|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire) (Con): My hon. Friend makes a compelling case for the speediest possible introduction of cytology in screening. Does he agree that the HARTHPV in addition to routine testingstudy suggested that the human papillomavirus test, in conjunction with cytology, might be the most effective mechanism for primary screening? Three implementation pilots are due to report but have not yet done so, and it would be helpful for the House to know when we might receive more information about that further improved screening method.
Mr. Streeter: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. He is right: the HPV testing method will give additional support to the cytology process that we hope will be introduced. I hope that the Minister will be able to say a few words about the likely speed of the roll-out when he responds. The Van Neck family, too, will be keen to see the HPV test become part of the procedure.
The purpose of the debate is to urge the Government to ensure that the roll-out of that new screening system happens as quickly as is humanly possible, to give every woman in this country the best chance of detecting cervical cancer at the earliest moment. If at all possible, the new screening procedure should be rolled out within the next 12 months.
It would also be helpful if the Minister could place on the record tonight detail about the age at which it is now intended that women will have their first smear test, and the intended frequency of subsequent testing.
More than 3 million women are screened each year. No doubt this year, 2004, will be little different. Under the old system one in 10 of those tests300,000 of themmight have to be redone. That is not to say that all 300,000 would produce an inaccurate result. Of course that is not true, and I have no wish to cause any unnecessary alarm. But it is certainly the case that accuracy will be improved under the proposed new system. So every year counts; every month counts.
We understand the need for retraining and the never-ending claims on finite resources, but I urge the Minister to make sure that resources are made available to enable the new liquid-based cytology screening process to be introduced within the next 12 months.
The Van Neck family know full well that nothing can be done to bring back their lost daughter. All of us who are parents can stand with them tonight and acknowledge their loss. We can also admire their fortitude and perseverance in pursuing the improvement of the system of smear testing in this country, a redemption of a promise made to Sue while she was terminally ill. But most of all we can respond to their courage and tenacity by advancing the plans to roll out the liquid-based cytology system as soon as is humanly possible, so that not a single life is lost unnecessarily to this dreadful disease. I call upon the Minister to assure the House that this will indeed be done.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr. Stephen Ladyman ): I congratulate the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) on obtaining this debate and on representing the views of his constituents so well.
I also congratulate the Van Neck family on their campaigning. It must have been a horrible tragedy for them to have their daughter taken in the way that occurred. It highlights exactly why we need a high-quality cervical screening service, and why we must take every opportunity to improve it. As new techniques become available, and we obtain evidence to support them, we must try to implement them as rapidly as possible.
That said, and acknowledging that tragic mistakes do happen, I have to begin by pointing out that the United Kingdom has one of the most successful cervical screening programmes in the world. That is something that we should be very proud of. Experts estimate that the programme prevents up to 3,900 cases of cervical cancer each year. Experts also agree that that the NHS cervical screening programme is responsible for a reduction of over 40 per cent. in the incidence of cervical cancer in the last decade.
But we are not complacent. We are always striving to improve the programme, and that is why the National Institute for Clinical Excellence was asked to look at the liquid-based cytology technique. As the hon. Gentleman said, LBC is a new way of preparing cervical samples for examination in the laboratory, and it has the potential to improve efficiency and ensure that fewer women have to be recalled because their test could not be read.
Following the evaluation of a Government-funded pilot of LBC, NICE issued its final appraisal document on LBC on 22 October 2003, concluding that it should be rolled out across the NHS. My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson), who has ministerial responsibility for public health, announced on that day that LBC would indeed be implemented across the service, as part of a package to modernise the NHS cervical screening programme. That is the first indication for the hon. Gentleman that we do not intend to waste any time.
The independent evaluation of the pilot concluded that LBC resulted in a clear reduction in the number of inadequate tests, from 9 per cent to between 1 and 2 per cent. Inadequate tests are those that cannot be read in laboratories for a variety of reasons. When LBC is fully rolled out, 300,000 women a year will not suffer the anxiety and uncertainty of an inadequate test, and will not need to be re-tested.In addition, the evaluation showed that the productivity of laboratories rose by 9 per cent., and backlogs were reduced, meaning that women will have to wait for a shorter time to get their test results.
The key to LBC implementation is retraining the staff in LBC techniques, both in primary care and in laboratories. The programme is already successful, and we must be very careful not to jeopardise its quality. LBC is being rolled out nationally. All those in cytology training schools in England will be trained as part of the first phase of implementation. Strategic health authorities have been issued with advice on how best they can roll out LBC for their local populations, laboratories and primary care.
We are also taking the opportunities presented by LBC to modernise the NHS cervical screening programme in other ways. The frequency with which women are invited for screening has been standardised across England for the first time, thus correcting a long-standing inequality. Following the publication of research from Cancer Research UK, the Advisory Committee on Cervical Screening has advised that clinical best practice is that women should receive their first invitation when they are 25 years old and that they should be invited every three years until they are 49, and then every five years until they are 64.
A fundamental tenet of any screening programme is that it should do more good than harm. Cervical cancer is very rare in women under the age of 25. Research presented to the advisory committee, coupled with 15 years' experience of screening, shows that screening women under the age of 25 may do more harm than good. They may undergo unnecessary investigations, after false positive results suggest that they appear to have cervical abnormalities when, in fact, they do not. Screening women from the age of 25 onwards will help to reduce anxiety, as well as the number of unnecessary investigations and treatments in younger women.
We will further modernise the service. In some areas, there are difficulties with the recruitment and retention of cytology screeners, which has been attributed partly to low morale and low pay. We appreciate the hard work of all the staff in the programme, particularly over the past few years, when morale has not been helped by adverse publicity.
We are taking steps to modernise pathology services through the Department of Health's pathology modernisation programme. We recognise that pathology's most valuable resource is its staff and that the need to support and develop those staff is vital. A number of long-term initiatives are in placewhich, in time, will provide the NHS with the pathology staff it needs. That will also bring staff into the cytology-screening programme.
More broadly, as part of the Government's improving working lives initiative, by 2003, all NHS employers must be able to demonstrate that they are delivering flexible working arrangements, that they are offering good quality, affordable and accessible child care, career breaks and flexible retirement and that they are investing in staff training and development, tackling discrimination and harassment and providing healthy and safer workplaces and other measures to support staff and improve retention.
I shall now touch on the issue of human papilloma virus that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) mentioned. As part of the LBC pilot, we also piloted the use of human papilloma virus testing as triage for women with mild or borderline test results. HPV is a group of more than 80 virus types, some of which are associated with an increased risk of cervical cancer. Most women, and indeed men, are infected with the virus at some point, but it is not yet possible to tell which infected women will go on to develop cervical abnormalities, or which of them will naturally expel the virus by the normal functioning of their immune system. Most HPV infections disappear, and even those women who contract high-risk HPVs rarely go on to develop cervical cancer. Carrying out an HPV test at the same time as a smear test may help to decide how to manage a woman if her smear shows minor abnormalities, and could avoid referral to colposcopy, with its associated anxiety.
There is currently insufficient evidence to support the use of HPV testing as a primary screening tool. However, we know how important HPV is in the development of cervical cancer, and that is why we are piloting the use of HPV testing. The independent evaluation report of the HPV arm of the pilot is expected in the summer. In addition, Professor Henry Kitchener, professor of gynaecological oncology at St. Mary's hospital in Manchester, is co-ordinating a study to investigate HPV as a primary screening method. It began in January 2001 and will take six years, including the follow-up of the data, and will involve 28,000 women. The Department of Health is funding equipment for the study at cost of £90,000 per annum. The health technology assessment programme is funding the rest of the study.
However, we must all remember that early detection by screening and follow-up treatment can prevent only 80 to 90 per cent. of cervical cancers from developing. Like any screening test, cervical screening is not perfect. It might not always detect early cell changes that could lead to cancer. There are three main reasons why abnormal cells on a slide might not be recognised. First, sometimes they do not look very different from normal cells. Secondly, there might be very few abnormal cells on the slide. Thirdly, the person reading the slide might miss the abnormality. This happens occasionally, no matter how experienced the reader is. It is always very unfortunate, but these errors do occur.
Women invited to participate in the NHS cervical screening programme need to understand the potential benefits and harm in doing so, in order to be able to make an informed choice about whether they wish to proceed. Information provided to women must be honest, comprehensive and understandable. Following the target set in the NHS cancer plan, all women now receive a national evidence-based information leaflet with their invitation for cervical screening.
Strict quality assurance is operated within the cervical screening programme at a cost of £4 million a year. Laboratories that read cervical screening tests as part of the screening programme are subject to rigorous external quality assurance procedures that aim to spot potential problems before they become serious, and quickly to identify solutions. When a laboratory consistently fails to meet quality standards, the strategic health authority or primary care trust can require it to stop reading screening tests.
In conclusion, we do not yet know if LBC will be more accurate than conventional cervical screening, but we hope that it will prove to be more sensitive. We do know, however, that 300,000 fewer women a year will have to undergo the anxiety of a repeat test, and that laboratories will be able to process samples more quickly. But this will take time. Retraining all the staff who work in the programme is an enormous task, and we must do it properly. The issue of quality, both of the programme and the people who work in it, is paramount. We would do a disservice to the 4 million women a year who participate in the NHS cervical screening programme if we were to rush the training of the staff who provide the service. Nevertheless, the Government and the Department of Health are committed to rolling out the technique as quickly as possible. I am therefore pleased to give the hon. Gentleman and the Van Neck family the assurance that we shall not waste a single dayor, we hope, a single lifein introducing this technique.