Which preposition is better?
Having done a few translations in the area, I think they mean slightly different things. Normal metastasis "to" the liver might occur through the lymphatic system. But on the other hand, if a tumour was adjacent to the liver, it might metastatize into the liver, i.e. across a membrane.
I agree with kon. The only point I'd make is that local invasion is not called metastasis. For example, Basal Cell Carcinomas (a type of skin cancer) do not metastasize, but they can locally invade and destroy underlying tissues. Metastasis requires that cancer cells break off, and are seeded to other areas, so that metastases are not co-extensive with the primary tumour.
"Metastasis, or metastatic disease, is the spread of a cancer or disease from one organ or part to another not directly connected with it.
Last edited by Raymott; 19-Jul-2015 at 03:30.
Which one is appropriate here?
I will explain which preposition would be the best to use. The best would be "to" and not "into" because "into" would be like the cancer is a going to get inside the liver and infect it but just from inside, and "to" would be like the cancer is spreading to the enire organ not just inside. In conclusion the preposition "to" would be more formal to use in this case.
Basically, your argument is:
1. If the clinical condition is X, then 'to' is right.
2. If the clinical condition is Y, then 'into' is right.
Conclusion: Therefore, 'to' is correct and more formal.
There is a missing premise.
To me they mean almost the same.