Home > Health > On Women > Get Your Pap Smear to Screen for Cervical Cancer—But Less Often

Get Your Pap Smear to Screen for Cervical Cancer—But Less Often

Reader Comments
Back to blog

I want to quote your post in my blog. It can?
And you et an account on Twitter?

trina_ka of AL 5:46AM December 25, 2009

Lost in the discussion of new cervical cancer screening recommendations are those women who still need yearly Pap/pelvic exams. You do not mention exceptions cited by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which could have deadly consequences if ignored.
DES Daughters, who were exposed before birth to the anti-miscarriage drug diethylstilbestrol, have a lifelong risk for a rare form of cervical and vaginal cancer. The CDC estimates there are about two million DES Daughters in the U.S. and they, along with their doctors, should be fully aware that their need for annual Pap/pelvic screenings has not changed.
DES Action USA (www.desaction.org) would like to see this important exception highlighted in all reports regarding the new Pap screening recommendations. Thank you.

Fran Howell of FL 5:24PM November 21, 2009

"It's good to see that medical screening which is either uneccesary or of dubious value is being cut back."
Uneccesary or of dubious value? A pap saved my life. I believe that pap was THE most valuable test I've ever had. I'm lucky to be here and if I had waited 3 years between paps I'd probably be dead.

Stacy of MA 6:23PM November 20, 2009

You are just plain old wrong. Statistics show that since women began getting cervical screenings and Pap test, that incidents of cervical cancer have declined significantly, more than 75 percent. So you have no leg to stand on when it comes to reducing medical costs and procedures.
What, do you think by redcuing the number of cervical procedures and Pap smears that it will somehome lower you fess or help you in any way shape or form? NOW WAY!
In the end, it will raise the costs of healthcare as you will now be funding the $1 million it costs to treat these women, so the buck doesn;t pass to you and even suggested this is good for medical reform makes you an moron - get real!

PJ of CA 5:10PM November 20, 2009

As a 10 year cervical cancer survivor, I was floored when contacted early this week by media outlets regarding the changes to the cervical screening process presented today by ACOG. Not only are they broad and over reaching, they are out and out dangerous. While I agree, we never was to do surgery or unwarranted procedures on a women's cervix, we do however, want to proactive and ensure we catch precancer before it progresses to cervical cancer. For those under 21, MOST of these yougn women will fight the diases off and never develop a precancerous condition or high-grade cervical lesions, but waht about the ones who do not. Should they be made to suffer?
As for the changes to cervical screening for women between 21-30, getting their Pap every two years saeems plausible, except there is an alarming rise of women between 25-35 contracting a more invasive form of precancer called Adenocarcinoma that quickly progresses into cervical cancer with only a few months. So if you contract it some time shortly after your last normal Pap and wait two years, when you go back to the doctor at that point you could have invasive cancer that requires a hysterectomy. AIS is on the rise in this age group, thus ACOG's suggested findings do not bode well for this age group.
As for the recommendation that women over 30 with three consecutive normal Paps can go three years between screening is ludicrous! These are the years when you should be tested every year, especially since HPV slwoly grows into cervical cancer in most women, thus if you contracted it in your 20s, you have a greater chance of it moving to cervical cancer in your early 30s! If you in your 30s, you need yearly cervical screenings and should have it coupled with an HPV test that tells you whether or not you have high risk strains. This way they know to monitopr you even more closely.
Finally, ACOG's suggested that women have an option in receiving either a conventional Pap or liquid cytology exam just disgusts me. NO women should still be getting a conventional Pap, especially if they are they are being asked to skip years between cervical screenings. I know recent studies showed that the liquid-based cytology didn;t perform any better that a conventional Pap, bit ACOG negelects to mention this testing was only carried out in Europe, where the margin of error on specimen collections is VERY high. Here in the US, liquid-based cytology is much better, more sensitive and plain old more reliable.
No women should be getting a conventional PAP TEST - PERIOD!
Of course, ACOG also failed to mention that these new guidelines do not apply to women who have had abnormal Paps in the past, as they will still need to continue with annual cervical screenings. Also, ACOG conveniently left out that even though you do not have an annual Pap test, you should still have an annual vaginal exam where the doctor willexamine you for breast cancer, as well as screen you for STDs and HIV.

Patti Juricq of CA 5:05PM November 20, 2009

It's good to see that medical screening which is either uneccesary or of dubious value is being cut back. Very little of it has saved lives. If we want to have any hope of having affordable and sustainable healthcare in this country we need to make sure that overall costs are reduced by only performing cost effective screening which actually saves lives. One of the most expensive and least cost effective and least useful in saving lives is the colonoscopy. It only detects about 50 cancers per 10,000 tests. whereas the simple, low cost FOBT (fecal occult blood test) detects about 30 per 10k tests. In addition the FOBT is simple, nonintrusive, and not dangerous. Whereas the colonoscopy is uncomfortable and dangerous. About 5 to 10 cases out of 10k tests the patient gets either a punctured colon, tear, or infection (HIV or hepatitis-C)(lets be honest here - you are getting buggered). Annual FOBT at about $35 a test versus colonoscopy every 10 years at about $2000 per test - hmmm, this is a no brainer. It's about time.

Eric of NC 4:46PM November 20, 2009