“Carcinoma”: What’s in a name?

As part of a National Cancer Institute working group, Dr. Laura J. Esserman MD, MBA of Mt Zion Carol Franc Buck Breast Cancer Center along with colleagues Ian Thompson MD of the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio and Brian Reid MD, PhD of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, Washington, wrote an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association explaining the working group’s recommendations to reclassify  some of the conditions currently called “cancer.” They argue on behalf of the working group that the term “cancer” should only be used to describe conditions that have a “reasonable likelihood of lethal progression if left untreated.” That is, “cancer” has the capacity to spread (i.e., metastasize) to vital organs eventually causing death. A lesion (i.e., abnormal tissue) that does not spread and lead to death, or one that does not cause harm during a person’s lifetime, is by definition “not cancer.”

The working group’s consensus that certain conditions currently called “cancer” should be reclassified comes after years of considerable discussion in the scientific and medical communities. The term “cancer” or “carcinoma” carries a negative and fearful connotation that does not accurately describe indolent conditions. As a result, the classification itself contributes to overdiagnosis and overtreatment.

Overdiagnosis is the detection of cancers that, if left unattended, would not become clinically apparent or cause death, also called “indolent” tumors. Overdiagnosis occurs more frequently with cancer screening and is common in breast, lung, prostate, and thyroid cancer. Overdiagnosis frequently leads to the treatment of indolent conditions that would otherwise cause no harm (i.e., overtreatment). If an abnormality does not cause symptoms and is not likely to progress to cancer, the inherent risks associated with surgery, radiation, and/or hormone therapy such as side effects, anxiety and ongoing surveillance, increased medical costs, and a potential decline in overall health, may not be warranted, especially if the interventions fail to reduce the overall number of deaths. Treating an indolent condition that does not have the capacity to spread is a very different scenario from treating a localized cancer that does.

Although increased screening has led to an emphasis on early detection as the way to reduce cancer deaths, the detection and treatment of the earliest cancers of all — the indolent/precancerous lesions — have not, for breast and prostate cancers in particular, translated into a reduction in the number of invasive cancers (i.e., the types that have the capacity to spread and cause death). Instead, screening appears to detect more lesions that are potentially “clinically insignificant.” Increased screening of the general population increases the number of cases of indolent tumors found, thereby inflating overall incidence rates with little to no effect on mortality for the smaller population of more aggressive tumors. The steady mortality rates for those with aggressive cancers remains hidden beneath distorted survival statistics since the numbers include the indolent conditions.

Background: Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS)

WebExtra-DCIS_2The indolent lesion at issue in breast cancer is ductal carcinoma in situ, DCIS, which is a proliferation of abnormal cells within the milk ducts of the breast. The widespread adoption of screening mammography in the US resulted in a substantial increase in DCIS diagnoses. In 1983, there were nearly 5,000 cases; in 1997, more than 36,000 cases; in 2010, 54,000 cases; today, about one in five new breast cancer cases are DCIS. A significant number of cases are borderline and subject to varying interpretation, such as the confusion between core biopsies that, upon further investigation, may be classified as either a collection of non-malignant abnormal cells or as low-grade DCIS. The cells in DCIS appear cancerous but because the cells have not invaded nearby tissue, DCIS is still not considered to be an invasive breast cancer. That is, as long as it remains DCIS, it cannot spread and is not life threatening.

DCIS is however a risk factor for the development of an invasive breast cancer. The problem is that it has not been possible to predict with any certainty which cases of DCIS would lead to the development of an invasive cancer and which would not. For this reason, DCIS is now almost always treated like a localized breast cancer. But the goal of treatment is to reduce the risk of recurrence or the development of an invasive breast cancer in the future. Because the biology of DCIS and its invasive tendency is poorly understood, and there is a sea of uncertainty surrounding which biological characteristics are most likely to indicate invasive potential, it is not clear whether all people treated for DCIS actually benefit from the interventions. The long-term, disease-free survival is 96-98 percent. High survival rates coupled with the noninvasive tendencies of the condition make treatment controversial.

What is the impact of treatment versus no treatment on patient outcomes? Should those diagnosed with this indolent condition be treated for breast cancer, or should they be considered at increased risk? Although these questions are part of the research agenda, they currently remain unanswered.

Yet there is enough data for the the National Cancer Institute’s working group to argue that, An ideal screening intervention focuses on detection of disease that will ultimately cause harm, that is more likely to be cured if detected early, and for which curative treatments are more effective in early-stage disease.” Thus, they call for the removal of the “cancer” label for precancerous conditions such as ductal carcinoma in situ and others, along with the validation and adoption of molecular diagnostic tools to identify indolent or low-risk lesions and observational registries to monitor tumor growth rates over time. The goal is to avoid overdiagnosis and overtreatment, tailor treatment for “consequential cancers,” optimize screening programs, and provide patients and physicians with data to help them choose, with confidence, less invasive interventions. This level of agreement has been more than a decade in the making. Consistent with the data driven focus of evidence based medicine, it may indeed be the time for a change.

Published on Psychology Today (Jul. 31, 2013) »

Published on Breast Cancer Consortium (Jul. 31, 2013) »


Be Sociable, Share!

4 comments to “Carcinoma”: What’s in a name?

  • Gayle – this is an excellent and well-researched post as always. There is no question that we over-diagnose and over-treat DCIS as well as some invasive breast cancers. However the fact remains that despite very sophisticated molecular and genomic testing, we cannot predict with certainty the behavior of an individual woman’s breast cancer. And a hallmark of cancer cells is change and mutation – the indolent low-grade disease today may not be the same in a few years.

    I am happy to see more discussion this topic. I think what patients should be aware of is that there is controversy. The decision to get screened, to undergo a biopsy, and to undergo treatment is becoming more complex and more individualized, and patients should be encouraged to become informed, ask questions, and not settle for “one size fits all” recommendations.

  • Thank you for your comment, Dr. Attai. It brings up yet another challenge. If mutation is a hallmark of cancer cells, then how likely is it that there will be biological markers that can predict with any certainty which lesions will become malignant and which ones will not? Will we always be behind? — gs

  • Excellent question. It is possible that we will always be behind – I hope not, but that is certainly a possibility. The only thing I know for sure is that the more we learn about cancer, the more we realize just how difficult and complicated a creature it really is.

  • Mary

    I find this discussion of particular interest. The pathology on my first BC indicated that 25% of the tumor was DCIS. I assume that it started out thus and progressed to a rather aggressive invasive carcinoma. Given that I had regular mammograms and nothing showed up, I feel I was let down by the “gold standard”. Yet my radiologist informs me that the very reason I should continue to have mammograms is that they are good at picking up DCIS. If mammography didn’t pick up the initial DCIS, why should I believe it would pick up a new one? And even if it did how would one know if it would progress as the first one did? Questions, questions, questions and too few answers.

"women urged to get screened because it might save their lives. But that’s only 1 possible outcome, and it’s the least likely one" @cragcrest cutt.ly/jei8WJr

“Pink Ribbon Blues”

Paperback includes a new Introduction on fundraising controversies and a color insert with images of, and reactions to, the pinking of breast cancer (2012).

Praise » 

Flyer »

Press Release »

Hardback Cover »

Paperback Cover »

Request Review Copies »

Order the Paperback »


"Seeing clearly through the pink haze" Toronto Sun

*Sad face*: Being happy does not help you live longer" New Scientist

How should we address breast cancer when norms continually change? The Guardian

Your Fun 'No Bra Day' Photos Are Overshadowing Terminal Breast Cancer Patients Broadly

Backlash against “pinkwashing” of breast cancer awareness campaigns BMJ

Breast Cancer to Rise 50 Percent by 2030? Hey, Not So Fast! Health News Review

Breast Cancer: The Flaws in the Cause iafrica.com

How to Make the Biggest Impact With Your Breast Cancer Donations Money

The Very Pink, Very Controversial Business of Breast Cancer Awareness Racked

NFL, Pink Ribbons Not Enough to Win over Women CNN

3 Questions We Need to Answer for Breast Cancer Awareness Month Chronicle of Philanthropy

The problem with National Breast Cancer Awareness Month Women's Health Magazine

Pink Ribbon Envy: Living with an Uncool Cancer The Nib

A Year After Bombings, Some Say 'Boston Strong' Has Gone Overboard NPR, All Things Considered

Canadian Mammogram Study KCRW, NPR Affiliate

Time to Debunk the Mammography Myth CNN

Breast Cancer: Awareness, Activism & Pinkwashing NPR Charlotte

Buying Pink Al Jazeera's The Stream Watch »

The Pink Backlash Orlando Sentinel

Why Jolie's Test Costs So Much CNN

Preventative Mastectomies: Disease and Deception BlogTalkRadio

Angelina Jolie and the 'Breast Cancer Gene' KCRW

Our Feel-Good War on Breast Cancer The New York Times Magazine.

The Story Behind the Pink Ribbon Campaign Sisters Talk Radio

WISH Interview Women's International Summit for Health

Making Cancer About The Patient, Not The Body Part CBS Pittsburgh

Sexy breast cancer campaigns anger many patients USA Today

The perils of pink The Daily

Komen pink campaign creates breast-cancer blues for some Dallas Morning News

A yellow flag for the NFL's pink New York Daily

Gayle Sulik named #7 in SharecareNow’s Top 10 Online Influencers in Breast Cancer

Breast cancer cancer causes so easily derailed Philly Inquirer

Komen Charity Under Microscope for Funding, Science Reuters

The Fight Against Cancer - And Abortion? Salon.com

Susan G. Komen For the Cure defunds Planned Parenthood. In Deep with Angie Coiro

Amid Breast Cancer Month, Is there Pink Fatigue? NPR's All Things Considered

How is Breast Cancer Culture Undermining Women's Health? America’s Radio News Network

Pink Ribbon Culture and Breast Cancer The Kojo Nnamdi Show

The Big Business of Breast Cancer
Marie Claire

Does Breast Cancer Awareness Month Crowd Out Other Diseases? Slate

Pink Inc. Has Many Starting to See Red The Sacramento Bee

Get Your Pink Off Ottawa Citizen

Komen Pink Ribbons Raise Green and Questions USA Today