New Pap test guidelines
Posted by medconsumers on November 21, 2009
It’s about time. That was my first thought yesterday when I read that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists had changed its screening guidelines for cervical cancer. ACOG made it clear that reducing harm is the main reason for raising the starting age for Pap tests to 21 and widening the intervals between tests. The harm is the multiple, often painful, biopsies that become necessary once abnormalities are found on the cervix. Most of these abnormalities will go away on their own, but the damage to the cervix can lead to problems when women get pregnant. Two examples are an inability to carry a baby full term and an increased risk of needing a caesarean.
What infuriates me is information about Pap-related harm was available decades ago. Yes decades. It was 1980 when I first read about the Pap test as a contributing factor to the high rate of hysterectomy in the U.S. Many women in that era went directly from an abnormal Pap test to the operating room for a total hysterectomy, even though some researchers knew that many of the so-called precancers found on the cervix regress spontaneously. This was noted in a review of all studies about cancer screening tests, which was commissioned by the American Cancer Society in the late 1970s and conducted by David Eddy, MD. This review was published in the July/August 1980 issue CA–a Cancer Journal for Clinicians, the ACS’s own journal. Why, you might ask, did the ACS continue to unequivocally promote Pap testing? Why not warn women so they can make an informed decision about accepting this test?
Fast forward about ten years, when I read about a study conducted in Sweden, showing that precancers of the cervix regressed spontaneously in nine out of ten women who were left untreated. A study like this had to be done in another country because U.S. gynecologists were quicker to do a hysterectomy than their counterparts in Europe. This study was published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, which at the time was the federal government’s official medical journal.
Here’s another sobering thought: 15 million Pap tests are done annually in the U.S. to detect cervical cancer in women who have had a hysterectomy. The absurdity (and danger) of trying to detect cervical cancer in women who do not have a cervix hit home about 20 years ago in a call to our office. The woman on the line sounded extremely emotional. And for good reason. She had been given a Pap test that indicated precancer even though she had no cervix. The reason her doctor gave for doing a Pap test anyway was evidence-free, but fairly common: “we’ll check you for vaginal cancer.” Her life was turned upside down for two weeks while her doctor sent her for multiple invasive, painful tests to search for an extremely rare cancer. She was relieved but furious to learn that the Pap test has no proven value in detecting vaginal cancer and therefore no proof that finding it early (i.e., before symptoms develop) would alter the course of the disease.
The Pap test is the first of the cancer screening tests, introduced in the early 1960s without benefit of a clinical trial to prove it was a good idea. Pap test results did not even become standardized until 1988. Up to then, one pathologist’s precancer was another pathologist’s benign abnormality.
I doubt many women have had the pros and cons of the Pap test explained to them by their doctors. Nor are they told how rare cervical cancer is. We have been led to believe that Pap testing is the reason cervical cancer is rare, but in fact the cervical cancer death rate was going down a good decade before the Pap test was given to a significant portion of the female population (see my 2007 article on the topic). And here’s the National Cancer Institute’s cautions about the Pap test that have been on its Web site for several years. I think women deserve an apology from the ACS and ACOG. It’s unethical to give a screening test without explaining both the harm and benefit.
Maryann Napoli, Center for Medical Consumers©
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.