to remind you all to go and get your smear tests done if they are due or overdue!

[RedCrimson]

8 years ago I had severe dyskaryosis (pre cancerous cells) and was bloody lucky I got it all taken away when I did.

I went for my yearly smear today and the nurse was new to cytology and I was the first smear she's ever done (supervised by my usual nurse).

So I just want to remind you to get yours done if it's due. I very much doubt I'd be here now if I hadn't have gotten the treatment when I did.

Matrix got there before me and said it much better.

I had biopsy for abnormal cells and I DID need it, I had severe changes and have cancer in my family. I would recommend everyone get one not just for their benefit but for everyone that loves them.

I do not feel 'I think' reasoning should come into it. If you are going to comment atleast have fact instead of scaremongering yourself!

Well as that one woman in 1000 for 35 years I'm very greatful that the smear test exists.
But of course it should be choice.

I'm not sure if that comment is aimed at me Lovelyjubbly. If so I have researched the facts thoroughly which is why I choose not to screen and risk unnecessary treatment.

I do not feel 'I think' reasoning should come into it. If you are going to comment atlas have fact instead of scaremongering yourself!

I do have facts. The real ones, not the ones that aren't freely given when you get the letter. Or at least I didn't get that information when I had my last smear test.

I have no idea why you posted what you did. It makes no sense.

I had biopsy for abnormal cells and I DID need it, I had severe changes and have cancer in my family. I would recommend everyone get one not just for their benefit but for everyone that loves them.

I do not feel 'I think' reasoning should come into it. If you are going to comment atleast have fact instead of scaremongering yourself!

You have an increased risk of cancer because you have a family history.

Don't you think that means your risk is different?
Don't you think that whilst that was the right choice FOR YOU, it might not be for someone else without the same risk factors?

I think your post is extremely patronising. There is a lot of women who do their research and find out what the benefits and risks are.

Ironically there is research that has found that people who are better informed about the risks of screening are more likely to not take part in screening.

Do you need pointing in the direction of this or are you going to keep talk about scaremongering? Its not. Its informed decision making.

Too many people wrongly believe this test saved their life. The lifetime risk of cervical cancer is 0.65%…lifetime risk of referral after an “abnormal” smear test…a whopping 77% in Australia. Lung cancer kills many more women than cervical cancer.

Just had my letter for my first one, not too sure on wether to go, nervous too!

Well, many minor abnormalities will go away on their own, so there is a lot of cases where people are treated or have a colp when they don't really need it and that can increase the risk of prem labour, and infertility (I think?). The chances of these abnormal cells turning into cancer are very slim and we will all have cell changes at some point in our lives.

Can you provide links to evidence for colp increasing risk of perm labour and infertiliy?
Certainly for mammograms women are presented with the pros and cons of screening and not hassled at all to have screening. As this isn't the case for cervical cancer screening and given that screening is quite costly, I think likely that the pros far outweigh the cons.

I have one tomorrow, 2 pregnancies in as many years has meant I'm well overdue. The longer you leave it, the worse the worry is I think. I've never felt nervous before.

Can you provide links to evidence for col increasing risk of perm labour and infertility?

I'm not sure about infertility which is why I put a ? beside it. I have heard it's a risk but I'm not sure if that is true. I think the colposcopy itself isn't much of a problem, but the biopsies and treatment that usually follows.

This is about loop/ cone biopsy

'Studies have shown that some treatments for CIN or stage 1A cervical cancer can lead to a small risk of complications in future pregnancies. Women who have had a cone biopsy are more likely to have their babies born before 37 weeks (preterm delivery). And the risk of having a baby that weighs less than 2.5kg (low birthweight) is higher. There may also be an increase in birth by Caesarean section for women who have had cone biopsy.'

Read more at www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/type/cervical-cancer/smears/pregnancy-and-abnormal-cervical-cells#EcrksjR1yUUY7OZr.99

This GP sums it up nicely for me

Screening tests are different. Because they aim to find disease you don't know about, the trade-off between benefits and harms tends to be more nuanced compared with tests done to investigate symptoms. Cervical screening does prevent deaths from cervical cancer. But to get that reduction, you have to follow up and/or treat all the women who have cell changes on their screening test. However, most cervical-cell changes found at screening will not lead to cervical cancer. The problem is we can't predict which will, so all need further monitoring or treatment. A study from Bristol in 2003 found that 1,000 women have to be screened for 35 years to prevent one death from cervical cancer; and to prevent that death, 80 women have to have further investigation, with 50 women having treatment to their cervices. Four out of five women found at screening to have "high-grade" changes in their cervix did not go on to develop invasive cancer.

Clearly, there is a benefit – but overall, it's small. That potential for good has to be weighed against the risks of treatment. It's known that having a cervical biopsy – which is done to get more information about the degree of abnormality – raises the risk of pre-term birth in later pregnancies. And the worry and anxiety that the results cause shouldn't be underestimated.

www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/features/why-im-saying-no-to-a-smear-7577967.html

I bloody hate these threads, so patronising. Matrix said it perfectly and the pressure on women to comply is horrifying. I had my last smear under GA 10 years after the previous one during which I went into shock, had to be recusitated and couldn't drive for a year. I was under a massive amount of pressure to have it done and tried twice causing actual physical trauma. I'm not having any more.

Thanks OP, I got a letter the other day, need to get mine booked.

Four out of five women found at screening to have "high-grade" changes in their cervix did not go on to develop invasive cancer.

But presumably those were treated and so we don't know whether they would have done or not.

Clearly, there is a benefit – but overall, it's small. That potential for good has to be weighed against the risks of treatment. It's known that having a cervical biopsy – which is done to get more information about the degree of abnormality – raises the risk of pre-term birth in later pregnancies.

That's still only a very small risk (if any) for younger women who haven't completed their family. There are few cons for older women. The same is not true for breast screening, hence the big difference in how the screening is promoted (or not).

I bloody hate these threads, so patronising. so don't click on them.

If threads like this get a few people going who haven't gone because of apathy then it's worth while. Or if it makes some people who are scared of a little discomfort but want the test realise that it is better than going through the stress of being told you have cc, then it is worth it.

If you've done your research and choose not to, then that is a perfectly valid choice too.

Charlie that's absolutely horrific.

I feel the pressure women come under to submit to these tests comes from the financial incentives offered to gps. There is no place for financial incentives in screening tests. My own gp has offered me a sedative several times . Gps will happily drug women so they are more tolerant of being assaulted.

And if you're depressed or have mental health problems ? Higher payment for that gp surgery. What that means in reality is that women who are depressed or vulnerable are hounded , or worse strong armed into a smear on a unrelated gp visit. There is no informed consent. I'm sorry that happened to you.

I had pre cancerous abnormalities similar to you OP and was told to wait six months and they would check again. Actually they had to check the best they could because I was pregnant but was told that I was fine and that apparently pregnancy can kill off dodgy cells. Now I think about that it sounds strange but I went with it and after a few tests since it hasn't crossed my mind again even though it turned my world upside down at the time. (The pre cancerous cells I mean, not the pregnancy, though that did as well of course).

About two weeks ago I got a reminder for my smear though and have been quite blasé about it, we've just been on hols, i'm busy at work, ds birthday coming up, etc. Thank you for the kick up the backside, will book tomorrow.

I had mine a month or so ago. I promised myself after Jade Goody died at the same age as me I would never miss another one.

I bloody hate these threads, so patronising. so don't click on them

Why not, is there only one valid viewpoint?

If threads like this get a few people going who haven't gone because of apathy then it's worth while

Are you interested in reading the evidence?

Always up to date with mine but everyone who isn't do not put it on a 'to do' list - just do it!

A wise woman once told me to leave your dignity just outside the door and pick it back up on the way out - worked a treat for me, I really do exactly that. Last time I was half naked before the nurse managed to pull the curtain around, she looked at me as if to say 'bloody hell, she's keen'!

BTW, despite my posts here I decided I will be going for my next smear test after all.

Harmless Cervical changes are common in late teens/early twenties. Historically this lead to women having bits chopped out of their cervixes which in some cases lead to cervical insufficiency (and difficulty carrying a pregnancy to term). So the age was raised to 25.
Also, research found that infection with HPV took 10 years to cause cervical changes. So if a female became sexually active as young as 14, you'd catch the changes at 25.
Economically it is far far cheaper to screen than to wait for symptomatic women to come forward and need massive amounts of treatment.
Eventually it is hoped that women will be able to do a simple vaginal swab themselves at home and send it to the lab - much like the currently bowel cancer screening program- and only those women who are positive for HPV will be called for smears.
I know a bit about this area so happy to answer any questions!

I had CIN 3 which was removed a couple of years ago. As I tested negative at follow up for HPV I am now back in the 3 yearly screening. However I don't know whether the screening 'saved my life' or not. I recommend the book The Patient Paradox which discusses screening - the risk and benefits in an intelligent and compelling way. You aren't necessarily unreasonable to remind people about screening OP, but I really dislike the dogma around this issue. We need to be well informed, look at the evidence and make our decisions based on that.

Thanks, but no thanks.

The last one I had was extra-traumatic. I just won't go through it again.

I wouldn't try to talk anyone out of it. But it's not for me.