On this national day of gratitude, I find myself giving thanks for many things — including my family, my friends, and my health. I owe my sexual health to the now outdated norm of getting annual gynecological exams, with Pap smears, from the time I became sexually active. As a 20-year-old, in the mid-1990’s, I benefited from U.S. medical guidelines that supported my gynecologist in recommending cryosurgery (application of liquid nitrogen) to kill/remove the HPV-infected cells on my cervix. Early detection and early treatment afforded me a quick recovery from a potentially cancer-causing and highly contagious sexually transmitted infection. Following that treatment, I never had another abnormal Pap test result, got pregnant the first time I tried, and gave birth to a healthy baby. For all of those outcomes, I give thanks.
Today, many teen girls and women may not benefit from the level of medical care that I received. Last week, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) issued new guidelines for pap smear and cervical cancer screening, and this may prove to have unintended, negative consequences for sexually-active Americans.
Until 2008, ACOG had recommended annual screening for women under 30. This month, ACOG summed up their revised recommendations:
…women should have their first cancer screening at age 21 and can be rescreened less frequently than previously recommended.
Media coverage of this latest revision has not done as good a job distinguishing that a Pap test is just one aspect of a pelvic/sexual health exam. How many girls and women will interpret the new guideline of “No need for an annual pap tes,” as, “No need to get an annual pelvic exam”?
ACOG admits that the Pap test has been the reason for falling rates of cervical cancer in the U.S.
Cervical cancer rates have fallen more than 50% in the past 30 years in the US due to the widespread use of the Pap test. The incidence of cervical cancer fell from 14.8 per 100,000 women in 1975 to 6.5 per 100,000 women in 2006. The American Cancer Society estimates that there will be 11,270 new cases of cervical cancer and 4,070 deaths from it in the US in 2009. The majority of deaths from cervical cancer in the US are among women who are screened infrequently or not at all.
So, why revise the guidelines such that we are likely to see an increase in the number of U.S. women “who are screened infrequently or not at all”?
And, it’s not just teen girls and young women that are the focus of these revisions. ACOG also recommends that older women stop being screened for cervical cancer:
It is reasonable to stop cervical cancer screening at age 65 or 70 among women who have three or more negative cytology results in a row and no abnormal test results in the past 10 years.
How much of this rationale depends upon women over 65 years old being sexually inactive or monogamous? This argument seems predicated upon ageist assumptions about older women’s sex drives and sexual behaviors (or lack thereof).
As the tryptophan from my Thanksgiving feast begins to dampen my ire, I’ll bring this post to a close. These are just a few of the problematic aspects of this new policy recommendation — stay tuned for “Part II” of this post in the near future.
Comments 11
Deborah Siegel — November 27, 2009
Comments via Facebook:
Jen Greenberg RobertsThanks for hashing through this issue -- as the mom of tween girls, I'm listening hard!
Ellie CiolfiMy sentiments exactly. Looking forward to your follow up, Part II.
Politicalguineapig — November 27, 2009
I just have to say that I'm actually breathing a sigh of relief. I'm not sexually active, and pap smears are really uncomfortable for me. The less of them I have to go through, the better.
anniegirl1138 — November 27, 2009
Like the new mammogram guidelines, the pap test revisions is based on research. And over-treatment is no joke either.
BEDSIDE MANNERS: New Pap Smear Guidelines – No, Thank You (Part II) | Girl with Pen — January 28, 2010
[...] is Cervical Health Awareness Month, making it the perfect time to post a follow-up to “Part I†which featured my concerns about potential unintended consequences of new Pap test guidelines [...]
To (Pap) Smear or Not to Smear, That’s the Question : Ms Magazine Blog — May 13, 2010
[...] post was inspired by my previous two-part series for the Girlw/Pen [...]
Unlock iPhone 4.0 — March 3, 2011
Nice article, thanks. I signed up to RSS on this blog. http://unlockiphone3gs.infositesweb.com/2011/03/01/jailbreak-iphone-4g-observe-these-easy-steps/
Eliz52 (Aust) — March 23, 2011
I'd urge all women to do some research and make informed decisions about screening.
At just 20 years old I'm not surprised you produced an "abnormal" pap test and ended up having "treatment". That is sadly a VERY common outcome in the States and to a lesser degree, Australia and it has nothing to do with cancer - they are false positives produced by an intrinsically unreliable screening test - the pap test.
You may be surprised to hear that 1 in 3 pap tests will be "abnormal" in the under 25 age group, but that cervical cancer is very rare in women under 30 and rare in all age groups. Women under 30 produce the highest numbers of false positives and endure the most unnecessary and potentially harmful over-treatment. False positives in young women are due to the pap test picking up normal changes in the maturing cervix or by harmless and transient HPV infections.
False positives are also caused by infections, inflammation (condoms, tampons) trauma (childbirth), hormonal changes (pregnancy, menopause) and for perfectly normal changes in young and older women.
The lifetime risk of cervical cancer is 0.65% with around 0.45% of women being helped (at most) by pap tests BUT in the States, 95% of you will be referred at some stage after an "abnormal" pap test - that's huge over-detection that causes fear, worry and can lead to serious health issues after over-treatment. LEEP and cone biopsies can leave you with cervical damage that can cause infertility, cervical stenosis, (that may require surgery if the cervix is scarred shut, infections, endometriosis) cervical incompetence - miscarriages, high risk pregnancy that may require cervical cerclage, high risk pregnancy, premature babies and more c-sections, plus psych issues.
Finland has the lowest rates of cc in the world and just as importantly refers the smallest number of women - still high at 35%-55% lifetime risk of referral, but that's better than 95% of American women and 77% of Aussie women. The Finns are offered 5 yearly screening from age 30 - 5 to 7 tests in total.
"No country in the world has reported a decline in the incidence of or the mortality from cervical cancer in women under 30, irrespective of cervical screening. Many countries do not perform cervical screening in women under 30".
Taken from "Cervical cancer screening" in "Australian Doctor" 2006 by Assoc Prof Margaret Davy, Director, Gyn-Oncology, Royal Adelaide Hospital and Dr Shorne, GP. (on line)
So, under 30 - high risks for no benefit.
Young women tend to get an even rarer form of cc called adenocarcinoma and the pap test is bad at picking up that type of cancer. So, the VERY rare cases of cc in women under 30 tend to be false negative cases -so screening doesn't help, but may lead to a delay in diagnosis if the woman is falsely reassured by the normal pap test result and defers seeing a Dr for symptoms.
Older women - examine your risk profile and make an informed decision. Never allow doctors to over-screen you - it does not help, but adds to the risk - any more than 3 or 5 yearly from age 30 and the risks go way up for little additional benefit.
As a low risk woman, I made an informed decision not to screen more than 25 years ago. Sadly, women don't receive balanced and complete information about cancer screening and that has to change - doctors and govts do not have the right to make decisions for us or accept risk on our behalf.
Also, the only things clinically required for the Pill - your medical history and a blood pressure test. See: "Women after birth control get unneeded pelvic exams" in the WSJ and comments made by Dr Robert Hatcher on pelvic exams and BC. (google his name and those words) Also, Dr Carolyn Westhoff and "Questioning the value of the routine pelvic exam"....
Also, the American well-woman exam, delivered in stirrups (!) - is not evidence based and more likely to harm you. Routine pelvic exams are of poor value in the absence of symptoms - they are not recommended in the UK or Australia.
Routine rectovaginal/rectal exams & visual inspections - totally unnecessary and unhelpful.
Routine breast exams - they don't help, but lead to biopsies. See: "Hands off my chest Doctor" and research by the Nordic Cochrane Institute. Also, the NCI have produced "The risks and benefits of mammograms" - at their website - a rare unbiased summary. Dr Alex Barrett has also produced a decision-making aid for women aged 40 to 49 who are thinking of having a mammogram. (on line)
I'd urge all women to do their reading, these changes do not go far enough and IMO, risk your general and reproductive health. Make an informed decision, the best decision having regard to your risk profile and assessment of risk v benefit.
Eliz52 (Aust) — March 23, 2011
More information is available at Dr Joel Sherman's medical privacy forum under womens' privacy concerns - in the side bar, see research by Dr DeMay, an American pathologist) Dr Angela Raffle, UK screening expert and others. Dr Raffle found that "1000 women need regular screening for 35 years to save ONE woman from cervical cancer". (published in the BMJ in 2004 and linked from Dr Sherman's site) Hardly the epidemic the profession would have us believe....
Commentary re Dr Raffle's research is at, "Why I'll never have another smear test" by Anna Saybourn (on line)
mcallen web design — September 8, 2012
We are a bunch of volunteers and starting a brand new scheme in our community.
Your site offered us with useful information to work on.
You've performed a formidable process and our entire neighborhood might be thankful to you.
beats — September 12, 2012
Hellо to eveгy οne, fοr the гeason thаt I
am in fаct eаgеr of rеading this wеb site's post to be updated on a regular basis. It consists of good data.
cam sites — April 9, 2013
This site won't display suitably on my apple iphone -- you might try and restore that will