Talk:Cancer

Template:MCOTWprev

Propose split out section Cancer treatment to New article

The area of cancer treatment is quite a rich, active area and I think deserving of its own page. This would make page link construction from other articles easier and would allow for growth without weighing down the main cancer article (now at 122kb -- within the range that is indicative of a need to split). The treatment section is perhaps the largest section of the article, so is a good candidate for splitting out. Thoughts? SteveChervitzTrutane (talk) 07:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Nope. That is why we have a main cancer article: to direct to subarticles. Another subarticle is a diversion. Rather, we should trim down the content on individual modalities and put that directly in the subarticles. JFW | T@lk 23:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with trimming. The sub-sections containing main page links could be boiled down further or made even more compact with a list like this. Any preference? SteveChervitzTrutane (talk) 07:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the first post, the cancer page is already long (though I have nothing against being long) so I think the treatment page should be written as a new one and just have a link there. That way there would be less problem for people with slower internet connection too. The idea of making it something like that philosophy thing is also very acceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.106.10.10 (talk) 06:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that this is a good idea. It would trim the artice in a useful place, and create potentail for another much-coveted good page. We could keep a summary here, and also add a main article link.Lukefan3 (talk) 18:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: to add the information, that infection with XMRV virus is associated with prostate cancer, into the section Viral or bacterial infection

Please can anyone do it, I do not know how to unprotect the page References: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19403677?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19403664?ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18823818?ordinalpos=4&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16609730?ordinalpos=11&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsekal (talk • contribs) 19:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

plant-based diet and anti-cancer phytochemicals

I'd like to add more info on plant-based diets and cancer. What's the best way to propose an addition to this article? --Thomas.vandenbroeck (talk) 02:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd just put the proposed text here, in this section. See Talk:Water fluoridation #Dietary Reference Intake for an example of proposing a change to an article. Eubulides (talk) 03:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

To Maintaining Low Blood Sugar as a New Cancer Treatment

Original research
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Many people believe that vegetarian diet is good for cancer. And many scientist tried to find out certain factor which is important thing as cancer treatment from vegetables and fruits. But, remarkable factor is not revealed in the world. So this writing is for the discovery of the factor. And perhaps side effect of surfeit of vegetable is the factor. For determine whether low blood sugar which is side effect of surfeit of vegetable is the main factor or have no relation to death of cancer, amount of sugar essential and total of sugar supply are partially calculated. A human cell has about 2.8billion(1) base pairs(or about 5.6 billion base) and 2.8billion base pairs have 11.2 billion deoxyriboses as a DNA back bone(2). Deoxyribose and glucose are sugar. So glucose maybe used as a raw material of DNA back bone. And for 1.12e+10 deoxyriboses, 3.3477e-12 g glucose may be essential as a raw material of deoxyriboses. The number of cancer cells is about 2000/mm^2(3) and the density of microvessel is about 200(count)/mm^2(3) and the average diameter of microvessels is about 10μm(). One microvessel of 200 microvessels in 1cm length of tumor is surrounded by 4472 cancer cells. 2000/mm^2 times sqrt{2000/mm^2} times 10mm div 200/mm^2 approx 4472.136 The concept of a cancer cell is a point. And the concept of a microvessel is a line. Cancer cells which surround one microvessel must needs 1.4971e-8 g glucose per 1cm as the raw material of the deoxyriboses. The blood flow velocity is about 0.49 mm/sec in capillaries(4). If the average blood sugar level is 100mg/dl, total amount of glucose which passes through a microvessel of10μm diameter is 3.323376e-6g/Day. 1.4971e-8 g is about 0.45% of 3.323376e-6g. But it's not calculated that how percent of 3.323376e-6g glucose is absorbed by 4472 cancer cells. And it's sure that 4472 cancer cells consume more glucose than 1.4971e-8 g. For calculating the percent of the absorption, osmotic pressure and diffusion velocity must be considered. And it must not ignored that the convection must be limited among the cancer cells. Most cancer cells starve(die) and 4% of survived cells induce KRAS Pathway Mutations in 9mg/dl glucose(5). This means that low blood sugar induce the necrosis of cancer cells. Besides, the density of microvessels in tumor have relation to cancer returns(6). Under 70mg/dl glucose in micorvessels may reach under 9mg/dl glucose among cancer cells. One microvessel manages about 40μm from itself. 40μm is 8 times of radius of microvessel of 10μm diameter. Cancer cell which closes to microvessel will absorbs more sugar than enough so another cell may absorbs less sugar than essential amount. Besides, the glucose concentration in a micorvessel of the cancer tumor will be getting lower as blood flows(figure1). Figure1 explains that why huge tumor have disadvantages in low blood sugar level. The calculation is not completed. But if someone completes this calculation, every things will be sure. Or if someone who has cancer maintains low blood sugar level(under 70mg/dl), we can know the relation between blood sugar level and cancer growth. At last, the change of dietary has relation to avoid cancer death(7) no matter that the relation are strong or not. The important thing is that perhaps the induced low blood sugar by vegetable based diets are the main reason to avoid cancer death. The concentration of amino acid also needs to consider. The purpose of this writing is to informing that to maintaining low glucose may be better treatment than chemotherapy. All of cancer patients have to know that perhaps to maintaining low blood glucose(always under 70mg/dl) is enough good as a new cancer treatment. Figure1. Conception of glucose loss when blood flows : As blood flows, concentration of glucose is getting lower as cancer cell absorb much glucose. e-mail : evilstriver@hanmail.net reference 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome#Human_chromosomes 2. Levene P, (01 December 1919). "The structure of yeast nucleic acid". J Biol Chem 40 (2): 415–24. http://www.jbc.org/cgi/reprint/40/2/415. 3. Tsuyotoshi Tsuji, Yoshihiro Sasaki, Masanori Tanaka, et al: Microvessel Morphology and Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Expression in Human Colonic Carcinoma With or Without Metastasis. Lab Invest 2002, 82:555–562 4. M.Stucker, V. Baier, T. Reuther, et al. Capillary Blood Cell Velocity in human skin capillaries located perpendiculary to the skin surface: Measured by a New Laser doppler anemometer. Microvascular research 52, 188-192(1996) 5. Jihye Yun, Carlo Rago, Ian Cheong, et al. Glucose Deprivation Contributes to the Development of KRAS Pathway Mutations in Tumor Cells. Science DOI: 10.1126/science.1174229 6. Noel Weidner. Intratumor Microvessel Density as a Prognostic Factor in Cancer. American Journal ofPathology, Vol. 147, No. 1, July 1995 7. WC Willett: Diet, nutrition, and avoidable cancer. Environmental Health Perspectives 103:165-170, 1995 (suppl 8)

Contradiction

These two sentences seem to contradict eachother. Can someone who knows how this is supposed to read make it more clear?

"Substances that cause DNA mutations are known as mutagens, and mutagens that cause cancers are known as carcinogens."

"Many mutagens are also carcinogens, but some carcinogens are not mutagens."

Talk for above

For To Avoid the Contradiction, you must Deny that cancer is mutation cell. but most scientists believe that cancer is mutation cell. But straight evidence is not revealed. anyway some cancer cell have mutated position.

DNA mutations some times mean just changed DNA base pair. But some times mutations mean to mutate with evolution and certain function. The former mutations are simple but the latter mutations have huge mystery that is hard to explain.

"Substances that cause DNA mutations are known as mutagens, and mutagens that cause cancers are known as carcinogens."

In above sentence, I also have a doubt in statistics. There are too many cancer patients to say cancer cell is mutation cell.

Some cancer is virus based cancer. But other cancer is spontaneous cancer. And spontaneous cancer have short telomere(1) at last in this article and HeLa(HPV-18 positive cell line, virus based cancer) have long telomere(another virus based cancer have short telomere, it means that virus based cancer have no relation to the lenght of telomere).

"These two sentences seem to contradict eachother."

In above sentence, I agree your opinion. Some cancer cell have detectable mutation part. It means that some other cancer have not detectable mutation part. This is just guess but perhaps spontaneous cancer is not mutation cell.

Following is not proved and It is just a doubtful guess. But it's not swindle from a dishonest motive

Spontaneous cancers without any virus positive are maybe Programed Life Death(PLD) for generation shift. Human gene programed senescence and death as the process of generation shift. But some old man(The meaning of short telomere is old) doesn't concede his right to the next generations. So gene let him surrender his right to the next generations and die with induced tumor. In the wild, old animal get hunger so easily because of its weak power. But human's hunger doesn't depend on his or her physical power. Above tells about the ingestion of enough calories and the cancer formation

Short telomere have strong relation to spontaneous cancers at last in this article(1, full text of this article is free. Before read this article, you have to know that HeLa is HPV-18 positive cell line in other word virus based cancer) Above tells about the short telomere and the cancer formation

So perhaps the short telomere and the ingestion of enough calories are the key to cancer rise as a PLD. Cancer formation may be induced when somatic cells which have short telomere are exposed to urge to divide themselves. And virus negative cancer cell may divides itself without any lost of telomere length.

P.s

"Most cancer cells starve(die) and 4% of survived cells induce KRAS Pathway Mutations in 9mg/dl glucose(In To Maintaining Low Blood Sugar as a New Cancer Treatment, this writing exists just above in this pase)"

In above sentence, "KRAS Pathway Mutations" means the evolution for more intake of sugar and survival

some threat of life causes corresponding mutations(evolution) rarely. In other word, "KRAS Pathway Mutations" mean 0.5mM(9mg/dl) glucose is pretty strong threat for cancer cells.

REFERENCES

1.de Lange T, L Shiue, R M myers, et al: Structure and variability of human chromosome ends. Molecular and Cellular Biology 10:518-527, 1990

Evilstriver (talk) 04:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed update to prostate cancer study

The following text currently exists under "Prevention" > "Diet":

A 2005 secondary prevention study showed that consumption of a plant-based diet and lifestyle changes resulted in a reduction in cancer markers in a group of men with prostate cancer who were using no conventional treatments at the time.[53]

I would like to replace with the following text:

A 2005 secondary prevention study published in the Journal of Urology by Dr. Dean Ornish, showed that a year long "intensive lifestyle change" consisting of a vegan diet, aerobic exercise, stress management and weekly group therapy resulted in a 4% reduction in PSA levels with no patients having to leave the study for conventional treatment due to disease progression. In contrast, the control group for this study experienced a 6% increase in PSA levels with 6 patients having to leave the study for conventional treatment due to disease progression. [53]

--Thomas.vandenbroeck (talk) 03:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I have an update to my original proposal text, here it is...

A 2005 secondary prevention study on prostate cancer published by Dr. Dean Ornish, showed that a year long "intensive lifestyle change" consisting of a vegan diet, aerobic exercise, stress management and weekly group therapy resulted in a 4% reduction in PSA levels with no patients having to leave the study due to disease progression. In contrast, the control group for this study experienced a 6% increase in PSA levels with 6 patients having to leave the study for conventional treatment due to disease progression.(footnote)

--Thomas.vandenbroeck (talk) 15:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a single study, not a reliable source. Not currently. JFW | T@lk 19:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is a single study, from a very reliable source: "The Journal of Urology" http://www.jurology.com/
--Thomas.vandenbroeck (talk) 23:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikilink it

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tumore--Baboz (talk) 09:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope, different concept. JFW | T@lk 19:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Censorishness

This probably sound silly, alright, but am I the only person who is bothered by the picture inserts? I can't really focus on the article with tumors hanging on the edge of my sight. Is there any way at all to make the pictures 'click to see' or anything like that, seeing as how there's already video inserts? --Too lazy to sign in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.108.164.67 (talk) 19:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED. JFW | T@lk 19:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to include involuntary exposure to chemical contaminants in the Causes of Cancer section and in the Prevention Section

Cancer is predominately an environmental rather than a genetic disease. The geneticists interpretation of the environment includes lifestyle factors. However, there is a growing body of scientific opinion that postulates involuntary (non-lifestyle)exposure to environmental contaminants such as persistent organic pollutants, xenoestogens and other endocrine disrupting chemicals, may be implicated in the increased incidence of cancer over the past half century. It seems the evidence of involuntary exposure to these chemicals is a neglected topic in this article. So are the internal links to NGOs and Charities, that are concerned with primary prevention by promoting reduction of human exposure to these chemicals. The new EU REACH regulations show that there is concern, so does the myriad of epidemiological, toxicological, in vivo and in vitro studies. --Scottishscouser (talk) 09:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

The section on causes includes, as its very first subsection, chemical carcinogens. Coverage is comparable to the other listed causes of cancer and in most cases is more detailed. For further detail there is a linked article specifically about carcinogens. If you're suggesting that carcinogens require greater coverage within this article then you'll need to provide some solid rationale for this, for example demonstrating that chemical carcinogens are of greater significance relative to the other causes than is suggested by the current coverage. I also note that you are the originator of the article on the charity you mention. If you're associated with that charity and attempting to further their agenda, whoever noble or correct, you may be pushing the boundaries of Wikipedia's policies on neutrality/conflict of interest etc. Please have a look at the policy for guidance on this.DoktorDec (talk) 11:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

One thing I am not doing is trying to push an agenda, I am a research scientist interested in cancer prevention. Primary prevention of cancer seems to be an important topic and I am looking at things objectively. I understand that chemicals are covered in the carcinogenic section, however, the involuntary exposure to such chemicals in everyday products to my mind is not covered as well as it might be. I have no agenda, I just feel everything should be covered, which may contribute to the complex multifactoral disease of cancer. --Scottishscouser (talk) 09:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)