With thyroid ‘cancer’ reclassified, patients can receive more appropriate treatment |

With thyroid ‘cancer’ reclassified, patients can receive more appropriate treatment

Luis Fábregas

In a highly unusual move, a panel of international pathologists has determined that a type of tumor in the thyroid is not cancer as they previously thought.

They’ve stripped the name cancer off the pesky tumor, known as encapsulated follicular variant of papillary thyroid carcinoma. It accounts for up to 20 percent of thyroid cancers diagnosed in Europe and North America.

“To my knowledge, this is the first time in the modern era a type of cancer is being reclassified as a noncancer,” said Dr. Yuri Nikiforov, director of UPMC’s division of molecular and genomic pathology and one of the experts on the panel.

The reclassification has vast implications in the field of oncology because this type of tumor is treated aggressively — often with surgery or radioactive iodine. So it’s entirely possible that some 10,000 patients who have this type of thyroid cancer will not have to endure potentially harmful treatment.

It is also possible that this seemingly innocuous move by a panel of 24 experts in seven countries eventually will have an effect on other types of cancer. If we’re lucky, many diseases that today we call cancer might not be cancer after all.

The idea isn’t new.

Doctors for years have been saying that the word cancer is incorrectly used to describe tiny lesions that might never develop into an illness. Some doctors have urged the National Cancer Institute to reconsider using the word for some pre-cancerous lesions or slow-growing cancer cells that never wind up harming a patient.

Some forms of prostate cancer grow so slowly that all it does is scare the bejesus out of older men. Sure, it can be a serious disease, but the American Cancer Society says most men diagnosed with prostate cancer do not die from it.

Problem is, people hear the word cancer and immediately think they need to pull out the big guns. Several years ago, I interviewed an oncologist who told me he was confounded by patients who insisted on treatment for early stage prostate cancer even though he told them the treatment would cause more harm than benefit, including sexual dysfunction and urinary incontinence.

Those treatments come with a very steep price. Cancer drugs alone cost more than $30 billion a year in the United States, according to the American Society of Clinical Oncology. That doesn’t even include the cost of hospital stays, physicians and other treatments.

Some forms of cancer arguably need — heck, demand — aggressive treatment. They also deserve the nasty name that is cancer — with all its nasty connotations.

But cancer is big business, with high-priced drugs that sometimes offer little survival benefit. The fact that experts are willing to examine and question diagnostic criteria is a giant step in the right direction.

When I spoke to Nikiforov, he warned me that the reclassification, although significant, “doesn’t mean all cancers will be reclassified.”

But he said it will have a “huge impact” as doctors identify indolent, harmless forms of cancer that don’t need to be cancer.

Any way you look at it, that’s progress.

Luis Fábregas is the Tribune-Review’s deputy managing editor for news. Reach him at [email protected] or 412-320-7998.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.