Lesley Fallowfield1, Lucy Matthews2, Adele Francis3, Valerie Jenkins2, Daniel Rea4. 1. Sussex Health Outcomes Research and Education in Cancer (SHORE-C), Brighton & Sussex Medical School, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton BN1 9QG, UK. Electronic address: l.j.fallowfield@sussex.ac.uk. 2. Sussex Health Outcomes Research and Education in Cancer (SHORE-C), Brighton & Sussex Medical School, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton BN1 9QG, UK. 3. Department of Surgery, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Queen Elizabeth Medical Centre, Birmingham B15 2TH, UK. 4. Cancer Research UK Clinical Trials Unit (CRCTU), School of Cancer Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the absence of definitive data about the natural history of DCIS the appropriateness of describing DCIS as cancer is controversial. METHODS: We conducted a survey amongst British Breast Group (BBG) members, to determine which descriptions of DCIS were deemed most accurate and appropriate. RESULTS: 54/73 (74%) attendees completed the survey: A majority (34/54; 63%) said they would be comfortable using the description that explained DCIS as abnormal cells in the milk ducts that had not spread into other breast tissue and which did not need urgent treatment as if it was breast cancer and this description was overall the most preferred (24/54; 44%). CONCLUSIONS: Little consensus exists regarding how best to explain low grade DCIS to patients.
BACKGROUND: In the absence of definitive data about the natural history of DCIS the appropriateness of describing DCIS as cancer is controversial. METHODS: We conducted a survey amongst British Breast Group (BBG) members, to determine which descriptions of DCIS were deemed most accurate and appropriate. RESULTS: 54/73 (74%) attendees completed the survey: A majority (34/54; 63%) said they would be comfortable using the description that explained DCIS as abnormal cells in the milk ducts that had not spread into other breast tissue and which did not need urgent treatment as if it was breast cancer and this description was overall the most preferred (24/54; 44%). CONCLUSIONS: Little consensus exists regarding how best to explain low grade DCIS to patients.
Authors: William Pidduck; Bo Angela Wan; Liying Zhang; Eileen Rakovitch; Selina Chow; Stephanie Chan; Caitlin Yee; Leah Drost; Philomena Sousa; Donna Lewis; Henry Lam; Eric Leung; Edward Chow Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2019-08-26 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Renée S J M Schmitz; Erica A Wilthagen; Frederieke van Duijnhoven; Marja van Oirsouw; Ellen Verschuur; Thomas Lynch; Rinaa S Punglia; E Shelley Hwang; Jelle Wesseling; Marjanka K Schmidt; Eveline M A Bleiker; Ellen G Engelhardt Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-07-02 Impact factor: 6.575
Authors: Claire Kim; Laurel Liang; Frances C Wright; Nicole J Look Hong; Gary Groot; Lucy Helyer; Pamela Meiers; May Lynn Quan; Robin Urquhart; Rebecca Warburton; Anna R Gagliardi Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2017-12-23 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Maartje van Seijen; Esther H Lips; Alastair M Thompson; Serena Nik-Zainal; Andrew Futreal; E Shelley Hwang; Ellen Verschuur; Joanna Lane; Jos Jonkers; Daniel W Rea; Jelle Wesseling Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2019-07-09 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Bryanna B Nyhof; Frances C Wright; Nicole J Look Hong; Gary Groot; Lucy Helyer; Pamela Meiers; May Lynn Quan; Nancy N Baxter; Robin Urquhart; Rebecca Warburton; Anna R Gagliardi Journal: Health Expect Date: 2019-09-18 Impact factor: 3.377