Have I got this right regarding HPV and smears?

[Redgreencoverplant]

So just had my smear results letter through. It states that I had a HPV negative test and so they have not bothered to check my sample for abnormal cells and they will recall me in 3 years.

The NHS only offer HPV testing through a smear test but it is available privately as a urine test through the post. If the NHS are only going to check cells if HPV positive surely I can just do the urine test every 3 years and only have a smear if that comes back positive?

Is that right? And why aren't the NHS using urine testing for HPV? I'm sure most women would prefer that!

The HPV urine test is apparently standard in Finland and Holland and has been for several years.

I live in Holland and had my most recent Pap smear a month ago. Never heard of/been offered a urine test.

Well this is interesting. I have very rarely had sex without a condom and only with 1 sexual partner. I would imagine I am very low risk for HPV and would be very interested in the urine test.

I had this and was blown away they had established such causality

I would also rather pee into a pot than have a smear test

I think that’s crazy! Why do such an invasive examination for something that can be detected from a urine sample (or blood test)? I’ll be refusing my next smear test if they’ll only be checking for HPV.

My last two smears have been tested for HPV only. I had the most recent one last week and just got the letter to say it's HPV negative (which it was the last time too). I'm not too concerned as I've never had any problems but I assume the reason they don't offer urine tests is so they can just do the cell tests straight away for those that are positive rather than recalling people.

That makes sense tan. I do think they should offer a choice though.

I was confused by this when I got my results the other day. It makes me a little bit nervous but I'm not sure why. There must be a reason they don't do a urine test. Is it possible for HPV to be present on the cervix but not in the urine?

Still paranoid it's a cost cutting thing and I've been hoodwinked

It isn’t-there’s really good evidence from a massive study that testing for HPV first means missing fewer cancers. It does seem counter intuitive but it’s true.

NHS site says 'almost all' cases of cervical cancer linked to HPV, but other sites say 80-90%, which means a significant number might be missed if HPV negative samples are not examined for abnormal cells.

I think you’ve got confused-there are two particular strains of HPV that cause the vast majority of cancers (maybe that’s where you’ve seen the 80-90% statistics) but there are still other HPV strains that cause cancer. Over 99% of cervical cancers are associated with HPV.

From what I have ready oyster urine tests are as accurate.

Thanks for posting this OP. I too will be declining invasive testing if a simple urine test can do the same job.

I’m sure the uptake would be higher if it was a urine test. I’ve been waiting months for my smear test, combination of nurse cancelling my appointment and me booking the wrong time of month and the fact They are fully booked for 3 weeks in advance. A urine test at home would be loads better all round especially if it has the same results.

I got told the same after my last smear and won’t be bothering again , pity they hadn’t explained it to me before I had the test.

I got told the same after my last smear and won’t be bothering again , pity they hadn’t explained it to me before I had the test.

Why not? The changes have made it more likely that if you had a problem, it would be picked up.

My GPO who is a specialist in all things women asked me about my recent smear and what it said. She told me that now they test for the HPV virus and if you do not have this then you won't develop cervical cancer. They were her words to me.

If they test and you do have the HPV virus then they test the cells. Its a leap forward apparently.

GP, what is even a GPO?

She told me that now they test for the HPV virus and if you do not have this then you won't develop cervical cancer. They were her words to me.

That’s not quite true. Very, very, very rarely cervical cancer develops without HPV. I don’t think she’s right to reassure women that without HPV, they absolutely won’t get cervical cancer.

My GP also said that in all the time she has been a GP she has only ever seen one woman develop cervical cancer. She says it is massively the decline which is a brilliant news.

If you have had HPV do you always test positive for it? Even decades later?

I had a "bf" when I was 17 who just loved visiting Bangkok and brought me back a lovely surprise in the form of HPV.

If you have had HPV do you always test positive for it? Even decades later?

No, I had a positive test and then about 8 years later a negative one. The body can, and usually does, clear the infection

I know that I had high risk hpv 10 years ago. A recent test was negative for hpv

I’m the same. Had HPV and sever changes and half my cervix removed because of it. Was told I’d be in yearly smears for ever. After 6 or so years they told me I’d tested negative for Hpv and was back on the five yearly smear cycle.

I thought you couldn’t get rid of hpv and once you had it you had it for life, like cold sores.

I’d rather have yearly smears tbh.

I don't think about it at all and had actually forgotten the misery of being a teenager with it. I really should book in for a smear test, I can't remember the last one I had.

I didn't realise this. I hate having it done, if they're purely screening for HPV and not looking at the cells, why the invasive screening?

So a health care professional can actually examine your cervix and if there is HPV present you don't need a second appointment.

I don't understand this. Anyone can become infected with HPV and clear the infection, I get that, but what if during the time you had the infection you developed the abnormal cells and then by the time it came to the test the infection had gone? You would test negative for HPV, they wouldn't look at the cells, so your abnormality could go undetected? Is that right?