Person-First or Disease-First? Language Choices in Cancer Communication

Background/Objectives: Cancer-related terminology is not merely descriptive and plays a critical role in shaping emotional responses, personal identity, and communication across clinical, social, and public spheres. Despite growing interest in the psychosocial dimensions of illness language, few studies have centered the lived experiences of individuals navigating cancer through the lens of terminology. This study explores how people living with and beyond cancer perceive, interpret, and emotionally respond to cancer-related language, focusing on the way terminology influences identity, stigma, and communicative interaction. Methods: A sequential mixed-methods design was employed. The quantitative phase involved 146 participants with a cancer diagnosis completing a structured questionnaire on preferred terminology and emotional impact. The qualitative phase followed, using open-ended questionnaires with 11 participants to deepen understanding of linguistic experiences. Thematic content analysis was used to identify patterns across narratives. Results: These findings reveal that labels such as "cancer patient" evoke strong negative emotional reactions, associated with stigma, fear, and identity reduction. Person-first and context-sensitive language was perceived as more respectful and empowering. Emotional responses to language varied widely, from fear to neutrality, shaped by speaker role, context, and time since diagnosis. Media representations were often seen as dramatizing or moralizing, reinforcing the need for communicative clarity, empathy, and education in both clinical and public discourse. Conclusions: Cancer-related language is a powerful psychosocial force. It shapes how individuals are seen and see themselves and can either reinforce stigma or foster dignity and resilience. This study highlights the urgent need for person-centered, context-aware communication practices across healthcare, media, and society.