{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,3,3]],"date-time":"2026-03-03T12:33:15Z","timestamp":1772541195546,"version":"3.50.1"},"reference-count":25,"publisher":"BMJ","issue":"11","content-domain":{"domain":["bmj.com"],"crossmark-restriction":true},"short-container-title":["BMJ Open"],"accepted":{"date-parts":[[2015,10,6]]},"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2015,11]]},"abstract":"<jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Objective<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>There have been calls to remove \u2018carcinoma\u2019 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 \u2018abnormal cells\u2019 versus \u2018pre-invasive breast cancer cells\u2019 on women's concern and treatment preferences.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Setting and participants<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Community sample of Australian women (n=269) who spoke English as their main language at home.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Design<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Randomised comparison within a community survey. Women considered a hypothetical scenario involving a diagnosis of DCIS described as either \u2018abnormal cells\u2019 (arm A) or \u2018pre-invasive breast cancer cells\u2019 (arm B). Within each arm, the initial description was followed by the alternative term and outcomes reassessed.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Results<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>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 (\u2018abnormal cells\u2019 first term) indicated they would feel more concerned if given the alternative term (\u2018pre-invasive breast cancer cells\u2019) 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 \u2018abnormal cells\u2019 to \u2018pre-invasive breast cancer cells\u2019 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).<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Conclusions<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>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.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.1136\/bmjopen-2015-008094","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2015,11,2]],"date-time":"2015-11-02T20:53:19Z","timestamp":1446497599000},"page":"e008094","update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1136\/crossmarkpolicy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":52,"title":["How different terminology for ductal carcinoma in situ impacts women's concern and treatment preferences: a randomised comparison within a national community survey"],"prefix":"10.1136","volume":"5","author":[{"given":"Kirsten","family":"McCaffery","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"Screening and Test Evaluation Program (STEP), Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia"},{"name":"Centre for Medical Psychology and Evidence-based Decision-making (CeMPED), The University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia"}]},{"given":"Brooke","family":"Nickel","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Screening and Test Evaluation Program (STEP), Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia"},{"name":"Centre for Medical Psychology and Evidence-based Decision-making (CeMPED), The University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia"}]},{"given":"Ray","family":"Moynihan","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia"}]},{"given":"Jolyn","family":"Hersch","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Screening and Test Evaluation Program (STEP), Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia"},{"name":"Centre for Medical Psychology and Evidence-based Decision-making (CeMPED), The University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia"}]},{"given":"Armando","family":"Teixeira-Pinto","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Screening and Test Evaluation Program (STEP), Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia"}]},{"given":"Les","family":"Irwig","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Screening and Test Evaluation Program (STEP), Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia"}]},{"given":"Alexandra","family":"Barratt","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Screening and Test Evaluation Program (STEP), Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia"},{"name":"Centre for Medical Psychology and Evidence-based Decision-making (CeMPED), The University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia"}]}],"member":"239","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2015,11,2]]},"reference":[{"key":"2025121403374316000_5.11.e008094.1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1038\/bjc.2012.151"},{"key":"2025121403374316000_5.11.e008094.2","unstructured":"American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts & Figures. Secondary Cancer Facts & Figures\u00a02013. http:\/\/www.cancer.org\/research\/cancerfactsfigures\/cancerfactsfigures\/cancer-facts-figures-2013"},{"key":"2025121403374316000_5.11.e008094.3","unstructured":"Australian Institute of Health & Welfare. BreastScreen Australia monitoring report 2011\u20132012. October 2014."},{"key":"2025121403374316000_5.11.e008094.4","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1007\/s10549-005-9101-z"},{"key":"2025121403374316000_5.11.e008094.5","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1200\/JCO.2008.20.1681"},{"key":"2025121403374316000_5.11.e008094.6","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1200\/JCO.2009.26.1032"},{"key":"2025121403374316000_5.11.e008094.7","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/S0140-6736(12)61611-0"},{"key":"2025121403374316000_5.11.e008094.8","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1001\/jama.2009.1498"},{"key":"2025121403374316000_5.11.e008094.9","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.3816\/CBC.2008.n.032"},{"key":"2025121403374316000_5.11.e008094.10","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"89","DOI":"10.1016\/j.breast.2009.01.004","article-title":"Perceptions of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) among UK health professionals","volume":"18","author":"Kennedy","year":"2009","journal-title":"Breast"},{"key":"2025121403374316000_5.11.e008094.11","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"693","DOI":"10.1016\/j.breast.2014.06.013","article-title":"Low grade Ductal Carcinoma in situ (DCIS): how best to describe it?","volume":"23","author":"Fallowfield","year":"2014","journal-title":"Breast"},{"key":"2025121403374316000_5.11.e008094.12","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1046\/j.1369-6513.2002.00199.x"},{"key":"2025121403374316000_5.11.e008094.13","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"62","DOI":"10.1016\/j.pec.2010.07.002","article-title":"Knowledge, satisfaction with information, decisional conflict and psychological morbidity amongst women diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS)","volume":"84","author":"De Morgan","year":"2011","journal-title":"Patient Educ Couns"},{"key":"2025121403374316000_5.11.e008094.14","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1001\/jama.2013.108415"},{"key":"2025121403374316000_5.11.e008094.15","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/S1470-2045(13)70598-9"},{"key":"2025121403374316000_5.11.e008094.16","first-page":"1","article-title":"NIH state-of-the-science conference statement: diagnosis and management of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS)","volume":"26","author":"Allegra","year":"2009","journal-title":"NIH Consens State Sci Statements"},{"key":"2025121403374316000_5.11.e008094.17","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1136\/bmj.f5328"},{"key":"2025121403374316000_5.11.e008094.18","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"431","DOI":"10.1016\/j.breast.2013.04.010","article-title":"DCIS and LCIS are confusing and outdated terms. They should be abandoned in favor of ductal intraepithelial neoplasia (DIN) and lobular intraepithelial neoplasia (LIN)","volume":"22","author":"Galimberti","year":"2013","journal-title":"Breast"},{"key":"2025121403374316000_5.11.e008094.19","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1830","DOI":"10.1001\/jamainternmed.2013.8405","article-title":"Impact of ductal carcinoma in situ terminology on patient treatment preferences","volume":"173","author":"Omer","year":"2013","journal-title":"JAMA Intern Med"},{"key":"2025121403374316000_5.11.e008094.20","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1001\/jama.2010.1720"},{"key":"2025121403374316000_5.11.e008094.21","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.eururo.2012.11.005"},{"key":"2025121403374316000_5.11.e008094.22","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1016\/j.juro.2007.03.003"},{"key":"2025121403374316000_5.11.e008094.23","first-page":"6","article-title":"The LORIS trial: addressing overtreatment of ductal carcinoma in situ","volume-title":"Clin Oncol","volume":"27","author":"Francis","year":"2015"},{"key":"2025121403374316000_5.11.e008094.24","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1497","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ejca.2015.05.008","article-title":"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\u2014The LORD study","volume":"51","author":"Elshof","year":"2015","journal-title":"Eur J Cancer"},{"key":"2025121403374316000_5.11.e008094.25","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","DOI":"10.1177\/0272989X10377116"}],"container-title":["BMJ Open"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/syndication.highwire.org\/content\/doi\/10.1136\/bmjopen-2015-008094","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2025,12,14]],"date-time":"2025-12-14T11:37:51Z","timestamp":1765712271000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/bmjopen.bmj.com\/lookup\/doi\/10.1136\/bmjopen-2015-008094"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2015,11]]},"references-count":25,"journal-issue":{"issue":"11","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2015,11,2]]},"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2015,11]]}},"alternative-id":["10.1136\/bmjopen-2015-008094"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1136\/bmjopen-2015-008094","relation":{},"ISSN":["2044-6055","2044-6055"],"issn-type":[{"value":"2044-6055","type":"print"},{"value":"2044-6055","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2015,11]]}}}