Lower the age for smear tests

nettienoo70

Lets give young women a fighting chance, please sign and show your support


http://submissions.epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/62385

nettienoo70

Sophie lost her fight on sat, soo sad please sign

heartbreak_star

I am incredibly sorry for your loss.

But I'm going to go out on a limb here (and probably get flamed for it) - I won't sign this petition. Smear tests are done at an older age due to the fact that cervical cell changes in younger women are usually totally normal - a smear test does not detect cancer, it detects changes in cells.

Bringing the age down would likely lead to a lot of false positives and potentially nasty treatment done on young women that don't need it, risking their fertility in the meantime.

I am afraid Sophie was the exception to the rule of normal changes, and I am so sorry to hear about her.

HBS x

nettienoo70

I think its about giving woman the choice, Sophie asked for one and was refused

rpc

heartbreak_star wrote: »

But I'm going to go out on a limb here (and probably get flamed for it) - I won't sign this petition. Smear tests are done at an older age due to the fact that cervical cell changes in younger women are usually totally normal - a smear test does not detect cancer, it detects changes in cells.

Bringing the age down would likely lead to a lot of false positives and potentially nasty treatment done on young women that don't need it, risking their fertility in the meantime.

No flame from me - this is the problem with cancer screening. Not all tests are suitable for all groups. Not all cancers have useful tests available. Reliable tests are the first step in the fight against cancer and we don't have a full set. Some people will get missed because we lack the capability to reliably detect what they have. It is so very sad, but that doesn't stop it being medically correct.

While I don't know the numbers for cervical cancer, there is a good summary of the argument at http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-us/cancer-news/news-report/cervical-cancer-screening-age-to-stay-at-25

Committee chairman Professor Henry Kitchener said: "The committee was unanimous in its decision not to lower the screening age below 25. This decision was taken because scientific evidence shows that screening women in this age group can do more harm than good.

"But we are concerned that young women with gynaecological symptoms are not always being given the right advice from their GPs and we will ask the Department of Health to take action."

False positives can be very damaging.

peachyprice

heartbreak_star wrote: »

Smear tests are done at an older age due to the fact that cervical cell changes in younger women are usually totally normal - a smear test does not detect cancer, it detects changes in cells.

Bringing the age down would likely lead to a lot of false positives and potentially nasty treatment done on young women that don't need it, risking their fertility in the meantime.

I am afraid Sophie was the exception to the rule of normal changes, and I am so sorry to hear about her.

You've completely contradicted yourself there.

A smear test leads to further investigation, it doesn't diagnose cancer, so how can a smear test alone lead to 'nasty treatment' that risks fertility? It doesn't. It leads to a biopsy.

There are far too many younger women who fall in to the exception category. Those that are too young for a smear and too old to have been part of the HPV vaccination program.

I don't think routine testing of 16yo's is necessary, but the choice should be there.

Danni-R

I don't think lowering the age will help, I think if a patient is in pain and asked for one then one should have been provided. That's what I think needs to change. If she'd had had a lump in her boob (for example) she would have been offered a scan of some sort regardless of her age. Same should go for the girly parts.

heartbreak_star

rps - spot on.

peachy - ever had LLETZ treatment? It's not nice - and that's simply to take a biopsy and remove any immediately visible abnormal cells.

I understand asking for one, but then you have the problem that if one person gets one, the next will demand one, and you're back to square one, sadly. Maybe in conjuction with other symptoms, yes - but not on its own.

Research is ongoing, so hopefully something for younger women will come to the fore in the future.

HBS x

rpc

peachyprice wrote: »

A smear test leads to further investigation, it doesn't diagnose cancer, so how can a smear test alone lead to 'nasty treatment' that risks fertility? It doesn't. It leads to a biopsy

And you end up doing biopsies on a lot of young women with nothing wrong, just to detect the rare case when something is. Some procedures cause problems in pregnancy (LLETZ and cone biopsies can cause low birth weight and premature delivery). How much discomfort/worry or pregnancy complications should be inflicted upon healthy women?

A test with a high false positive rate (such as cervical smears in young women) is not much use as a test.

As an example I know the number for: on the male side, you have PSA blood tests that would save the lives of 1 in 1000 men from prostate cancer. Of that same 1000, 47 healthy men will show false-positive and half of them will be left with life-changing complications from the biopsy.

Not being able to reliably detect cancer early enough is one of the biggest problems in beating it. Many tests are only useful in certain circumstances and when they don't apply, other diagnostic routes are needed.

A lot of people seem to feel that cancer diagnostic and screening tests are a political decision. That is rarely the case. If these tests could be usefully used in other scenarios, they would be. It is far cheaper to diagnose earlier than later (not to mention that it saves lives). The decisions are made based on science and a cervical smear for young women is not medically appropriate. This has international agreement.

Lack of appropriate screening is why things like pancreatic cancer have stubbornly high morality rates.

Please don't think I lack sympathy - quite the opposite. But sympathy doesn't help beat cancer, science does. Research to develop appropriate tests is the answer, using tests where they are not medically suitable is not.

securityguy

rpc wrote: »

As an example I know the number for: on the male side, you have PSA blood tests that would save the lives of 1 in 1000 men from prostate cancer. Of that same 1000, 47 healthy men will show false-positive and half of them will be left with life-changing complications from the biopsy.

This is the current gold-standard review on breast cancer screening:

http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD001877/screening-for-breast-cancer-with-mammography

Cervical Cancer screening:

http://www.systematicreviewsjournal.com/content/pdf/2046-4053-2-35.pdf

Prostate Screening:

http://summaries.cochrane.org/CD004720/screening-for-prostate-cancer

claire16c

I think it should be lowered to 21, what it used to be. Im not sure that 16 would be an effective use of resources. In the case of people having symptoms, then it shouldnt matter what age you are and that is where the mistake lies in this case.