Lets redefine cancer

The question has arisen as to how to redefine cancer. A scientific panel states we are using a 19th century definition in the 21st century. The issue is should some precancerous conditions be redefined with out the use of the words cancer or carcinoma.

"In one example, they say that some premalignant conditions, such as one that affects the breast called ductal carcinoma in situ — which many doctors agree is not cancer — should be renamed to exclude the word carcinoma.

That way, patients are less frightened and less likely to seek what may be unneeded and potentially harmful treatments that can include the surgical removal of the breast.

The group, which includes some of the top scientists in cancer research, also suggested that many lesions detected during breast, prostate, thyroid, lung, and other cancer screenings should not be called cancer at all but instead should be reclassified as IDLE conditions, which stands for “indolent lesions of epithelial origin.”

Although it is clear that some or all of the changes may not happen for years, and that some cancer experts will profoundly disagree, the report from such a prominent group with the clear backing of the National Cancer Institute intensifies and broadens the debate and will probably change the national conversation about cancer, its definition, its treatment, and future research.

“We need a 21st-century definition of cancer instead of a 19th-century definition of cancer, which is what we’ve been using,” said Dr. Otis W. Brawley, the chief medical officer for the American Cancer Society, who was not directly involved in the report.

The impetus behind the call for change is a growing concern among doctors, scientists, and advocates for patients that hundreds of thousands of men and women are undergoing needless and sometimes disfiguring and harmful treatments for premalignant and cancerous lesions that grow so slowly they are unlikely to ever cause harm.
The advent of highly sensitive screening technology in recent years has increased the likelihood of finding these incidentalomas — the name given to incidental findings detected during medical scans that most likely would never cause a problem.
However, once doctors and patients are aware a lesion exists, they typically feel compelled to biopsy, treat, and remove it, often at great physical and psychological pain and risk to the patient."

So is it cancer or not? Or is an incidentaloma?

I think there is some validity to the argument. Medical science has advanced to the extent that a precancerous diagnosis usually is not a deadly diagnosis any more. The conditions can usually be treated and the patient may require additional follow up in the future but can assume they will live a long and healthy life.

I am not trying to minimize the importance of diagnosis and treatment of any of these conditions. But perhaps its time for the words to change.