Cervical Cancer and Pap smear recommendations.

[sequins]

www.cdc.gov/cancer/cervical/pdf/guidelines.pdf

[af1212]

May 12, 2019 23:45:05 GMT -5 sequins said:

www.cdc.gov/cancer/cervical/pdf/guidelines.pdf

How timely that today is the 136 birthday of the inventor of the Pap!

[outnumbered]

Thank you.

Also know the symptoms of ovarian cancer. www.clearityfoundation.org/ovarian-cancer-basics/ The symptoms are often brushed off as 'normal problems' for women and doctors do not pursue a diagnosis. My friend died at the age of 44 from OC, if detected sooner she would have had a better chance.

[sequins]

May 13, 2019 15:58:08 GMT -5 outnumbered said:

Thank you.

Also know the symptoms of ovarian cancer. www.clearityfoundation.org/ovarian-cancer-basics/ The symptoms are often brushed off as 'normal problems' for women and doctors do not pursue a diagnosis. My friend died at the age of 44 from OC, if detected sooner she would have had a better chance.

My grandma died at 47 from OC too. I'm sorry about your friend

[TrickyBob]

Can I dump here that I am having a large, semi solid mass/cyst removed + ovary + tube removed soon and I am going in not knowing if they are taking just that or everything. A pathologist will be on standby while the oncologist operates.

Though my CA125 came back negative, the oncologist said he cant rule out early stage unless tested.

And I would have never gone to the gyno had I not kept advocating for myself and pushing that something might be wrong.

I am probably overly passionate about women going cause I sure as shit never thought I would be doing this at 29.

I am very pro paps yearly because most women won't go at all to get checked for any issues cause they think "eh when my pap comes around in x years"

[cleo29]

TrickyBob, keeping you in my thoughts. I imagine that is scary. so glad that you pushed the issue and stood up for yourself.

[blane12]

I’ve been diagnosed with OC 6 months ago. I put off getting checked out because the symptoms were ‘normal’ other than a dull pain in my right side that would come and go.

6 rounds of chemo, a major surgery, and 2 more rounds of chemo to go before we are talking maintenance drugs, but I am now a huge proponent of getting checked ASAP!

[goldengirlz]

Dec 8, 1974 19:09:55 GMT -5 mofongo said:

So, what I don’t get about the hpv testing and paps every 5yrs is what if you catch HPV in that time, and it’s an aggressive strand? It’s been 15yrs since I had an irregular pap and I’v tested negative for all of the strands they test for but as long as they let me I’ll be getting them yearly. My insurance covers yearly paps as well. A lot can change in a year.

A few thoughts:

1) In the specific population cohort you’re talking about — women who have been cleared to get checked every five years — the overall risk of getting an aggressive strain of cervical cancer in that timeframe is extremely low. It’s the same logic why 30-somethings don’t get regular mammograms even though the risk of breast cancer is not zero for this age group.

2) Most abnormal paps are not a cancer diagnosis. But they will put you on the conveyor belt of medical procedures, like a biopsy (standard) and sometimes a LEEP or other surgical intervention to remove cervical tissue. That’s not without risk either, particularly for women who want to have kids. They can have scarring or, worst case, have problems during pregnancy, like cervical incompetence.

3) The more you screen, the more “problems” you find. And eventually you reach a point where you’re getting more complications from unnecessary cervical procedures and not moving the needle on saving lives.

4) So, yes, what you’re talking about is not out of the realm of possibility. But you’d be more likely to be hit by a car driving to the appointment than have that happen to you. So if the doctor clears you for five-year screens, you can go ahead and know that your likelihood of having issues is overall low.

[goldengirlz]

May 13, 2019 21:39:35 GMT -5 mofongo said:

May 13, 2019 21:20:22 GMT -5 goldengirlz said:

A few thoughts:

1) In the specific population cohort you’re talking about — women who have been cleared to get checked every five years — the overall risk of getting an aggressive strain of cervical cancer in that timeframe is extremely low. It’s the same logic why 30-somethings don’t get regular mammograms even though the risk of breast cancer is not zero for this age group.

2) Most abnormal paps are not a cancer diagnosis. But they will put you on the conveyor belt of medical procedures, like a biopsy (standard) and sometimes a LEEP or other surgical intervention to remove cervical tissue. That’s not without risk either, particularly for women who want to have kids. They can have scarring or, worst case, have problems during pregnancy, like cervical incompetence.

3) The more you screen, the more “problems” you find. And eventually you reach a point where you’re getting more complications from unnecessary cervical procedures and not moving the needle on saving lives.

4) So, yes, what you’re talking about is not out of the realm of possibility. But you’d be more likely to be hit by a car driving to the appointment than have that happen to you. So if the doctor clears you for five-year screens, you can go ahead and know that your likelihood of having issues is overall low.

Is there thought that 30 something are not having as much sex with new partners? My irregular paps lead to a colposcopy and eventual LEEP. I think I had 3 paps that were increasingly abnormal over the course of maybe 9-12 months, then colpo and LEEP. In *my* case the problems were real and have since resolved. 

I am curious if I’ve totally cleared the virus now since I tested negative for all strands they are able to screen for now, or if it’s just dormant. Guess there’s no way to know that.

I doubt that factored into it, but I don’t know for sure. Gardasil will likely be a greater factor in any updates.

I also went through a colposcopy but avoided the LEEP because my body cleared the abnormal cells on its own. I don’t think anyone is saying the problems aren’t “real,” just that there’s a lot of gray area about who goes on to develop cancer and who doesn’t.

Another analogy is obstetrics. We have c-section rate in the U.S. that’s well above WHO targets and it’s partly because we’re extremely risk averse. If you subject women to continuous testing and monitoring, you will find issues. And you will find issues that may be clinically insignificant but then move those women on to surgery when their babies would have been otherwise fine.

Of course, you can never have 100% certainty about whether a procedure was “unnecessary” for any given woman; you can only look at population-level data to see whether continuous fetal monitoring or annual Pap smears or mammograms for young women led to more surgery without a commensurate decrease in [whatever you’re trying to prevent].

So it’s a balance.