Oncology Conference: Uncertain Terminology and a Claim of Confidence
You are interpreting for a Chinese oncologist at an international conference. The speaker presents in Chinese and you interpret into English. In one slide the speaker says: '我们采用FOLFOX方案，主要不良反应包括中性粒细胞减少、周围神经毒性、腹泻和口腔黏膜炎，3级以上发生率大约分别是18%、12%、9%和6%。' You know FOLFOX and 'neutropenia' and 'diarrhea,' but you are less sure of the standard English for 周围神经毒性 and 口腔黏膜炎. The speaker then adds: '这个方案在我们中心已经用了十年，效果很肯定。' The session chair has warned that the audience includes patient advocates who are sensitive to overstatement. There are 200 attendees and no time for a pre-session glossary review. The next speaker is due in five minutes. You have a smartphone with a medical dictionary app, but using it while standing at the podium would be conspicuous.
1. How do you handle 周围神经毒性 and 口腔黏膜炎 when you are not fully sure of the standard English terms?
Read the worked answer
The standard terms are peripheral neuropathy (or peripheral neurotoxicity) and oral mucositis. If I can retrieve them confidently, I use them. If retrieval is uncertain, I do not omit the adverse events and I do not substitute a different toxicity. I use a transparent descriptive equivalent: “nerve damage in the hands and feet” for peripheral neuropathy, and “inflammation of the mouth lining” for oral mucositis. Those are less precise than the technical terms, but they preserve the clinical meaning and let the audience follow the safety profile. In a simultaneous setting I would not stop the speaker to consult the phone; that would disrupt the talk and draw attention. I would note the two items on my pad, use the best equivalent immediately, and confirm with the speaker or a conference physician after the session. If the slide is visible, I would glance at it for English abbreviations. The key judgement is that a descriptive phrase is better than silence, but a wrong technical term is worse than a description.
2. The speaker says '效果很肯定.' How do you render this given the chair's warning about overstatement?
Read the worked answer
I would preserve the speaker's epistemic level without upgrading it. “效果很肯定” expresses the speaker's confidence, not a statistical proof. A faithful rendering is: “We have used this regimen at our center for ten years, and we are very confident in the results.” That keeps the ten-year experience and the confidence, but it does not say “proven”, “definitely effective” or “cure”. Those would be stronger claims than the Chinese supports. I would not soften it to “the results are encouraging” unless the speaker actually used a weaker phrase, because that would understate the speaker's position and is also a form of editorialising. The chair's warning is about overstatement, not about censoring confidence. If the speaker had said “疗效确切”, I would consider “the efficacy is well established”, but that is a different phrase. My job is to keep the claim at the same strength, not to protect the audience by changing it.
3. What do you do in the five minutes before the next speaker to prevent a repeat terminology problem?
Read the worked answer
I would use the break for a focused glossary repair, not for a full review. First, I would write down the uncertain items and check the dictionary app for peripheral neuropathy and oral mucositis, plus any other adverse events on the slide. Second, I would glance at the slide deck if it is accessible, because the English terms may already appear in the references or figure labels. Third, I would ask the speaker briefly: “For the record, you meant peripheral neuropathy and oral mucositis, correct?” That confirms meaning without delaying the session. Fourth, I would add the confirmed terms to a one-page personal glossary for the rest of the conference, including FOLFOX, neutropenia, diarrhoea/diarrhea spelling and grade 3+ toxicity. I would not leave the podium to find a colleague. After the session, I would debrief and record the terms so the same gap does not recur.