Reducing the number of women screened for cervical cancer is safe and should be expanded in the UK, experts say.
A study of 1.3 million women in England has found evidence of a longer period between cervical cancer screening, known as a Pap smear, as long as the person has tested negative for the human papillomavirus (HPV), a common group of viruses that are common. sexually transmitted.
Researchers from King’s College London, the University of Manchester and the NHS analyzed data from the NHS Cervical Screening Program in England.
The results, published today in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), show that screening every five years prevents as many cancers as screening at three-year intervals because the test used in cervical screening has changed and is more accurate. .
The new test, introduced in 2019, is known as HPV primary screening and is more accurate at detecting who is at higher risk of developing cervical cancer.
Most people will develop some type of HPV in their lifetime, and almost all cervical cancers are caused by the infection.
While it is often harmless, it can sometimes cause abnormal cells in the cervix. If left untreated, these abnormal cells can become cancerous.
Before 2019, cytology tests first checked cervical cells for abnormalities. If they are found, they will be tested for HPV. These tests were recommended every three years.
Cytology testing is still used in Northern Ireland, but primary HPV screening is now being used in England, Wales and Scotland for cervical cancer screening, as recommended by scientists.
‘Initiating HPV screening earlier could have prevented my cancer’
Laura Flaherty with her children Alex, now 11, and Violet, seven (Picture: Laura Flaherty)
Laura Flaherty, above, was 31 years old when her cervical cancer was discovered as a result of a Pap smear.
As it was before HPV screening was introduced in 2019, the mother of two believes it could have been picked up — or even prevented — sooner if the screening system had changed.
Ms Flaherty, now 35, said: “In most cases, screening picks up any changes before they can develop into cancer so it can prevent you from ever getting it. Although I had it all clear, I still suffer from cancer today, my treatment means I can no longer have children and the mental impact still affects me.
“I’m not a scientist, but I think it’s important that all the evidence for screening decisions is communicated really clearly, as big changes can sound quite scary. For me the priority should be to get more women and people with a cervix screened and so many are not going quiet which is really concerning.
“I think we need to make screening easier because so many women find it uncomfortable, embarrassing or even difficult to go to the doctor. Home HPV testing is something we need to see so you can do a test in your own home. Awareness campaigns are also important so we can remind people why the test exists and not to ignore their invitation.”
Lead author Dr. Matejka Rebolj, senior epidemiologist at King’s, said: “These results are very reassuring. They build on previous research showing that after the introduction of HPV testing for cervical screening, a five-year interval is at least as safe as the previous three-year interval. By switching to five-yearly screening, we can prevent as many cancers as before, but with fewer screenings.”
Michelle Mitchell, chief executive of Cancer Research UK, which funded the study, said: “This large study shows that offering cervical screening with HPV testing effectively prevents cervical cancer, without requiring it to be screened as often. It is important to remember that screening is for people without symptoms. So, if you notice any unusual changes for you, don’t wait for a screening invitation — talk to your doctor.”
Stephen Duffy, professor of cancer screening at Queen Mary University of London, said: “These results indicate that with primary HPV screening, we can be confident that a five-year interval will be at least as effective as a three-year interval in those screened negative. – year interval with cytology, and probably more effective.”
The Ministry of Health has been approached for comment.
