Talk:Carcinoma

Hi

Fasterfester 17:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC) Hi, can someone with some background try to make this page more readable to the unwashed masses?  :) I was trying to get a broad understanding of carcinoma (found it on Web MD), but the description here is chock full of medical terms, and is fairly undecipherable. Just a sinlge paragraph at the top would go a long way to making this a very useful article. Thanks!

Presuming it to be a typographic error, I have changed "adenocortical" to "adrenocortical". The original word had an internal hyperlink to another page which in turn redirected it back to this page. I do not know how to fix this broken link. In any case I feel it would be rude to the original author to change this link without my change being checked.

--Mfitchtoo 15:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC) I agree with the comments above completely. In the first short definition I had to look up two words. Cytological (having to do with cells, so why not just say cellular? or if that won't do, something similar) and histological. I think what was being said about the histological thing was "no evidence of the carcinoma spreading beyond the immediate tissue, or something like that. Would someone clean this up so we non-doctors can use it? Please.

Deletion

User:Nqn removed virtually all content of the page without a good reason. I have reverted this and asked what he was thinking. JFW | T@lk 17:10, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Illegible

Is it just me or is this page completely unreadable? I'm sure it doesn't need that many links. This page needs a complete do-over imho. Stealth Wilde (talk) 09:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Carcinoma External Link to Add

(Browneee (talk) 18:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)) Hello. We would like to add a link to the carinoma page to direct users to the carcinoma clinical study currently being conducted. This is not a promotion to buy or sell anything, just a link for carcinoma patients looking in the Wiki to find answers, current information and treatment.

You can access the site at Arqule Studies for more information. Maybe we could add a new "External Links" section to the page for the link? Would that be okay?

Tone / Viewpoint in the Last Section ("Differentiated carcinoma")

"Many people get frightened when they hear the word cancer. Cancer unfortunately is a common illness in our society. Cells in almost every part of the body can become cancerous. While cancer is a disease of old age, children can also develop certain cancers. [8] There are many types of cancers that affect different parts of our body. While we do know what causes some cancers, (e.g. sun causes skin cancers or that smoking can cause lung cancers), for the vast majority of cancers the cause remains unknown. All we know is that cancers represent cells that have lost the ability to die and continue to proliferate."

This reads like it came out of a children's book. Not sure if it was taken from somewhere somewhere else, but the sources cited don't seem to have much of direct connection to the material. Punctum (talk) 23:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Organization

What do you think about putting all the staging/grading/types/variants/ICD codes under ==Classification of carcinomas==, and putting most of what's currently in that section under ==Classification of malignancies== (i.e., that there are things that aren't carcinomas)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Carcinoma == Cancer?

This article talks about Ductal Carcinoma in Situ not being considered "cancer". If this is true (mammary ductal carcinoma says otherwise) does it make sense to define "carcinoma" the way this article does?--Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 17:22, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

This is an important question for non-medical researchers trying to interpret results given by medical professionals. The current definition precludes a "non-cancerous" carcinoma. This artcicle needs to be reconciled with lobular carcinoma in situ. Macdust (talk) 17:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC) 17:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Have you read the Carcinoma#Carcinoma In situ section carefully? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that a competent reader would not have this problem? If so, let me assure you that I am as competent a reader as you could hope for, resourceful enough to research this subject without Wikipedia. My purpose in commenting here is to make Wikipedia more useful and more reliable.

The problem lies in the contradictory definitions of carcinoma between articles, not within this one article.

Now that you bring that passage into the conversation, however, consider this sentence: " CIS is a pre-invasive cancer, and not a pre-malignant entity." Does that mean it won't be malignant in the future? Click to the hyperlinked article "Cancer" and read "Cancer, known medically as a malignant neoplasm ..." Don't expect readers to decipher such sloppy exposition. Macdust (talk) 02:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)