Talk:Cancer

Hereditary cancer citation needed

Citation needed for sentence in second paragraph: "Approximately five to ten percent of cancers are entirely hereditary." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.75.70 (talk) 05:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Prevention - Bad phrasing

Prevention --> Dietary --> Second paragraph: Horribly worded sentence:

"Some studies have found that consuming lots of fruits and vegetables has little if any effect on preventing cancer.[51]"

Please change the phrasing ("Some studies" and "lots of fruits and vegetables") to something like "A study following 142,605 men and 335,873 women from 1992-2000 showed a very small inverse association between intake of total fruits and vegetables and cancer risk.[51]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.217.25.5 (talk) 07:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

This is what you get when you base an important section in a major article on primary sources. What we need is to replace references 42-53 with secondary sources (see WP:MEDRS), apart from the coffee & liver cancer meta-analysis. Perhaps the team of contributors from Cancer Research UK could be persuaded to tackle this issue. JFW | T@lk 09:08, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I have replaced the above with

An increase in overall fruit and vegetable consumption is unlikely to reduce the cancer rate in a well-nourished population; though it is not known whether populations with low fruit and vegetable intake have a higher cancer risk than those with moderate intake, and specific nutrients found in some fruit or vegetables may have an as yet unidentified effect.

Key TJ (January 2011). "Fruit and vegetables and cancer risk". Br. J. Cancer 104 (1): 6–11. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6606032. PMC 3039795. PMID 21119663. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=3039795. 

--Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Forty per cent of all cancers are preventable - according to news report

It has been on the news today (December 8 2011) that forty per cent of all cancer deaths are preventable, if people ate a more salubrious diet, stopped smoking or lived in the right environment. While I would not like to edit this article as I have no expertisein this field, I have noticed it has not been edited for a while. I am only going but what I heard on news reports, which are not, it is true, reports in medical journals, but if any one can find reliable sources for this claim, it would be good if this could be in the article. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 22:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

We are already citing a previous study that found the same thing. JFW | T@lk 23:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Alternative cures

Why are alternative cures listed a hoax but not chemotherapy? Chemotherapy is very risky and much more expensive while having a good chance to fail. Pyrolord777 (talk) 15:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Where to begin... Chemotherapy is based on clinical trials, often of 100s of people, and it is only used when the expected benefit outweighs that of any side-effects. Alternative cures would not be "alternative cures" if they were supported by the same quality of evidence. JFW | T@lk 16:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

And what of a scenario where some "alternative cures" work better than chemotherapy but the government covers up the facts due to loosing money from chemotherapy? Anything is possibly and I have no doubts that the companies providing chemotherapy would loose alot of money if safer cures for cancer were found. Pyrolord777 (talk) 22:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, conspiracy theories. Difficult to take seriously in the absence of good evidence, don't you agree? Governments would be thrilled to have cheaper and safer cancer treatment. As it happens, a lot of chemo drugs (particularly the older ones) are not expensive. JFW | T@lk 23:23, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Ulcerates

The word ulcerates probably shouldn't link to ulcerate, which seems to be a page about a death metal band. Should it link to Ulcer_(dermatology)? 96.252.95.7 (talk) 04:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Y Done Good call. Thanks.Novangelis (talk) 06:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't we just love the use of medical terminology by heavy metal groups and their subclasses? Although interestingly Metastasis is from the 1950s. JFW | T@lk 11:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

the "surveillance" theory

I believe we need to add this theory as to Causes:

In Bernie Siegel's words:

One of the most widely accepted explanations of cancer, the "surveillance" theory, states that cancer cells are developing in our bodies all the time but are normally destroyed by white blood cells before they can develop into dangerous tumors. Cancer appears when the immune system becomes suppressed and can no longer deal with this routine threat. It follows that whatever upsets the brain's control of the immune system will foster malignancy

--Zaurus (talk) 23:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Major textbook or recent review article as support per WP:MEDRS... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

That's not really a "cause", anyway; it's more "pathogenesis". The cause is whatever makes those cancer cells "develop all the time" in the first place. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

If health people's bodies "develop [cancer cells] all the time", then it's not so relevant what makes those cells in the first place. What's important is what causes life-threatening cancer growths and tumors, and that appears immune system suppressing related events... --Zaurus (talk) 16:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 February 2012

I recently recovered from cancer and I noticed important information regarding the diagnosis and prevention of cancer missing on the Wikipedia page. I like to replace the first few lines of the current diagnosis statement with the one I have supplemented below. I think that the Classification and Pathology should stay as is. I would also like to add the following paragraph in the Prevention section. Sources cited are listed at the bottom of the page with coordinating numbers.

    4. Diagnosis

Initial lumps or other symptoms may be apparent to the patient, thus causing them to see a doctor. In order to diagnose a patient with cancer several steps must be taken. Depending on the type of cancer, certain testing measurements may or may not be necessary. 1) Physical exam. Your doctor will look for physical changes in the area of concern and ask about your risk factors, such as excessive exposure to radiation and a family history. 2) Blood tests. In some people blood tests may be useful in monitoring tumor extent and progression. 3) Fine-needle aspiration. Fine-needle aspiration gathers cells to view under a microscope (biopsy) and is generally the first test to distinguish between benign and malignant tumors. 4) Imaging tests. You may have one or more imaging tests, such as X-rays, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computerized tomography (CT) scans, positron emission tomography (PET) or ultrasound. These tests can help detect whether the cancer has spread. In tests that involve radiation, specialists carefully monitor doses to avoid the risk of radiation overexposure. 5) Genetic testing. Depending on the cancer, genetic testing may be necessary. Some cancers are genetically transmitted while others are not. [4]

 5. Prevention
 5.4 Protection

Protection from radiation is a simple yet vital step that should be taken to avoid any unnecessary radiation. “Most scientists and regulatory agencies agree that even small doses of ionizing radiation increase cancer risk, although by a very small amount. In general, the risk of cancer from radiation exposure increases as the dose of radiation increases. Likewise, the lower the exposure is, the smaller the increase in risk. But there is no threshold below which ionizing radiation is thought to be totally safe.” [1] Avoid any unnecessary exposure to radiation, especially with CT scans. “CT scans deliver far more radiation than conventional X-rays -- between 50 and 200 times as much, As a result, the average radiation dose people in the U.S. get has nearly doubled since 1980, says David J. Brenner, PhD, of Columbia's Center for Radiological Research.” [2] Examples of protection: led apron, gonad shield and thyroid shield for x-rays and sunscreen for UV rays. [3] [1] http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CancerCauses/OtherCarcinogens/MedicalTreatments/radiation-exposure-and-cancer [2] http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20071128/radiation-related-cancers--rise [3] http://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/faqs/leadgarmentsfaq.html [4] http://www.mayoclinic.org/thyroid-cancer/diagnosis.html [5] http://www.health.ny.gov/publications/4402/

Wipperfurth (talk) 04:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:MEDR we typically use review articles or major textbooks.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

That link should be WP:MEDRES. Dru of Id (talk) 04:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually it's WP:MEDRS. Yobol (talk) 04:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: Per above, sources need to be better. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 05:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)