How different terminology for ductal carcinoma in situ impacts women's concern and treatment preferences: a randomised comparison within a national community survey

Objective There have been calls to remove ‘carcinoma’ from terminology for in situ cancers such as ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), to reduce overdiagnosis and overtreatment. We investigated the effect of describing DCIS as ‘abnormal cells’ versus ‘pre-invasive breast cancer cells’ on women's concern and treatment preferences. Setting and participants Community sample of Australian women (n=269) who spoke English as their main language at home. Design Randomised comparison within a community survey. Women considered a hypothetical scenario involving a diagnosis of DCIS described as either ‘abnormal cells’ (arm A) or ‘pre-invasive breast cancer cells’ (arm B). Within each arm, the initial description was followed by the alternative term and outcomes reassessed. Results Women in both arms indicated high concern, but still indicated strong initial preferences for watchful waiting (64%). There were no differences in initial concern or preferences by trial arm. However, more women in arm A (‘abnormal cells’ first term) indicated they would feel more concerned if given the alternative term (‘pre-invasive breast cancer cells’) compared to women in arm B who received the terms in the opposite order (67% arm A vs 52% arm B would feel more concerned, p=0.001). More women in arm A also changed their preference towards treatment when the terminology was switched from ‘abnormal cells’ to ‘pre-invasive breast cancer cells’ compared to arm B. In arm A, 18% of women changed their preference to treatment while only 6% changed to watchful waiting (p=0.008). In contrast, there were no significant changes in treatment preference in arm B when the terminology was switched (9% vs 8% changed their stated preference). Conclusions In a hypothetical scenario, interest in watchful waiting for DCIS was high, and changing terminology impacted women's concern and treatment preferences. Removal of the cancer term from DCIS may assist in efforts towards reducing overtreatment.

[1]  E. Rutgers,et al.  Feasibility of a prospective, randomised, open-label, international multicentre, phase III, non-inferiority trial to assess the safety of active surveillance for low risk ductal carcinoma in situ - The LORD study. , 2015, European journal of cancer.

[2]  D. Rea,et al.  Low grade Ductal Carcinoma in situ (DCIS): how best to describe it? , 2014, Breast.

[3]  Sudhir Srivastava,et al.  Addressing overdiagnosis and overtreatment in cancer: a prescription for change. , 2014, The Lancet. Oncology.

[4]  L. Esserman,et al.  Impact of ductal carcinoma in situ terminology on patient treatment preferences. , 2013, JAMA internal medicine.

[5]  Sudhir Srivastava,et al.  The word “cancer”: how language can corrupt thought , 2013, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[6]  Brian Reid,et al.  Overdiagnosis and overtreatment in cancer: an opportunity for improvement. , 2013, JAMA.

[7]  M. Mastropasqua,et al.  DCIS and LCIS are confusing and outdated terms. They should be abandoned in favor of ductal intraepithelial neoplasia (DIN) and lobular intraepithelial neoplasia (LIN). , 2013, Breast.

[8]  M. Roobol,et al.  Active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer worldwide: the PRIAS study. , 2013, European urology.

[9]  D. Altman,et al.  The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review , 2012, British Journal of Cancer.

[10]  G. Ball,et al.  The effect of DCIS grade on rate, type and time to recurrence after 15 years of follow-up of screen-detected DCIS , 2012, British Journal of Cancer.

[11]  C. D’Este,et al.  Patient Perception , Preference and Participation Knowledge , satisfaction with information , decisional conflict and psychological morbidity amongst women diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ ( DCIS ) § , 2011 .

[12]  A. Fagerlin,et al.  What Makes a Tumor Diagnosis a Call to Action? On the Preference for Action versus Inaction , 2011, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[13]  Susan T. Stewart,et al.  Active surveillance compared with initial treatment for men with low-risk prostate cancer: a decision analysis. , 2010, JAMA.

[14]  E. Chang,et al.  Increasing mastectomy rates for early-stage breast cancer? Population-based trends from California. , 2010, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[15]  Laura Esserman,et al.  Rethinking screening for breast cancer and prostate cancer. , 2009, JAMA.

[16]  Stephen M Hahn,et al.  NIH state-of-the-science conference statement: diagnosis and management of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). , 2009, NIH consensus and state-of-the-science statements.

[17]  Robert A Hiatt,et al.  National Institutes of Health State-of-the-Science Conference Statement: Family History and Improving Health: August 24-26, 2009. , 2009, NIH consensus and state-of-the-science statements.

[18]  D. Harcourt,et al.  Perceptions of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) among UK health professionals. , 2009, Breast.

[19]  T. Tuttle,et al.  Increasing rates of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy among patients with ductal carcinoma in situ. , 2009, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[20]  E. Winer,et al.  Perceptions and management approaches of physicians who care for women with ductal carcinoma in situ. , 2008, Clinical breast cancer.

[21]  A. D'Amico,et al.  Guideline for the management of clinically localized prostate cancer: 2007 update. , 2007, The Journal of urology.

[22]  Bircan Erbas,et al.  The natural history of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: a review , 2006, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[23]  J. Boyages,et al.  ‘Well, have I got cancer or haven't I?’ The psycho‐social issues for women diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ , 2002, Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy.

[24]  D. Rea,et al.  The LORIS Trial: Addressing overtreatment of ductal carcinoma in situ. , 2015, Clinical oncology (Royal College of Radiologists (Great Britain)).