The Naming Debate: to BOT or not?

The Naming Debate results in such confusion.  BOTs or *insert name of choice* seem to have failed any attempt at standard naming.  The Atlantic Ocean appears to offer a fault line between the major Naming Debate Contenders.  In an uninformed nutshell, it appears that the Anglo-side prefer BOT – borderline ovarian tumour – which emphasises tumour, whilst those stateside appear in preference of  involving malignancy in their descriptions of these not-ovarian-cancer-but-not-quite-benign clusters of cells – TLMP – tumours of low malignant potential.

Exhausting.  I’m sure that for a pro, you simply become bi-lingual (or perhaps multilingual) when scanning the international literature.  Not helpful for a novice.  I find that it actually goes a bit like this:

Journal article #1 and factsheet #1

Me:  ”I don’t have cancer, hurrah! I have a BOT!  It’s not malignant!  It’s a tumour; it’s not cancerous!”

Journal article #2 + factsheets 2 and 3

Me: “But maybe I do  have cancer. Maybe I actually have  a TLMP! Well, if I don’t have cancer, it’s going to become cancerous; it’s got a malignant potential!”

Journal article #3 + factsheet 4

Me:  ”I definitely do have cancer!  I have a stage 1 pre-cancerous tumour!”.

Return to journal #1 and factsheet #1

Me:  ”Hmmm.  So, it isn’t cancer, right?  It is a BOT?”

Journal article #4, 5 and 6

Me:  ”It’s totally cancer.  I have a TLMP.  Deffo.”

Repeat

Headache.

According to the Johns Hopkins Pathology website:

The borderline category of ovarian tumors is one of the most controversial topics in gynecologic oncology and pathology, and is confusing to both clinicians and patients. For example, although these tumors are considered to be a subset of carcinoma, most patients are cured even when they have “metastatic” disease that has been inadequately treated.

Confused?

I’m sticking with BOT.