- Joined
- Feb 2, 2011
- Messages
- 8,066
- Reaction score
- 7,649
Yeah, but as with any sampling, it has errors. My mom was religious about her pap smear, and had a radical hysterectomy 2 years ago for a stage 1B adenocarcinoma in situ of the cervix. Totally missed this slow growing cancer. Followup shows no lymph node invasion, and no spread so far. Gives you a false sense of security.Screening for cervical cancer is definitely not useless. It's highly treatable if detected early (100% preventable if detected prior to malignancy) and the countries with the lowest incidence of mortality due to cervical cancer have the best screening programs in place (ex. Finland).
True, but as someone who does the statistical work you speak of, I can tell you that the ongoing efforts still fall way short of what we need. More attention is not a bad thing on this case.generally not a huge fan of 538's data journalism that isn't sports- or politics-related (fields like medicine already have undergone statistical revolutions by people that are 1000x more qualified to write about it), but this is pretty good
What are these code words?Agreed. I did a heme-onc rotation, and in their opinion the only screenings that catch the rabbits were colonoscopies and the new lung cancer screening guidelines (as mentioned in the article). All other screenings, they said, especially mammograms and Pap smears, were basically bunk - finding turtles but not recognizing them as such, or finding the hopeless birds.
They're code for sexWhat are these code words?
Gotta read the article.What are these code words?
Agreed. I did a heme-onc rotation, and in their opinion the only screenings that catch the rabbits were colonoscopies and the new lung cancer screening guidelines (as mentioned in the article). All other screenings, they said, especially mammograms and Pap smears, were basically bunk - finding turtles but not recognizing them as such, or finding the hopeless birds.
Where's the data that cervical cancer screening is "bunk?" The incidence of cervical cancer is almost directly related to the screening rate. It's quite possibly one of the most effective screening programs there is.
Isn't this exactly what the article points out doesn't really mean that much, especially if the death rate remains constant, i.e. you're just catching people that would likely have been asymptomatic and are just giving unnecessary treatment?
I guess one could argue that people live a bit longer so some of those cancers could be symptomatic, but...
In women with confirmed HPV, Pap smears can be a life saver. I mean, there's no denying that they reduce cervical cancer death rates.Agreed. I did a heme-onc rotation, and in their opinion the only screenings that catch the rabbits were colonoscopies and the new lung cancer screening guidelines (as mentioned in the article). All other screenings, they said, especially mammograms and Pap smears, were basically bunk - finding turtles but not recognizing them as such, or finding the hopeless birds.
Avoiding harm is complicated, though. http://www.asccp.org/portals/9/docs/algorithms 7.30.13.pdfThat might be true with some diseases but not cervical cancer. If caught early enough (which it generally is, anecdote above notwithstanding) it can generally be completely cured. Cervical cancer is not an example of what you're describing.
The USPSTF has a pretty good overview of their rationale for recommending cervical cancer screening. I'd suggest looking that over.
Avoiding harm is complicated, though. http://www.asccp.org/portals/9/docs/algorithms 7.30.13.pdf
Except for vaccination, of course!
Exactly.Definitely, but this is true of all screening tests.
I understand the point that they're making and I think that we shouldn't doing screening mammograms or psas but there's definitely a benefit to screening for colon and cervical cancer
This article is similar to a PBS documentary called 'Money & Medicine'
Here's the think: http://www.pbs.org/program/money-medicine/