Smear tests pointless now?

[hedgehogger1]

On my last smear test I was told they no longer look at the cells if the sample tests negative for HPV. As I've tested negative for HPV and have no way to catch it does that mean further smears are pointless and I don't need to go any more?

Purple Daisies if it isn't about cost but the most effective way to screen please can you explain why testing for HPV and doing no further investigation for negative HPV patients is more effective than it would be to do an HPV test and look at cells for all patients?

And please explain why patients who test negative for HPV are not vaccinated? Even if it was lying dormant in some patients, presumably the majority of those testing negative are not infected at all and would benefit from the vaccination (it wouldn't be being used for young girls if it wasn't effective)?

I recognise the name PurpleDaisies as she was on my previous thread about this matter - explaining that this was a more effective means of testing. If I recall correctly, she's a retired GP (or claims to be).
How it can be more effective, despite the 'evidence' she provided 2 years ago or now, I can't quite fathom. HPV isn't the sole cause for cervical cancer, so I raised the point that cervical cancer could exist where HPV was not present but she had some nonsense about that too. Despite several posters saying that they had tested negative for HPV but had abnormal cells. She was not to be challenged two years ago, and it seems she hasn't changed her mind.
I'd ignore her.
I think it's a question that needs to be asked.

I know it's not yearly even if positive as it's surely 2 years now since the positive cells and their removal and biopsy and I was told I would be put back onto the 3 year testing (HPV positive).

I am just wondering why anyone would assume that a 20 year marriage would mean that they will "never" catch HPV......

But I am cynical

The new HPV vaccine protects against seven strains that are found in ∼90% of cervical cancers worldwide and against two strains implicated in more than 90% of anogenital warts. Given that, it is quite possible that for new generations coming through (who are vaccinated as children) population wide regular cervical screening will no longer be cost effective. Many developed countries are moving to fewer screens per lifetime at longer intervals (e.g. Australia moving to 5-yearly screening).

Unfortunately primary HPV screening with no cytology for negative results does mean that some women with HPV unrelated cervical cancer would be missed. However some women were missed under the old screening programme and HPV primary screening has been shown to be more effective at finding cases.

Younger generations who have been vaccinated before becoming sexually active should continue to attend screening as their vaccination does not protect against all strains.

Older generations and anyone unvaccinated should also attend as they may have HPV. Even if you have not been sexually active for some time or have been in a committed relationship for years you should still be tested again as HPV can lay dormant for years (or unfortunately a partner can be unfaithful).

I would not discourage anyone from screening, however if cervical screens make you extremely uncomfortable and your area has moved to HPV primary screening there is a case to be made for home testing yourself if you would prefer that.

Just to be clear I am not a health professional - and I am very open to being corrected by any!

Some free to read sources for my claims:

Effectiveness modelling and economic evaluationin the Australian setting. Note that "current practice" in 2013 was two-yearly testing.

[[https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ijc.30392
Will cervical screening remain cost‐effective in women offered the next generation nonavalent HPV vaccine?]]

The only group that do not require smears are those who are now just early 20s and we're vaccinated prior to sexual activity. Otherwise you need to still go. How many women are going to die now because of these misconceptions?

I did a quick Google and in April 2019 it was widely being reported that it would be urine tests within 3 years so I expect smears will disappear in the near future.

Yes this policy seems crazy to my! I had minor abnormalities on my last smear but hpv negative and no follow up required. I have been told that they will still only screen for HPV first at next smear and not bother to check if the minor abnormalities have further developed if it's negative. As I am married I won't have developed HPV so this is a worry!

I'm worried tbh at the new test. I had severe cell changes so needed a Lletz done but my hpv test was negative throughout

The NHS hasn't introduced this change on a whim - it's backed by vigorous research and I believe has been adopted by other countries.

I had mine two weeks ago and she said you go till you’re 64 and if you test positive for hpv you go yearly.