{"database":"biostudies-literature","file_versions":[],"scores":null,"additional":{"submitter":["Ma T"],"funding":["National Health and Medical Research Council","University of Sydney"],"pagination":["415-433"],"full_dataset_link":["https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC10175360"],"repository":["biostudies-literature"],"omics_type":["Unknown"],"volume":["199(3)"],"pubmed_abstract":["<h4>Background</h4>Population mammographic screening for breast cancer has led to large increases in the diagnosis and treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Active surveillance has been proposed as a management strategy for low-risk DCIS to mitigate against potential overdiagnosis and overtreatment. However, clinicians and patients remain reluctant to choose active surveillance, even within a trial setting. Re-calibration of the diagnostic threshold for low-risk DCIS and/or use of a label that does not include the word 'cancer' might encourage the uptake of active surveillance and other conservative treatment options. We aimed to identify and collate relevant epidemiological evidence to inform further discussion on these ideas.<h4>Methods</h4>We searched PubMed and EMBASE databases"],"journal":["Breast cancer research and treatment"],"pubmed_title":["Should low-risk DCIS lose the cancer label? An evidence review."],"pmcid":["PMC10175360"],"funding_grant_id":["1174523"],"pubmed_authors":["Barratt A","Nickel B","Parker L","Semsarian CR","Ma T","Pathmanathan N","Bell KJL"],"additional_accession":[]},"is_claimable":false,"name":"Should low-risk DCIS lose the cancer label? An evidence review.","description":"<h4>Background</h4>Population mammographic screening for breast cancer has led to large increases in the diagnosis and treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Active surveillance has been proposed as a management strategy for low-risk DCIS to mitigate against potential overdiagnosis and overtreatment. However, clinicians and patients remain reluctant to choose active surveillance, even within a trial setting. Re-calibration of the diagnostic threshold for low-risk DCIS and/or use of a label that does not include the word 'cancer' might encourage the uptake of active surveillance and other conservative treatment options. We aimed to identify and collate relevant epidemiological evidence to inform further discussion on these ideas.<h4>Methods</h4>We searched PubMed and EMBASE databases","dates":{"release":"2023-01-01T00:00:00Z","publication":"2023 Jun","modification":"2025-04-22T04:08:33.035Z","creation":"2025-04-05T20:52:33.909Z"},"accession":"S-EPMC10175360","cross_references":{"pubmed":["37074481"],"doi":["10.1007/s10549-023-06934-y"]}}