I'm of the feeling that words can/should be used "loosely" with "general understanding" of their definitions as long as the entities in the conversation have the same relevant-level of knowledge to use this type of vocabulary. The latter point is critical as you would never want an uneducated entity interpreting vocabulary based on their perceived definitions.

In the world of finance, a full remission of debt is a cancellation, such that no money is owed. In this analogy, there is no supporting practice of revoking a full remission of debt, so there is a very black and white interpretation.

In the world of cancer, we are dealing with a shade of gray. With an understanding that if a technique results in the elimination of cancer (surgery, drugs) that is supported by biomarkers (blood test, scans), there should also be an understanding that medical science is evolving (so is the cancer) and a chance exists for the cancer to return.

I had successful surgery 11 years ago, but it came back. I've been on ADT for one year, and PSA < 0.1. In general public conversation, I am fine saying "the cancer is in remission". If the conversation opens up to more details, I explain things. As for me, I plan to live my life as fully as I can, blood tests every three months, and I really only get a bit anxious for a few hours when waiting for the lab work to come back.

hope this helps.

keep the faith!