Terminology change for small low-risk papillary thyroid cancer as a response to overtreatment: Results from three Australian community juries.

BACKGROUND The majority of small low-risk papillary thyroid cancers (sPTCs) are treated surgically, rather than by active surveillance. Patient and clinician preference for surgery may be partially driven by the use of cancer terminology. Some experts propose that changing terminology would better communicate the indolent nature of sPTCs and improve uptake of active surveillance. Others argue that terminology that includes 'cancer' correctly reflects the biological nature of these tumors. The views of informed lay publics can provide value-based perspectives on complex issues and guide policy discussions. METHODS We recruited 40 people for three community juries, held in Sydney, Wodonga and Cairns, Australia. Participants were of diverse backgrounds and ages, recruited through random digit dialing and a topic-blinded social media strategy. Juries were informed about thyroid cancer, overdiagnosis, and overtreatment, and heard arguments for and against terminology change before deliberation. The deliberative process in Jury 1 led to a refinement of the jury charge, the updated version which was then used in Juries 2 and 3. RESULTS Jury 1 favored no terminology change, and Juries 2 and 3 were divided on the topic. Key reasons for opposing terminology change included a strong desire to retain terminology that aligns with the pathological definition of cancer, and to avoid even a minimal risk of harm that could arise if patients became complacent in follow-up. Key reasons to support terminology change included a desire to reduce psychological distress, stigma and discrimination associated with a cancer diagnosis, and an argument that terminology change may be a more effective trigger for health system reform compared to other options. The juries unanimously recommended community education and health system reforms to reduce harms of overtreatment, and expressed an expectation that clinicians and researchers reach agreement on clinical guidelines to promote better uptake of active surveillance. CONCLUSIONS The conceptual tension between a pathological and an outcomes-based understanding of cancer was apparent in deliberation. This highlights an ongoing challenge for those advocating changing disease terminology. Regardless of action on terminology, jurors shared a strong expectation that practical changes would be made to respond to the harms of overtreatment.