19 year old loses her battle with cervical cancer, having been told she was too young to have a smear test !!

[citizenB]

Sophie Jones, 19, lost her battle with cancer on Saturday morning - her family say it should never have happened

 

 

 

Nineteen-year-old Sophie Jones lost her fight for life early on Saturday morning, having been diagnosed in November.

 

Sophie had suffered for months with severe stomach pains that doctors put down to Crohn's disease, despite her asking for a smear test that could have picked it up.

 

Medical professionals said Sophie, from Eastham, Wirral, was too young to have contracted the disease, which is extremely rare in women under 25.

 

But when she was admitted to hospital after her condition worsened they found the cancer, and discovered it had already spread to other parts of her body.

 

For the full story - read HERE

 

 

 

 

 

 

The parents have set up a petition in order that other young girls are not let down as Sophie was - you can sign HERE

[honeybee13]

It's all terribly sad. Off to sign the petition, CB.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Signed!

[leigh04]

Signed aswell.

 

 

I lost my mum when I was 17 to cancer she was only 39 and I have 2 girls both have had their cancer jabs def agree to lower the age for smear tests

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Come on everyone this is IMPORTANT get signing !!!

[nolegion]

The tragedy of doctors trying to fit round human beings into tick-boxes. Petition already signed.

[BazzaS]

The tragedy of doctors trying to fit round human beings into tick-boxes. Petition already signed.

 

 

Awful for her and her family.

 

However, why do the doctors not want to do the test?

If it is on financial grounds : how much money would need to be spent to save that one life, and is that money being spent instead to save more lives elsewhere?

 

How many tests need to be done to save one woman's life (but more importantly!) : is there a "cost to health" of doing those tests to save the one life? (False positive tests, the worry that causes, is there a risk to life from all the follow-up work from those "false positives")?

 

I don't know the answer, and it may be those tests should be done, but I'd want to know they are being done with the knowledge they cause less harm than they solve, and that the reason for NOT testing has been fully considered.

[sillygirl1]

Signed, there should be NO limit on age for cancer tests.

[rebel11]

The NHS owes a duty of care to every person in the UK.

[honeybee13]

Bazza, my understanding from the radio this morning was that this poor girl asked to have a smear test and was refused. I can see that possibly the statistics don't support a test for everybody of her age, but I would have thought it should have been tried in this case.

 

Obviously I'm not a medic.

 

HB

[BazzaS]

Signed, there should be NO limit on age for cancer tests.

 

http://www.cancerscreening.nhs.uk/cervical/faq08.html

Cervical abnormalities associated with HPV infection are very common in women under 25, but are rarer in older women. Abnormalities in young women go away by themselves in the great majority of cases.6,7 Therefore, the consequence of screening younger women is that many would test positive for abnormalities and would subsequently be sent for unnecessary treatment to remove the affected cells. This treatment may increase the likelihood of a woman having a pre-term delivery if she goes on to have children 8,9,10,11 and the whole process can cause significant anxiety. Cervical cancer is extremely rare in women under the age of 25 with just 2.6 cases per 100,000 women.12 Therefore, the harms of screening women under the age of 25 are currently thought to outweigh the benefits.2

 

Screening is not appropriate for women who have symptoms, and conducting a cervical screening test may delay the proper diagnostic process in such cases. If you have symptoms, such as bleeding between periods or after sex, please consult your GP straight away.

 

So, if she had symptoms, she should have had appropriate testing / referral if necessary, and still not had "screening" : the guidelines specifically note this as different to "routine screening", and even note that wrongly doing "routine screening" rather than the right tests can DELAY diagnosis.

 

If she had no symptoms then they would do more harm screening asymptomatic young women than they'd save.

 

I wonder if the issue is not "should she have had routine screening" but "was there a non-routine test that she should have had but didn't?".

If so the answer isn't "we must extend the age range for screening" but " we must make sure women get the right (non-screening) test if they need it"

[renegadeimp]

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/sophie-jones-pictures-shows-toll-6847619

[stu007]

Signed a very worthwhile cause.

[renegadeimp]

lets see what retarded excuse this inept government comes up so they dont have to do it.

[Desperate Daniella]

Read about this yesterday and checked the petition just now. They have almost 200,000 signatures which has to make this petition one of the fastest moving ever.

 

Hope everyone will sign.

[renegadeimp]

It's one of the fastest ever because it's a no brainer. Only a completely inept human being would vote against it.

[Desperate Daniella]

What I was so pleased about was the speed this particular petition has got the publicity it needed.

[BazzaS]

It's one of the fastest ever because it's a no brainer. Only a completely inept human being would vote against it.

 

Count me completely inept.

 

The medical experts say it'll cause harm.

 

I think it'll "fix the wrong problem"

The politicians will see "vote loser, we must do something!", and do the wrong thing .... Start screening in under 25's instead of spending money on ensuring the right test at the right time.

 

I do know it isn't "routine screening" that is needed: if it is a test that is needed it is needed urgently, not to sit within a pile of "routine" smear tests that might not get looked at for weeks - because they are viewed as routine / non-urgent.

 

We don't know from the press reports if she had symptoms of cervical cancer like post-coital bleeding or inter-menstrual bleeding. If she did, she needed urgent colposcopy & a "routine smear " was "the wrong test"

 

A smear isn't a test for cervical cancer.

 

A smear is a test for the pre-cancerous cells.

Ah-hah! You say, so "Just do the screening earlier and you'll pick them up early!".

Well, no : if you screen that early, you'll pick up (and refer on), lots of "abnormal" smears that would sort themselves out. So few would go on to be cancer that the system would be creaking under the load of the follow ups that were never needed : the ones that need to be spotted will get spotted but late because the system is overloaded.

BECAUSE the test for cervical cancer isn't a smear, it is colposcopy.

 

And all the colposcopy clinics will be full from all the screening of the under 25's

 

The "answer" is not screening of the under 25's, it is referral for colposcopy of those who need it, regardless of age, and not letting her get told "you are too young for cervical cancer"

 

I don't know if an error was made for the lady whose case is reported, but the question might well be "should she have had colposcopy" rather than "Should she have had a smear"

 

If an under 25 had symptoms needing colposcopy they need urgent colposcopy, and they don't need those clinics to be unavailable because they are booked out with women who have an abnormal smear (that likely isn't cancer & likely never will be), who have been unnecessarily worried.

[Desperate Daniella]

I have never heard that a smear test can cause harm. I started having them at 20, although I had to pay for them.

 

I can see your point though. I think the issue here is that if anyone is worried and has symptoms that concern them they should be given a test and that test should be prioritised.

[BazzaS]

I have never heard that a smear test can cause harm. I started having them at 20, although I had to pay for them.

 

I can see your point though. I think the issue here is that if anyone is worried and has symptoms that concern them they should be given a test and that test should be prioritised.

 

Cause harm (not just from the worry factor!) by referral for further tests that weren't needed...... how many follow-up tests needed to prevent one case of cervical cancer in an under 25, and what damage from those unnecessary follow-ups.

 

As for "and that test prioritised " : It should be the right test.

 

Test for pre-cancerous cells : smear

Test for cervical cancer : not smear, but colposcopy. Additionally, the colposcopy needs to be available urgently.

But the urgent appointment may not be available that quickly if the clinics are full of those who never needed to be there : so that's a further cause of harm from screening.

 

Right test, right time.

[Desperate Daniella]

I don't understand what you mean by "further tests that weren't needed." You would only be sent for a further test if there was cause for concern. And what damage?

 

I can understand though that you may think the tests should only be available to those who have symptoms.

[BazzaS]

I don't understand what you mean by "further tests that weren't needed." You would only be sent for a further test if there was cause for concern. And what damage?

 

I can understand though that you may think the tests should only be available to those who have symptoms.

 

From the FAQ (URL cited previously in the thread)

http://www.cancerscreening.nhs.uk/cervical/faq08.html

Cervical abnormalities associated with HPV infection are very common in women under 25, but are rarer in older women. Abnormalities in young women go away by themselves in the great majority of cases.

 

and

 

Therefore, the consequence of screening younger women is that many would test positive for abnormalities and would subsequently be sent for unnecessary treatment to remove the affected cells. This treatment may increase the likelihood of a woman having a pre-term delivery if she goes on to have children

 

So, for under 25's "pre-cancerous" changes are common, but rarely go on to problems.

 

In over 25's "pre-cancerous" changes are seen less often, and when they are seen more frequently go on to become cancer.

 

So in under 25's doing screening looking for pre-cancerous cells generates lots of positive results, that then someone says "positive result : I know the evidence says I really ought to ignore this, as it says I'll do more harm than good if I don't, and I really wish the test hadn't been done, but it was done, and if I don't do something and she later gets cancer I'll be pilloried" .... So they get called in for a colposcopy, and a cone biopsy ..... which likely shows "normal for an under 25".

 

Meanwhile, the under 25 with symptoms of post-coital bleeding :

a) gets a "routine smear" instead of a colposcopy, and the slide doesn't get looked at urgently, because it is sat in a pile of "routine" work, and it isn't the colposcopy that would have been the right test to do, or

b) gets sent for that urgent colposcopy, but gets it less soon as the clinics are more clogged up as previously described.

 

Sorry if I'm not making myself clear, but there is a "cost" in terms of resources used (and not purely financial, but "availability of service") as well as harm from the tests that result from the screening...... So the benefit has to be balanced to the risk.

 

The experts say : under 25, don't screen as a matter of routine. Refer for colposcopy urgently IF symptoms.

Over 25, screen routinely, and STILL refer urgently if symptoms.

 

"But what about the under 25's who don't have symptoms but who get cervical cancer?" ; is the obvious question.

Isn't it callous to not do anything, when we have a screening test we could use??

 

Horrible though it is to look at people as statistics, to do 'the best for the most' looking at the statistics is the best they can do, and the answer comes back as : "most under 25 's with cervical cancer (rare) will have symptoms, so focus on getting them the urgent colposcopy they need"

 

"for those who are

a) under 25,

b) have cervical cancer AND

c) no symptoms " : "how much harm is caused to the women who never would have developed cancer but get cone biopsies and pre-term labour (or die from a very rare complication of the procedures)"

 

against "how many die from cervical cancer that is 'missed' because they don't have symptoms", both being very rare ........ They want to "do the best for the most", but screening isn't without its "cost" and (rare) risks ..... so they have to decide where the cut-off is where benefit from screening exceeds risk : and they've worked it out as "age 25"

 

Just to re-iterate :

Smear = test for pre cancerous cells not for cancer

Colposcopy / biopsy = test for cervical cancer.

 

However, what if the politicians face a massive demand for putting the lower age for screening back to 20 (where it used to be), or even lower?

Do you think politicians will "do what is right, even if unpopular " or "do what gets them votes"?

 

http://www.bmj.com/content/339/bmj.b2968

 

A careful review of the screening histories of women aged 20-24 with a diagnosis of cervical cancer suggests that few (if any) of the cancers occurred through a lack of screening. Indeed only five of these 73 women had not been screened previously.

 

So, they get the screening demanded, which makes people feel better for themselves as "they've done something about it" and the politicians are happy as it is a vote winner. Sadly, though, when human nature and emotion are removed from the equation : the lack of screening was never the problem.

 

What we aren't told is how many of those 5 (or 73, or all 78)

a) had colposcopy (since even colposcopy and treatment isn't perfect),

b) should have had colposcopy and didn't (where better referral mechanisms might have helped), and

c) where they never had symptoms, so didn't warrant colposcopy, and "no-one did anything wrong", and it was "just bad luck".

 

It's one of the fastest ever because it's a no brainer. Only a completely inept human being would vote against it.

 

RI, did you look at the FAQ URL I posted 3 hours prior to your comment?.

 

Apologies if I'm still "a completely inept human being " if you disagree with the citations I've used to try to explain and I'm still making a hash of explaining my viewpoint, or if it makes me look callous, but with no perfect testing regime all they can do is "the best for the most".

[citizenB]

It was my understanding that once a female became sexually active, she entered the risk category !.

 

So why not remove the age barrier and confirm that all sexually active females be given the test, regardless of their age !

[citizenB]

Read about this yesterday and checked the petition just now. They have almost 200,000 signatures which has to make this petition one of the fastest moving ever.

 

Hope everyone will sign.

 

What I was so pleased about was the speed this particular petition has got the publicity it needed.

 

I am pleased to see that this particular petition is growing so swiftly.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

The hospital local to me is under investigation for " massaging" cancer case figures, why care trusts cannot act honestly when peoples lives are at risk beggars belief.