Talk:Breast cancer

Technical stuff

I've removed this from the lead:

Increased circulating levels of L-alpha-lysophosphatidylinositol (LPI) are associated with cancer and LPI is a potent, ligand for the G-protein-coupled receptor GPR55. Expression of Candidate of metastasis and protein 8, also known as NUPR1, correlate with outcome in breast cancer.The endogenous cannabinoid anandamide inhibits human breast cancer cell proliferation in a P8 dependent fashion, as do phytocannabinoids

because it plainly doesn't belong there. I'm just not sure where it does belong. It's densely technical, and probably of no value to 99% of our readers. Is there some more specialized Pathophysiology of breast cancer somewhere? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Sourcification

After James (Jmh649 (talk · contribs)) posted on WT:MED that this was a very high-traffic article I thought I'd come and have a look. What strikes me is how many of the references are not quite what one would call WP:MEDRS-compliant. Many of them are information pages and such, and I even noticed an abstract published at an ASCO conference. This could really do with fixing. I've tidied a few references, and will try to make some time over the next few days to sort out some of the weaker sources. JFW | T@lk 14:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I wrote some of it, and added references mostly to NEJM, Harrison's and Merck Manual. I came back to look at it and it had been extensively edited, with most of the references lost.

Agree some sources aren't too good. If you look at the end of the following source, you'll see that Genentech paid for it to be ghostwritten by a third party:

Jahanzeb M (August 2008). "Adjuvant trastuzumab therapy for HER2-positive breast cancer". Clin. Breast Cancer 8 (4): 324–33. doi:10.3816/CBC.2008.n.037. PMID 18757259. --Nbauman (talk) 05:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

BC Culture, Politics of BC (re "Is every lump...?"

(Although this is without annotation, Review Articles in Peer-Reviewed journals (and.or Introduction Sections of other articles) could be sources of appropriate annotation of my comments.)

Discussion of BC Culture was the only obvious (on skimming article) critical remark about BC politics. I am glad this is there, but there is more that is missing: The huge increase in ability of mammography's ability to detect suspcious lesions results in dramatic increase # of "unnecessary" biopsies. (The concept of "unnecessary" biopsy is specious, though, because, e.g., with melanoma, it would be rare to call a biopsy "unnecessary" just because it showed that the suspected lesion was benign. When reporting risks and complications of mammography, one thing mentioned is the increased anxiety (and life-interruptions when "something unknown" results in a biopsy that would not have been indicated, except for the ability of mammography to hyper-detect lesions of concern. Taking this to politics, some women refuse treatment, others refuse screening and/or biopsy on these or related grounds. e.g., "Well, I will agree to a physical exam, but, if you find anything, that does not mean I am going to agree to a mammogram or a diagnostic test - as those are not without risk to me."

In the context of "Is every lump...?" there are two unstated questions, "Is every lump an indication of cancer?" (No.) Is every lump something that should be brought to attention of medical provider?" ("Every lump of xyz characteristics...." - or, if uncertain, "Yes.") Again, this is a place to indicates (with statistics) the high percentages of different types of evaluations and surgeries indicate "no evidence of disease." This promotes debate of, "It this good or no? - with differing opinions.

Someone could add a section like this, worded more appropriately, and annotated, perhaps placed within historical and clinical context. --KnowLimits (talk) 15:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

A paragraph or two on overdiagnosis would probably be appropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

A paragraph or two on overdiagnosis sourced to a peer-reviewed journal would be appropriate. --Nbauman (talk) 05:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)