If I'd Followed This Advice, I'd Be Dead.

Right. So they've made a determination weighing the benefits of the testing vs. the costs, and drawn the line at 40.
That is incorrect.
Well, half incorrect. The ACS made their determination based on the benefits. For women under 40, they decided that it is not beneficial because it's not a good diagnostic tool. That has nothing to do with the cost.
 
I would be interested in finding out how much clinical work vs. administrative work these physicians did.

Just because you have a M.D. behind your name does not mean you see patients. In fact, many of the physicians on these types of boards are more administrative and rarely see patients in real world settings. That would be an interesting piece of information that we are missing if we are trying to form an opinion on these recommendations.

I would be more impressed with their findings if I knew that they were practicing physicians and not administrators or researchers.

Secondly, it would be interesting to find out what changed in the last 6 months to change their opinion as this same body came out then declaring we need to do more to promote mammographys in women in general.

What changed their minds so radically in the last 6 months?


This recommendation was released with no peer review before its release and so far it is finding very little support in physicians and the public in general. I don't honestly think that this will change any standards that are now in place.
 
That is incorrect.
Well, half incorrect. The ACS made their determination based on the benefits. For women under 40, they decided that it is not beneficial because it's not a good diagnostic tool. That has nothing to do with the cost.
Mammograms don't have zero diagnostic benefits to 39 year olds and then suddenly become beneficial at 40. It's a sliding scale of costs vs. benefits, and the ACS decided that the scale tips toward benefits at age 40.

In the same vein, why do you think the ACS says mammograms should be done annually? Isn't it true that more cancers would be picked up if mammograms were done every 9 months, or 6 months?
 
I would be interested in finding out how much clinical work vs. administrative work these physicians did.

Just because you have a M.D. behind your name does not mean you see patients. In fact, many of the physicians on these types of boards are more administrative and rarely see patients in real world settings. That would be an interesting piece of information that we are missing if we are trying to form an opinion on these recommendations.

I would be more impressed with their findings if I knew that they were practicing physicians and not administrators or researchers.
Why? What they do is "conduct scientific evidence reviews of a broad array of clinical preventive services". Isn't that something that researchers should be good at?


Secondly, it would be interesting to find out what changed in the last 6 months to change their opinion as this same body came out then declaring we need to do more to promote mammographys in women in general.

What changed their minds so radically in the last 6 months?
I haven't seen anything like this at all, please provide a link. The last formal recommendation on mammograms made by this panel was in 2002.

This recommendation was released with no peer review before its release....
I'm not sure the concept of peer review applies to what this panel does.
 

Yes I find this new advice to be interesting. Sorry if someone already quoted this but I read that doing mamograms on women in their 40s, you have to scan 1900 women to save one life, but women in their 50s, you only have to scan 1300 to save one life. So they both do save lives. In the 40s group though, the cost is more in terms of money, stress from worry due to false positives and also exposing women to radiation. It is very interesting.
 
Yes I find this new advice to be interesting. Sorry if someone already quoted this but I read that doing mamograms on women in their 40s, you have to scan 1900 women to save one life, but women in their 50s, you only have to scan 1300 to save one life. So they both do save lives. In the 40s group though, the cost is more in terms of money, stress from worry due to false positives and also exposing women to radiation. It is very interesting.

Most women don't give the radiation risk much thought, and they should. Depending on how old the equipment is, now carefully it's monitored and so on there can be a huge difference in radiation exposure.
Me? I go to a major center with new, digital equipment deliberately.

IMO "worry" isn't really the problem with "false positives". Ask anyone who's been through a wire localization what that's about. It's not "worry" that's the problem, it's that that procedure is terribly painful. If you're lucky it's over fairly quickly, if it's not, well, that's the way the ball bounces. The surgery for the biopsy is a piece of cake compared to the experience of the localization. (And we haven't even addressed the large number of extra x-rays a woman receives during this procedure.)
These aren't little, nothing events. If they are necessary and save lives, great. But, I think it's good the medical community is at least looking at options, ways to avoid unnecessary surgery and so on, especially in younger women with dense breasts. When the biopsy comes back benign, sure, women are relieved and appreciative. But, has their risk been increased for the future by all the radiation?

We are a long way from having all the answers, unfortunately.
 
If you like the recommendation for not teaching breast exams and not having mammograms until age 50, you're going to love this. More cost effective savings.

Report: Push Back Age of Cervical Cancer Tests



CHICAGO — Women in the United States should start cervical cancer screening at age 21 and most do not need an annual Pap smear, according to new guidelines issued Friday that aim to reduce the risk of unnecessary treatment.

The guidelines from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists or ACOG now say women younger than 30 should undergo cervical cancer screening once every two years instead of an annual exam. And those age 30 and older can be screened once every three years.

The recommendations are based on scientific evidence that suggests more frequent testing leads to overtreatment, which can harm a young woman's chances of carrying a child full term.

"Overtreatment of minor abnormal pap tests in young women and adolescents can lead to consequences such as preterm labor in some cases. It increases the risk," said Dr. Thomas Herzog of Columbia University in New York, who is chairman of an ACOG subcommittee on gynecologic cancers.

"Preterm delivery has become a huge problem in the United States that has potential serious consequences for the unborn fetus," said Dr. Jennifer Milosavijevic, a specialist in obstetrics and gynecology at Henry Ford Health System in Detroit, who supports the guideline changes.

Avoiding Unnecessary Procedures

"These new guidelines will allow us to avoid doing unnecessary procedures on the sexually active adolescent female," she said in an e-mail.

The guidelines are unlikely to be met with the kind of rebellion that accompanied new breast cancer screening guidelines this week, which were largely based on computer projections, Dr. Len Lichtenfeld, deputy chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society, said in a telephone interview.

"There is a lot more agreement about the science of cervical cancer screening," Lichtenfeld said.

Prior recommendations called for annual cervical cancer screening to start three years after a women first becomes sexually active, or by age 21. Although the rate of HPV infection is high in this population, rates of cervical cancer are very low.

Herzog said the new recommendations are based on studies that suggest starting screening earlier than age 21 causes more harm than benefit.

"We were overdiagnosing and overtreating adolescents and very young women," Herzog said in a telephone interview.

Cervical cancer is a slow-growing cancer caused by exposure to certain strains of the human papillomavirus (HPV), a common sexually transmitted disease among women and men.

"Women do not get cervical cancer first. They acquire HPV, the sexually transmitted virus that causes precancerous abnormalities of the cervix and cervical cancer. It takes years to progress from an HPV-infection to full-blown cervical cancer," Milosavijevic said.

For that reason, she said changing the screening interval will not mean more cervical cancers will be missed. She said most deaths from cervical cancer in the United States happen in people who are screened infrequently, or not at all.

"The take-home message for women is that you should still get your pap smear screening," Milosavijevic said.

HPV is the most common sexually transmitted disease in the world. About 20 million Americans currently are infected with HPV, according to the CDC.

In the past 30 years, cervical cancer rates in the United States have fallen by more than half, due in large part to widespread use of cervical cancer screening.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,575891,00.html
 
So a Gov't task force came up this, are we sure we want them controlling our healthcare. :confused3

I was thinking the same thing! This seems like a "set up" for the healthcare plan. I think I wll stick with the advice of the American Cancer Society, thankyouverymuch.
 
If you like the recommendation for not teaching breast exams and not having mammograms until age 50, you're going to love this. More cost effective savings.

Report: Push Back Age of Cervical Cancer Tests



CHICAGO — Women in the United States should start cervical cancer screening at age 21 and most do not need an annual Pap smear, according to new guidelines issued Friday that aim to reduce the risk of unnecessary treatment.

The guidelines from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists or ACOG now say women younger than 30 should undergo cervical cancer screening once every two years instead of an annual exam. And those age 30 and older can be screened once every three years.

The recommendations are based on scientific evidence that suggests more frequent testing leads to overtreatment, which can harm a young woman's chances of carrying a child full term.

"Overtreatment of minor abnormal pap tests in young women and adolescents can lead to consequences such as preterm labor in some cases. It increases the risk," said Dr. Thomas Herzog of Columbia University in New York, who is chairman of an ACOG subcommittee on gynecologic cancers.

"Preterm delivery has become a huge problem in the United States that has potential serious consequences for the unborn fetus," said Dr. Jennifer Milosavijevic, a specialist in obstetrics and gynecology at Henry Ford Health System in Detroit, who supports the guideline changes.

Avoiding Unnecessary Procedures

"These new guidelines will allow us to avoid doing unnecessary procedures on the sexually active adolescent female," she said in an e-mail.

The guidelines are unlikely to be met with the kind of rebellion that accompanied new breast cancer screening guidelines this week, which were largely based on computer projections, Dr. Len Lichtenfeld, deputy chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society, said in a telephone interview.

"There is a lot more agreement about the science of cervical cancer screening," Lichtenfeld said.

Prior recommendations called for annual cervical cancer screening to start three years after a women first becomes sexually active, or by age 21. Although the rate of HPV infection is high in this population, rates of cervical cancer are very low.

Herzog said the new recommendations are based on studies that suggest starting screening earlier than age 21 causes more harm than benefit.

"We were overdiagnosing and overtreating adolescents and very young women," Herzog said in a telephone interview.

Cervical cancer is a slow-growing cancer caused by exposure to certain strains of the human papillomavirus (HPV), a common sexually transmitted disease among women and men.

"Women do not get cervical cancer first. They acquire HPV, the sexually transmitted virus that causes precancerous abnormalities of the cervix and cervical cancer. It takes years to progress from an HPV-infection to full-blown cervical cancer," Milosavijevic said.

For that reason, she said changing the screening interval will not mean more cervical cancers will be missed. She said most deaths from cervical cancer in the United States happen in people who are screened infrequently, or not at all.

"The take-home message for women is that you should still get your pap smear screening," Milosavijevic said.

HPV is the most common sexually transmitted disease in the world. About 20 million Americans currently are infected with HPV, according to the CDC.

In the past 30 years, cervical cancer rates in the United States have fallen by more than half, due in large part to widespread use of cervical cancer screening.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,575891,00.html
Okay, so this is not from the Government but from an actual practicing physicians group. So who are all of you going to direct your outrage at?
 
If you like the recommendation for not teaching breast exams and not having mammograms until age 50, you're going to love this. More cost effective savings.

Report: Push Back Age of Cervical Cancer Tests
That really has been a guide line that many gyns have followed for a while. A lot of cervical cancer is caused by HPV and if, by the time you are 30, you haven't had any questionable PAPs for three years in a row, chances are, you aren't infected with HPV. Also, with the advent of vaccines, such as Gardasil, the incidence of cervical cancer will decrease significantly. Additionally, cervical biopsies have weakened the cervix to the point that it becomes incompetent during pregnancy resulting in miscarriage and early deliveries. Many of the conditions that have been overdiagnosed in young women have cleared up spontaneously and intervention often presents real risks. If women have bleeding, other gyn health issues, weakened immunity, etc. then all bets are off and they should be screened as before. The MAJOR difference in this change is that it is scientifically based, unlike the computer model regarding mammograms.
 
That really has been a guide line that many gyns have followed for a while. A lot of cervical cancer is caused by HPV and if, by the time you are 30, you haven't had any questionable PAPs for three years in a row, chances are, you aren't infected with HPV. Also, with the advent of vaccines, such as Gardasil, the incidence of cervical cancer will decrease significantly. Additionally, cervical biopsies have weakened the cervix to the point that it becomes incompetent during pregnancy resulting in miscarriage and early deliveries. Many of the conditions that have been overdiagnosed in young women have cleared up spontaneously and intervention often presents real risks. If women have bleeding, other gyn health issues, weakened immunity, etc. then all bets are off and they should be screened as before. The MAJOR difference in this change is that it is scientifically based, unlike the computer model regarding mammograms.

But how can one be sure this will be the case? I had an abnormal pap just after I turned 21. I had a biopsy and pre-cancerous cells were found. This was found during my routine annual pap so if I had waited 2-3 years from my last pap, who knows what would have happened, maybe I woud have had bleeding or other issues to signal something was wrong but I'm glad that i didn't have to wait to find out. I'm thankful for the pap, biopsy, and cryosurgery, without those things I may not have even been here to have my three healthy full term pregnancies. And even with the recommendations I wouldn't have changed a thing.
 
But how can one be sure this will be the case? I had an abnormal pap just after I turned 21. I had a biopsy and pre-cancerous cells were found. This was found during my routine annual pap so if I had waited 2-3 years from my last pap, who knows what would have happened, maybe I woud have had bleeding or other issues to signal something was wrong but I'm glad that i didn't have to wait to find out. I'm thankful for the pap, biopsy, and cryosurgery, without those things I may not have even been here to have my three healthy full term pregnancies. And even with the recommendations I wouldn't have changed a thing.

Precancerous is often dysplasia and it often resolves spontaneously.Again, your pap was within the guidelines, 21. After a positive, you would have had paps every year for 3 years per the guidelines. Perhaps that would have been continued every year for longer because you were positive. Same amount of examinations and same result.
 












Save Up to 30% on Rooms at Walt Disney World!

Save up to 30% on rooms at select Disney Resorts Collection hotels when you stay 5 consecutive nights or longer in late summer and early fall. Plus, enjoy other savings for shorter stays.This offer is valid for stays most nights from August 1 to October 11, 2025.
CLICK HERE













DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest

Back
Top