Delete thread please!

Lagoon

bumbledore wrote: »

I am talking about smear testing under 25s.

Smear testing is a rare cancer for women I am not dismissing smear tests on a whole but for those in my position of being under 25 who are at low risk. I don't appreciate how the fellow women on this thread are being hostile and wishing death or cancer on me or calling me names simply because I have choosen to make an informed decision about my personal health and was looking to have a discussion about it.

I was keen to go for my cervical screening as early as possible. I live in England. I got my letter through about a month and a half before my 25th birthday. I thought they were just doing the admin a little ahead of time, and didn't expect I'd be able to book a screening straight away, so I waited until I was 25 and I then called and booked it.

When I got there, the nurse (are they nurses?) asked me how I was feeling, and said 'You are 25, aren't you?'

I misread the tone, and thought she was making sure that I was old enough, so I responded with something along the lines of 'Yeah. I got the letter almost two months early but I've waited to book in'. At that point, she explained that there would have been no issue with me visiting earlier but that they send the letters so early simply because so many young women avoid the smear or 'don't get around to booking it'. Apparently, sending the letter out at 24 is an action that's done in the hope that more people will book in for their screening.

I do think that everyone should have the choice, as with anything, but I think that choice should begin as early as possible. I would have chosen a screening at 20 if I'd had the option, despite being low risk. If you're going to refuse anyway, what does it matter if you're refusing at 20 or at 25? The people that see it as valuable should get access as soon as they want it.

It takes 30 seconds, and it's a quick and simple procedure every three years. I would book in to have my whole body much more closely tested and examined, every year if necessary, including injections and blood tests, if it meant that more conditions could be spotted more quickly.

We're all sitting at our computers, typing away and feeling absolutely fine. We can be healthy young adults who've never experienced more than a splinter in the finger or a broken nail, but none of us can be sure what's going on inside our body.

annie12

securityguy wrote: »

Suppose you have a test which is 99% accurate. Very few tests are remotely that accurate, so the rest of my numbers are generous to testing. Suppose that you have a 1 in a 1000 chance of having a particular condition on the day you have the test. That is, in round numbers, the chance per year of having a cancer for which you don't have other risk factors.

You have the test. It is positive.

What is the chance that you have the disease in question?

Well, for every 100 000 people like you tested, 100 have the disease. 99 of them will be correctly diagnosed. One of them will be given a false "all clear". 99 900 don't have the disease. 999 of them will receive a false diagnosis. So in 100 000 people, 1098 will receive a positive diagnosis, but only 99 of them have it.

In real tests, the sensitivity (the rate at which people who definitely have the condition are correctly detected) and the specificity (the rate at which people who definitely don't have the condition are correctly excluded) aren't necessarily the same, which complicates the calculation. But that doesn't affect the basic thrust. Consider a 90% reliable test for a 1 in 1000 condition: you have a nearly one in ten chance of being told you have it, but a just less than one in a thousand chance you actually do. So a positive test is wrong nearly 99% of the time. Which is fine, so long as the next stage of the investigation, or indeed treatment, is harmless. It rarely is.

(Edited to incorporate LannieDuck's clarifications)

That's why, if you get an abnormal smear, you go for a colposcopy.
The smear is only an indication of something abnormal, not a certainty.

Lovelyjoolz

I was sexually active at 16. I had my first smear test at a Brook Advisory Centre aged 17. It was abnormal. I then had dozens of tests at three month intervals. Countless colposcopies and biopsies taken and finally, at aged 19 the precancerous cells had reached CIN3 which meant that I had a one in three chance of developing cervical cancer. I had a cone biopsy to remove the end of my cervix and luckily this removed all the affected cells.

I then had yearly smear tests. I had to have them yearly until I had three consecutive clear tests and it took 13 years for the to happen. I'm now on the standard 3 yearly test, which I'm not happy about but they refuse to test me more regularly.

I hate the smear test. Its better now with the plastic speculum and the little brush thingy they use, but it still triggers period-pain style cramps that last for three or four hours afterwards. And I would rather have a little discomfort than the alternative!!

Oh and according to the NHS website:

The progression from becoming infected with HPV to developing CIN and then developing cervical cancer is very slow. It usually takes at least six years to progress from an initial infection to CIN 3. It takes up to 10 years for CIN 3 to develop into cervical cancer.

They assume that HPV caused my abnormal cells, but they've never been able to confirm that I have HPV, nor have I ever had any symptoms so I'm not convinced on that. Also, I progressed from virgin to CIN3 in under 3 years, so their "at least six years" is not always the case!!

johannalf88

Found this thread very interesting!

Just a little tip, I managed to get a smear test done when under 25, by getting a coil fitted. Obviously this might be a one off or something, but they did for me so might be worth thinking about if someone really wants to be tested!

Unfortunately they didn't tell my new drs this, so now I have hit 25 I am getting loads of letters!

Not going to help the people who are worried, but I hated the whole ordeal! I have to gain the courage to book my next one soon, and for some reason they dont seem to like it when you turn up drunk! :rotfl: JOKE! I mentioned the test to my doctor when I saw her last, and she happened to be taking my blood pressure at the time- she was really concerned, by talking about it my blood pressure was going through the roof! :rotfl:

securityguy

Lovelyjoolz wrote: »

it took 13 years for the to happen.

So presumably this was fifteen or twenty years ago? Things have moved on, and these days you would be treated very differently. If you're up for wading through real research, rather than bite-sized nuggets for t'Interwebs, try:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2735396/

and

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17904957

balletshoes

bumbledore wrote: »

I am talking about smear testing under 25s.

Smear testing is a rare cancer for women I am not dismissing smear tests on a whole but for those in my position of being under 25 who are at low risk. I don't appreciate how the fellow women on this thread are being hostile and wishing death or cancer on me or calling me names simply because
I have choosen to make an informed decision about my personal health and was looking to have a discussion about it.

maybe the way you expressed yourself in your first (and subsequent if I'm honest) posts gave people the wrong idea? I didn't get the impression at all that you wanted to discuss the pros and cons of smear testing for under-25s. I got the impression from your OP that you were jumping up and down with indignation at the very idea that you would be invited to make an appointment for a smear test.

geoffky

Tell that to my best friends brother..He has been left with three kids under the age of 7...Cervical cancer..

valk_scot

Not cervical cancer but I had a positive result (they found a lump) for my first mammogram, four years ago. I was given a very quick referral to the local breast clininc but still spent a very bad ten days thinking "what if I...???". At the clinic appointment I had a second, more detailed mammogram on that breast and then a needle biopsy of the lump. This proved to be negative thank goodness!

So I know what they mean by "needless distress". It was needless in my case but really, I DID NOT MIND. I'd rather go through the false positive route a dozen times than not go at all and miss something serious.

My OH btw went through the same worry with a positive result on his bowel cancer screening kit. In his case when he went for the colonoscopy they found a pre cancerous polyp which the doctor said would almost certainly have developed into full blown bowel cancer within a year. The polyp was removed at the time of the colonoscopy and because of this my OH did not develop bowel cancer.

We're great fans of screening tests in this household, as you can probably tell.

time2deal

annie12 wrote: »

That's why, if you get an abnormal smear, you go for a colposcopy.
The smear is only an indication of something abnormal, not a certainty.

Spot on Annie. An abnormal smear is investigated in numerous ways before determining it is cancer.

In my case it was a colposcopy, including punch biopsies, then a cone biopsy, and then diagnosed as cancer. Even after it was determined to be cancer, there are a huge range of tests to work out the stage and the subsequent treatment. They don't just say 'Oh, CIN3, time for hysterectomy and radiation'!

I'd also agree with the comment that things can develop in less than 3 years. I went from a clear smear to stage 1B1 cancer in 3 years exactly. With a 3cm tumour. My surgeon said it doubles in size every three months, so it was caught just in time to allow me a smaller surgical solution.

Last surgery was 9 weeks ago, and thankfully so far so good.

As it happens, I had a follow up smear today at the consultants. Took less than a minute I'd say, even though it required additional tests and review of the surgical scarring. I'll be tested every three months for a few years yet, and happy to do it.

kezzygirl

I was 22 when I had a smear test due to many gynae problems I have had. So glad I did, the pre-cancerous cells on my cervix were at the final stage before turning into cancer-classed as 'severe'.

I had a colposcopy which found they were all up the wall of my insides and had to be removed and a cone biopsy taken under general anaesthetic.

Thankfully, the cone biopsy found the cells were not in the deeper layers of my cervix, but I thank god I had my smear test. I may not have gone on to have my two children and watch them grow up.I am now 27.