The DCIS "Controversy"

turtlelady

DCIS "Controversy" (part 1)

In a recent article in Cure Magazine (“The DCIS Dilemma” by Charlotte Huff, 9/25/2014) the author states that a DCIS is a “...condition that’s creating stress and controversy for patients and physicians alike.”

In the author’s view, a DCIS is so fundamentally different from an invasive cancer that woman are confused by it and doctors tend to over-treat. Within the article, she follows a DCIS patient (Sandie Walters), discussion how she made decisions opting for a more conservative approach.

Huff calls the condition “nonmalignant” and “not-quite-cancerous” without making any effort to justify this alteration of the meaning of words. DCIS stands for Ductal CARCINOMA In Situ. A carcinoma, by definition, is a cancer that arises from epithelial cells of the skin or linings of organs. The Latin expression “in situ” means “in its original position.”

The authors attempt to create obfuscation from words that are perfectly clear is puzzling. We have accurate and adequate expressions already. You can call a DCIS a non-invasive (or pre-invasive) cancer. You can say that it was caught early. You can say that it has not metastasized. Call it a Stage Zero cancer. Why change the meanings of carcinoma, cancer and malignancy? In fairness, Ms. Huff included many comments from doctors in the field, and they all called a DCIS what it is– cancer.

The article was long and in a prominent magazine. I don’t have a bully pulpit, and cannot take the space to counter each point. I simply hope to express another view from someone whose experience was quite the opposite of the one that was presented.

[I hope the moderators will allow me to post several long(ish) entries.]