January 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 (from ACOG, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists). To recap, it is vital that we do not confuse a recommendation of less frequent Pap tests with the unchanged recommendation of annual pelvic/sexual health exams (see the National Cancer Institute for explanations of both).
So, let’s look back at a letter dated November 20, 2009, in which the President of ACOG clarified:
Cervical cancer screening should begin at age 21 years (regardless of sexual history). Screening before age 21 should be avoided because women less than 21 years old are at very low risk of cancer. Screening these women may lead to unnecessary and harmful evaluation and treatment.
Medically speaking, why should this recommendation disregard an individual woman’s sexual history? His letter continues on to state:
Cervical cytology screening is recommended every 2 years for women between the ages of 21 years and 29 years. Evidence shows that screening women every year has little benefit over screening every other year.
Doesn’t this depend on how many new sexual partners a woman has in a given year? Are the revised guidelines assuming monogamy (or at least long-term, serial monogamous relationships) which decrease odds of a woman contracting a new cancer-causing strain of HPV in less than a 2-year period? Where are the conclusive findings of large-scale sexual-behavior surveys to support this assumption?
ACOG’s November 2009 press release featured these quotes from Alan Waxman, M.D.:
Adolescents have most of their childbearing years ahead of them, so it’s important to avoid unnecessary procedures that negatively affect the cervix. Screening for cervical cancer in adolescents only serves to increase their anxiety and has led to overuse of follow-up procedures for something that usually resolves on its own.
I agree with GWP reader anniegirl1138 who commented on my previous post that over-treatment is no joke. However, we have not been presented with data that a Pap test — the test, itself, not over-treatment based on test findings — is directly linked to significant increases of any negative health outcome.
Cervical HPV infections can be detected by Pap tests: ACOG acknowledges that, “the rate of HPV infection is high among sexually active adolescents, but counters with, “the large majority of cervical dysplasias in adolescents resolve on their own without treatment.”
Why should that smaller group of girls and young women (whose pre-cancerous lesions do not resolve without treatment) miss the annual opportunity to receive an early diagnosis? Early-stages of cervical HPV infection can often be resolved with less-invasive treatment options.
More-invasive treatment options, such as the “excisional procedures for dysplasia” that have been linked to increased risk of premature births, are one of several medical treatments for cervical HPV.
And, what about the possibility that an increased risk of premature births may not be the paramount concern for every female patient? Not all women want to or can biologically become mothers. What if an individual female patient would rather seek medical treatment for a HPV infection that has resulted in cervical dysplasia so that she has greater peace of mind in knowing that she has reduced her risk of cervical cancer and reduced the likelihood of transmitting HPV to her sexual partner(s) and/or future babies?
Call me a feminist, but I still believe that knowledge is power and that every sexually-active girl and woman should be encouraged to consider the benefits of annual Pap tests. When Pap smear results show “abnormal” cellular changs, then healthcare practitioners should explain the potential for false-positives and discuss the pro’s and con’s of moving forward with different diagnostic and treatment options.
ACOG acknowledges that, “HPV also causes genital and anal warts, as well as oral and anal cancer.” A Pap test may be a girl/woman’s first chance to learn of a cervical HPV infection, which can result in her having a colposcopy exam. This procedure helps a practitioner find HPV-infected cells not only on the cervix but also in other anogenital areas (the vaginal canal, the labia, the perineum). Beyond the cervix, a Pap test that is positive for HPV may be a wake-up call to get a thorough oral screening for serious oral cancers which have been linked to sexually transmitted HPV.
In addition, my research and others’ studies have found that STI diagnoses can lead to attitudinal and behavioral changes which can decrease risks of contracting other STIs, including HIV. For all of these reasons, a Pap test that leads to a diagnosis of a sexually transmitted cervical HPV infection can bring unintended positive consequences.
In light of the new Pap smear guidelines, I hope that U.S. girls and women who get less frequent Pap tests will more frequently ask their healthcare practitioners to educate them about cervical cancer, about the full range of STIs, and about FDA-approved vaccines against viruses that can be sexually transmitted (HPV and Hepatitis B).
For the medical facts about HPV and HPV vaccines, check out the book The HPV Vaccine Controversy by Shobha Krishnan, M.D., a member of the Medical Advisory Board of the National Cervical Cancer Coalition.
The Bottom Line: a recommendation for less frequent Pap tests does not mean you should forgo your annual pelvic exam. In our busy lives, e-reminders can make the difference: PromiseToMe.com allows you to schedule an annual email reminder. [Note for boys/men: make sure to get an annual sexual health exam, too!]
Comments 4
Deborah Siegel — February 2, 2010
Thank you for SUCH a hugely informative post, Adina!
DVK — February 12, 2010
I doubt many women understand how unlikely it is that they'll benefit from smears and how likely screening will lead to harmful over-treatment.
I was obliged to look at the facts many years ago and was dismayed to find the reality is very different to the "information" released to women.
Any woman having annual screening may as well take herself straight to the day procedure centre. It amounts to over-screening and risks your health. Even prostitutes in the famous red light district in Amsterdam are only treated 5 yearly from age 30 - only 5 to 7 tests in total for this high risk group.
Less is more with cervical screening.
Informed consent has always been ignored for cancer screening aimed at women. I totally disagree with that...
All women are entitled to make their own decisions about screening. Informed consent is a legal requirement for all cancer screening.
The risk of this cancer for a high risk woman is low....for a low risk woman, close to zero.
BUT 1 in 14 smears are "abnormal" and 1 in 3 for women under 25. This has nothing to do with cancer, cervical cancer simply doesn't occur that often...with no screening at all, only 1% of women would get this cancer. With screening...annual testing sends 95% of women for a colposcopy and usually some form of biopsy, two yearly - 77%, 3 yearly - 65% and 5 yearly - 55%. This is a very unreliable test that generates lots of false positives to find the very small number of women with a real problem.
The risk of a false positive is FAR greater than the risk of cervical cancer.
In a fascinating article by American pathologist, Richard DeMay...he mentions that only 0.65% of women benefit from smears, 0.35% get false negatives and 99% receive no benefit at all. Compare that to the number of women getting referred for colposcopy/biopsies.
It saddens me to see so much fear...out of all proportion to the risk.
The answer is to do some reading and get informed.
I'm low risk and choose not to screen...I'm not prepared to accept the high risk of over-treatment for a false positive. The risks of these "treatments" and biopsies are well known...infertility, problems during pregnancy, pre-term delivery, increased numbers of c-sections, psychological/psychosexual issues and a few unlucky women end up with cervical stenosis.
I know many women who've been through the ordeal of an abnormal smear and biopsies...all found it a traumatic experience.
I'd never made light of false positives and over-treatment.
High risk women or risk averse women may like to consider the Finnish program. The Finns have the lowest rates of cervical cancer in the world and send the fewest women for biopsies. (fewer false positives) They offer screening from age 30 and 5 yearly.
Excessive screening and screening before 30 carries high risks of false positives.
The annual gyn exam many US women have from teens is not recommended by our doctors, at any age. I've never had one.
The routine pelvic exam is not recommended for asymptomatic women...it's of low/poor clinical value and has risks. (false positives - unnecessary testing and even surgery) It is not a recommended screening exam for ovarian cancer.
Breast exams - not done routinely - there is no evidence they reduce the death rate, but they cause biopsies. Some Dr's believe biopsies are a risk factor for cancer.
Rectal exam - never recommended in a symptom-free woman.
Mammograms - offered from 50 and 2-3 yearly, but many women are now declining them. The risks of the tests are a concern...any woman thinking about mammograms should first read the only unbiased account I've been able to find - at the Nordic Cochrane Institute website, "The risks and benefits of mammograms". The NCI were concerned about the misleading information being given to women.
The DeMay article can be found in the American Journal of Clinical Pathology, 2000.
Dr Angela Raffle has produced some great research as well. 1000 women need regular screening for 35 years to save ONE woman from cervical cancer. (published in the British Medical Journal)
I'm not anti-screening, but I strongly disagree with misinforming and scaring women. Every woman should be provided with honest information and be permitted to consider her risk profile before agreeing to any screening or preventative medicine. We have the right to protect ourselves from unnecessary/excessive exams, testing and treatments.
Womanhood is not a disease.
Adina — February 12, 2010
DVK, thank you for your comments. I agree that "womanhood is not a disease." However, several diseases are highly prevalent and are often only detected/diagnosed during an annual/pelvic exam, including exams that do not include a Pap Test: examples would be genital herpes (estimated to infect 20% of the US pop.) and genital HPV/warts (estimated to infect 50%-75% of the US pop.). Your comments use distinctions like "low risk" and "symptom-free," but many girls/women do not know how to accurately access their risk levels, and many serious sexually transmitted diseases are symptom-free (e.g., chlamydia which is often asymptomatic in women and can lead to pelvic inflammatory disease, a major cause of infertility). A key point we seem to agree on is the importance of informed consent: no girl or woman should feel pressured to consent to a biopsy or treatment for an abnormal Pap Test result. All women need to know more about sexual health: I highly recommend the American Social Health Association as an excellent resource on the variety of sexually transmitted disease. For another blogger's perspective on the new guidelines and the differences between STD testing and Pap tests, see http://www.sexetc.org/story/girls_health/5631.
In the end, I agree that we have the right to decline exams, testing and treatments that we deem unnecessary. We also owe it to ourselves, our sexual partners and our future plans for fertility to be as educated as possible about sexual and reproductive health issues. My thanks to DVK for sharing additional references to experts and studies -- knowledge is power, and critical thinking is key.
All studies and recommendations are based on large samples, but each of us is a sample size of 1: know your body, know your risks (whether inherited/genetic or behavioral), and find a sexual health practitioner who respects your right to be an educated, assertive patient.
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 [...]