to let women lose confidence in the program….

    Reply

  52. Honestly, they never give up
    https://10daily.com.au/news/australia/a191015qalwp/exclusive-breast-cancer-surgeon-wants-breast-checks-taught-in-schools-20191016
    A breast surgeon wants breast self-examination taught in schools, get young women into the habit of checking their breasts every month – the campaign will be called, lift, look and feel

    Breast self examination was scrapped years ago because it caused anxiety and led to lots of unnecessary doctors visits, ultrasounds and biopsies. It’s of no proven benefit either…
    So now they want to ensure they scare young women into the same cruel conveyer belt.
    Breast cancer in young women is fairly rare – risk rises with age – we should leave young women alone to enjoy their lives. It feels like girls have to start fearing their asymptomatic bodies at an early age to keep some in the medical profession happy.
    This is a very bad idea, I hope the Govt doesn’t get on board, it should not be permitted to go ahead.
    It’s taken years to get GPs to stop doing CBEs, they haven’t been recommended for many years but they still keep happening, often when women ask for the Pill. (although thankfully, it seems to happen less and less, often because the young woman questions the need)

    Breast awareness is the only thing I do, that’s simply taking note of what’s normal for you, in the mirror after a shower – it was promoted by the late Prof. Joan Austoker from Oxford University.

    Reply

  53. Yes, exactly…
    Breast cancer is more likely as we age – the idea of starting a campaign aimed at school girls is very concerning, let’s hope the idea is slapped down, it makes no sense, can only worry and harm.

    Reply

    • Hi Kiwi,
      I was really hoping that the NHS was going to let incentives for screening fizzle out, as we’ve seen so much that none of it makes a difference to all cause mortality, and I felt a gain in momentum for more choice & balanced information for screening, so it was a huge disappointment to see this report. Unfortunately it trickles down and I am already seeing more local reports on what the NHS money should be spent for the next few years – better social care for elderly, mental health, children’s services? No! All going on screening😩

      Reply

    • The one in the photo here is a different design to the Delphi, but it looks like it’s the same type which uses a lavage system. Most of the screening kits I’ve seen use some kind of brush, which I imagine is far more awkward to use but is probably cheaper and more convenient for the health services to implement.

      Reply

  56. There are unsubstantiated rumors claiming that major depression among Australian gynecologists has suddenly spiked. In a related story, income among the same Australian gynecologists has strangely dipped. Med schools continent wide are allegedly reporting students en mass transferring to specialities outside gynecology. On a positive note, it now appears marriages among these same physicians are lasting years longer.

    Other healthcare news. Healthcare Outreach Australia reports unexpected success with the Delphi Screener. Compliance estimates run past 90%, especially in women who refused to participate in the prior mandatory pap program.

    Ahhh, don’t we wish…

    Reply

    • I’ll have to check that out, I doubt they provide the Delphi Screener to women who decline the invasive HPV test. After the new program commenced, they blocked access to online purchase of the Delphi Screener, they want to control our options and funnel us all into the program.

      I think part of the reason they use something other than the Delphi Screener, they want to tell women that the self test option is less reliable than the sample taken by the GP or nurse, I doubt that’s the case even with the cheaper HPV self tests but it’s certainly not the case with the Delphi Screener.
      I also think the Dutch testing device would be too expensive for medicare, unless they charge the woman, I assumed self testing was covered by Medicare but maybe it’s not…
      I’ll check that out…

      Women aged 25 to 29 will be referred for unnecessary colposcopies and biopsies under the new program, so they still have that business but the number of older women (30+) going through these procedures should fall steeply under 5 yearly HPV testing.
      We don’t need 5 yearly testing, that’s just more excess – so they could wind the program back even more…and we should not be testing before age 30, that’s a no-brainer, the evidence in that regard is well known and long standing.

      So certainly gynaecologists won’t have the same vast numbers of women having colposcopy/biopsy and then treatments to have “abnormal cells” removed, the reality is most of those procedures were unnecessary and avoidable…
      I wonder how many HPV- women endured unnecessary laser and other treatments/procedures, cone biopsies & hysterectomies…the numbers would be high here.

      Reply

  57. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/12/181217120035.htm
    A new test for cervical cancer was found to detect all of the cancers in a trial of 15,744 women, outperforming both the current Pap smear and human papillomavirus (HPV) test at a reduced cost, according to a new study. Lead researcher Professor Attila Lorincz from Queen Mary University of London, who also helped develop the world’s first test for HPV in 1988, said: “This is an enormous development. We’re not only astounded by how well this test detects cervical cancer, but it is the first time that anyone has proven the key role of epigenetics in the development of a major solid cancer using data from patients in the clinic. Epigenetic changes are what this cervical cancer test picks up and is exactly why it works so well.
    “In contrast to what most researchers and clinicians are saying, we are seeing more and more evidence that it is in fact epigenetics, and not DNA mutations, that drives a whole range of early cancers, including cervical, anal, oropharyngeal, colon, and prostate.”

    Interesting, notice the HPV test developed in 1988!

    Reply

    • That immediately jumped out to me as well.
      Another golden nugget of information was that HPV-infected men were also mentioned. Haven’t we been told that there is no way of detecting HPV in men?

      Lastly, it mentioned that the pap smear was only 25% effective in detecting the cancers out of 15,744 cases.

      That is truly shocking!!

      Reply

      • The statistics all seem to show that incidence of cervical cancer in UK is 8 cases per 100,000 women, so makes you wonder just how many cases they found in that cohort of 15,000 women.

    • Hi Chas,
      This is interesting, but shame there is nothing in the article to say how less frequently tests will be done, and also they don’t say how the test is taken. Presumably, it’s the same invasive test as before. Despite the UK having completely switched to HPV testing it is still every 3 years rather than every 5 years. Can’t believe no-one is capable of getting a computer to issue a recall every 5 years instead of 3.

      Reply

      • In that cohort of women 15744 they found 8 cancers (assuming real cancers of course?):
        The new test was significantly better than either the Pap smear or HPV test. It detected 100 per cent of the EIGHT invasive cervical cancers that developed in the 15,744 women during the trial! Also includes adenocarcinomas.

        Yes I believe collected sample in the same invasive way and again no recall for the 5 years instead of 3, but of course that would be much less women turning up to the GP….wouldn’t that be a good thing in saving money and appts? What a waste!

      • Chas – I would bet my bottom dollar that they can use a non-invasive method to predict the reliability of developing cc, rather than the traditional invasive method.

        It is the method the collected data is analysed that marks this “new test” out from pap or HPV screening, not the extraction method itself.

        If self-sampling can be as effective or as near-effective as primary HPV screening, then you’d have a hard time convincing me that they cannot replicate the same results with the new test by using a self-sampling method.

        Even some of the most militant pro-screeners who are not sold on self-sampling, claim it’s “better than nothing” and needs to be introduced.

        I’d like to see the study replicated using self-sampling methods but I won’t hold my breath.

      • Have I understood correctly that the test accurately determines which HPV+ cases progress to cervical cancer?

        Due to its invasive nature, it need only really be used for those women who test positive for HPV.
        And self-sampling methods will do just fine for HPV screening.

        There is really no need for the vast majority of women to undergo an invasive test to detect a cancer which in this case occurred in only 0.05% of cases.

        Women don’t want invasive testing for screening purposes.

        Why don’t these “experts” get it?

      • Sorry, just realised the cases include adenocarcinomas before embarking on my rant!

        Still astounded at that rate of cancers though… 0.05%!

  58. interesting that there are tests for men but hard to get….what a surprise! NOTE HPV COMMON MOST NO HEALTH PROBLEMS!
    https://healthclinics.superdrug.com/hpv-in-men/
    HPV Tests – most HPV test kits that are available are specifically for women, using a cervical swab to take the sample Male test kits do exist, but they may be harder to acquire or access. In addition, because HPV is so common; more often than not, it will not lead to health problems Men who have sex with men can get an anal pap test, similar to a cervical screening.
    Also further down it states “Research in the 1970s and 1980s first demonstrated a direct link between HPV and cervical cancer” and it says:
    “The medical community is now recognising the importance of HPV in men – studies into the effects of HPV in men were done later, and demonstrated a link between HPV and penile and anal cancers. This was most pronounced in men who have sex with men, who are most at risk of penile and anal cancers caused by HPV.”
    SO MEN HAVE BEEN TESTED/STUDIED AT SOME POINT – WHY NOT CONTINUE? Perhaps because men would say no thank you, but women are expected to test as we well know!

    I can’t find an article I shared once before, on testing men with a “Penile Speculum”, will try harder to find it again. But they are definitely available: https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/Penis-Speculum-Urethral-dilator-Sounds-dilatator_62007963736.html

    and this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1828977/
    Methods that used specimens from three genital sites (penile brushing [PB], urethral brushing [UB], and the retrieval of semen [SE]) from 50 men were examined for human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA detection.
    Three types of genital specimens were collected in parallel. The first type was collected by PB, which consisted of the collection of cells from the dorsal and the ventral surfaces of the penile shaft, sampled with a standard-sized, dry cotton-tipped swab, and cells from the inner part of the foreskin, coronal sulcus, frenulum, and glans, sampled with a saline-prewetted cytobrush. Five to six backward and forward swab or brush movements were performed at each site, and all these samples were placed in the same tube containing 3 ml of phosphate-buffered saline (PBS). The second sample was obtained by UB, for which a very thin, saline-prewetted brush was inserted 1.5 cm into the urethra, rotated 360 degrees, and removed; when it was required by the patients, a 2% lidocaine gel was applied before sampling by UB. The cells obtained by UB were also placed in 3 ml of PBS. The third sample was obtained by SE, with the semen collected by masturbation and placed in sterile containers. If the sample was obtained at home, the sample was transferred to the laboratory within 2 h after ejaculation. All of the samples obtained by PB, UB, and SE were immediately processed for DNA extraction.

    I constantly see stated that men can’t be tested….but they can!

    Reply

  60. It won’t save me from the anxiety and anger and all the rest of it that I faced between 2009-2015 with a few GPs who badgered me about Pap even when I went to them about finger/hand injuries, or taking mental health days off work, or sore throats. There were 3 in particular. I complained about all of them, and will continue to do so should I meet these kind of GPs again. For the one who repeatedly did this, I only wish I had complained to HCCC first, before approaching the practice manager, even though I did get a letter of apology. Another two weren’t really sorry, and the other had retired.

    I have also taken myself off the national screening program, and should I ever have daughter(s), will also let them know the full truth. Thankfully they won’t have to face it until they are 25 (at this stage).

    Reply

Speak your mind

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.