Symptoms of carcinoma in situ may include persistent or recurring cough, hoarseness or a husky voice due to fluid collection around soft tissues, or persistent coughing up blood. Signs of carcinoma in situ can sometimes be found in persons who have no known respiratory, oral, or urinary malignancies. They most commonly occur in women with breast cancer, and can be difficult to distinguish from other causes of persistent cough.\n
A diagnosis of CIS indicates that the lesion was of the transitional epithelial or squamous type. The reason why CIS is found in this area is unknown, but it is possible that it may be related to hormonal and biological factors in the environment of the bladder. CIS can remain here for a long period of time in association with infection, inflammation, or injury.
Currently, the most common treatment for carcinoma in situ is curettage alone or excision or cryoablation. Surgical excision may also be used to excise or ablate carcinoma in situ that has spread into a regional lymph node. If carcinoma in situ reaches regional lymph nodes, then lymph node dissection is necessary and has been shown to improve survival rates.
About 15% of the population is estimated to be afflicted with invasive breast cancer per year. Among this 15% the incidence of DCIS is about 5 per 100,000 women per year. These data provide an essential basis in the development of prospective screening programs.
If the diagnosis of CIS is made on the basis of a Papanicolaou or needle biopsy, it is most likely to be early invasive carcinoma. Lymph node dissection should be performed for all patients, even with an indeterminate diagnosis on the biopsy, to avoid undertreatment of a potentially life-threatening malignancy or a missed opportunity for adjuvant therapy.
In some patients carcinoma in situ may be a pre-malignant lesion. In situ squamous-cell carcinoma or invasive squamous-cell carcinoma is not necessarily a pre-malignant lesion. A carcinoma in situ should be managed as a high-grade dysplastic lesion.
There were few serious adverse events and no serious adverse events were considered in any of the studies reviewed. The majority of adverse events (80--88%) were non-serious adverse events and no evidence was found to support concerns that these would not have occurred in people using the Internet for an email or social communication function, as they did in many of the studies. In view of the favourable safety findings, the authors did not find any reason to suspend Internet-based interventions in people with cancer, or withhold other treatments for the people prescribed Internet-based interventions.
A substantial proportion of patients have high grade CIS that is associated with a higher number of positive surgical margins and/or an incomplete resection, both known risk factors for poorer long-term survival in high grade CIS. Younger age may be a risk factor for this high grade CIS. Further work is required to better define the age distribution of the high grade CIS, its association with the prognosis of the overall cohort and the need for more aggressive management in this group of patients.
There was a large proportion of those who completed the questionnaire (34%) did not recall whether they had heard of any other research trials from the Internet. However, those who completed the questionnaires reported positive perceptions about the Internet as a means of disseminating information to a wide group of patients with no prior experience of research trials. The internet could be a potentially exciting means for facilitating future clinical trials.
Cancer in situ is a heterogeneous entity and includes a vast range of biologically and clinically related lesions, many of which differ significantly from c-SCLC, both in terms of the nature and course of disease, and in patient-treatment outcomes. Moreover, the heterogeneity among cancer foci means it is inappropriate to seek a single treatment modality or regimen for all patients with c-SCLC. Therefore, prospective treatment strategies need to take account of both the biologic and clinical characteristics of all lesions of c-SCLC, as well as the patient-treatmnet outcome of each.
Data from a recent study [shows] that carcinoma in situ that was detected by [pathologic examination of a tissue sample] was not significantly associated with any known type of risk factor [for uterine cervical cancer], especially nulliparity. Therefore, carcinoma in situ occurs without a cause, or causes, of cervical cancer.
The risk of developing CIS increases with each stage of disease progression. It may be important to include CIS in evaluation of patients with cervical lesions of the uterine wall, uterine cervical adenocarcinoma (adenocarcinoma in situ) and adenocarcinoma of the cervix.