SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the Biannual?-Nope.-Semiannual?-Nope.-Triannual?-Nope.-What-DO-they-call-that? dept.
The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has released new recommendations on screening for cervical cancer. These latest recommendations continue the trend of decreasing participant burden by lengthening screening intervals, making the "annual Pap" a historical artifact. Since its introduction 75 years ago, exfoliative cytology commonly known as the Pap test has been the "gold-standard" screening test for cervical cancer.
In the current issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), the USPSTF, an independent panel of experts in primary care and prevention, updates its 2012 recommendations for cervical cancer screening with one important addition. This is the first time the USPSTF has recommended a method of cervical cancer screening that does not include the Pap test.
[...] The new USPSTF guidelines recommend that women ages 21 to 29 years be screened for cervical cancer every three years with the Pap test alone. This recommendation remains unchanged from 2012. For women ages 30 to 65 years, the USPSTF recommends screening for cervical cancer with primary high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) test alone every five years. As an option, they also recommend the previous guideline of hrHPV test and Pap test together (co-testing) every three years.
What was novel in the 2012 USPSTF recommendations was that women ages 30 to 65 years were given the option for the first time to be screened with hrHPV test and Pap test together every five years to lengthen their screening interval. The 2018 recommendations go one step further by including, for the first time, the option of hrHPV testing alone, without a Pap test, every five years.
The table in the new USPSTF recommendations also acknowledges an important trade-off. Co-testing is slightly better than primary hrHPV testing at detecting precancerous lesions but is associated with increased tests and diagnostic procedures that may not benefit the patient and have real costs to the health care system. Pap tests detect changes in cervical cells that could indicate the presence of pre-cancer or cancer, while HPV tests detect the genetic material or DNA of the high-risk types in cervical samples.
Journal Reference:
Lee A. Learman, Francisco A. R. Garcia. Screening for Cervical Cancer: New Tools and New Opportunities. JAMA, 2018 DOI: 10.1001/jama.2018.11004
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday August 25 2018, @04:50AM (2 children)
Overall, it is thought that cancer is a matter of 1/3 starting genetics, 1/3 environment, and 1/3 just bad luck. That is all cancers though.
For many cancers, nearly all can be traced to a specific cause. For example, asbestos causes a very specific cancer. Essentially all cases of that cancer are caused by asbestos.
Similarly, the vast majority of cervical cancer can be traced to HPV, which is a sexually transmitted disease.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Gaaark on Saturday August 25 2018, @11:03AM (1 child)
More along the lines of
"Diethylstilbestrol (DES)
Diethylstilbestrol (DES) is a form of estrogen. It was used between 1940 and 1971 to treat women with certain problems during pregnancy, such as miscarriages. It has not been approved for use in pregnant women since the 1970s.
Daughters of women who took DES during their pregnancy have a higher than average risk of developing a rare type of cervical cancer called clear cell carcinoma. Some studies also suggest that daughters of women who took DES may have a higher risk of developing precancerous changes of the cervix and squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) of the cervix."
http://www.cancer.ca/en/cancer-information/cancer-type/cervical/risks [cancer.ca]
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 27 2018, @08:47AM
So yes, you'll have other causes, but most of these are HPV. That's why there has been a sharp drop in cancer rates due to vaccination.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/hpv-cervical-cancer-rates-significant-drop-nhs-public-health-england-study-a8403176.html [independent.co.uk]
So... screening is easy, but it also may become a moot point as the *efficacy* of continuing the screening as done currently are no longer there.
As for you, go get yourself a prostate exam. Simpler and cheaper and also saves lives.
PS. Bringing up your anecdotal evidence as proof of policy that applies to entire population is as bringing up the weather event and saying how it indicates this or that about climate.