Talk:Breast cancer: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:27, 11 March 2016

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Breast cancer article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4: 365 days

Template:Vital article

Breast cancer was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
July 16, 2006	Good article nominee	Not listed
June 29, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed

Current status: Former good article nominee

Medicine: Hematology-oncology / Translation / Pathology B‑class Top‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Hematology-oncology task force.
	This article is supported by the Translation task force (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by the Pathology task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Women's Health B‑class High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's Health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HealthTemplate:WikiProject Women's Healthwomen's health articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Breast cancer.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by when more than 1 section is present.

Breast Cancer Culture section

The breast cancer culture section is extremely opinionated and does not read like encyclopedic text. " Appearing to have suffered bravely is the passport into the culture" is most definitely not wikipedia correct tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.230.71.50 (talk) 18:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have submitted a revision that revises some of the language critiquing the pink ribbon campaign, and flagged the "breast cancer culture" section with what I think are appropriate templates. We should probably talk here about how to rework the section so that it introduces the same content in an appropriate way. Acone (talk) 22:09, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your revision, unfortunately, departed from what the sources said, making the text both wrong and unverifiable. Patients' rights in the context of breast cancer mean things like "Do not perform a mastectomy without my explicit permission". You are obviously too young to remember this, but back in the day, women used to go in for a "diagnostic biopsy" and wake up hours later with a breast missing. Once upon a time, radical mastectomies were performed even when the woman directly demanded a lumpectomy instead. Or the doctors would ask their husbands for consent, rather than the women themselves. There are still places in the world where doctors diagnose cancer and refuse to tell the patient! (Japan was notorious for this; the doctors would send patients home with chemotherapy in pill form and not tell them what the drugs were or why they needed to take them.) This has absolutely nothing to do with abortion.

Wikipedia is most encyclopedic when it reflects what the sources say. Saying what the sources say is the definition of neutrality. (WP:Brilliant prose is a minor goal.) If you can find a source that disagrees with this – that says, for example, that attitude doesn't affect social acceptance in survivor support groups – then we need to update the article. I've read half a dozen of them, though, and I've found unanimity on this point. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pregnancy and breast cancer clarification needed

Doc James, I would like to raise an area that needs revision on this page concerning the interaction between pregnancy and breast cancer. It has been found that there is a period of increased risk in developing breast cancer following birth. This has been reported in the mainstream news, many epidemiological studies, primary research papers, and review articles. This is in contrast to the risk of developing breast cancer while pregnant, which is correctly stated as having the same risk compared to a non-pregnant woman. This is very important because this page consistently states that pregnancy is either not a factor, or is actually helpful in reducing risk of breast cancer. It turns out that while pregnancy can be protective long-term, pregnancy can enhance risk of breast cancer for 5-10 years following a recent childbirth. This is so important, because these breast cancers, termed postpartum breast cancer, more often result in metastatic disease and carry a very poor prognosis compared to other breast cancers. This is emerging as a very important subtype of breast cancer, and young women need to be informed so they can be more aware of any/all breast changes that occur postpartum.

In the section called “pregnancy” it states that “Cancers found during or shortly after pregnancy appear at approximately the same rate as other cancers in women of a similar age.” I propose this should read: Breast cancers occur during pregnancy at the same rate as breast cancers in non-pregnant women. However, 5-10 years following a recent pregnancy there is an increased risk of developing breast cancer, termed postpartum breast cancer, and these cancers have worse prognoses (refs 1-8). Women diagnosed with breast cancer 5-10 years post-partum have an increased risk of disease progression and metastasis as well as decreased survival.

Also, I would like to discuss how we could edit the sentence in the opening of the article that states “ having children late or not at all..” is a risk factor for breast cancer. Since we know it is much more complicated, and actually being within 5-10 years of a pregnancy could be considered a risk factor.

1. Lambe M, Hsieh C, Trichopoulos D, Ekbom A, Pavia M, Adami HO. Transient increase in the risk of breast cancer after giving birth. N Engl J Med. 331(1):5-9, 1994.

2. Colditz GA, Rosner B. Cumulative risk of breast cancer to age 70 years according to risk factor status: data from the Nurses' Health Study. Am J Epidemiol. 152(10):950-64, 2000.

3. Willett WC, Tamimi RM, Hankinson SE, Hunter DJ, Colditz GA. Chapter 20: Nongenetic Factors in the Causation of Breast Cancer, in Harris JR, Lippman ME, Morrow M, Osborne CK. Diseases of the Breast, 4th edition, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2010.

4. Ewertz M, Duffy SW, Adami HO, et al. Age at first birth, parity and risk of breast cancer: a meta-analysis of 8 studies from the Nordic countries. Int J Cancer. 46(4):597-603, 1990.

5. Albrektsen G, Heuch I, Hansen S, Kvale G. Breast cancer risk by age at birth, time since birth and time intervals between births: exploring interaction effects. Br J Cancer. 2005;92:167-75.

6. Chie WC, Hsieh C, Newcomb PA, et al. Age at any full-term pregnancy and breast cancer risk. Am J Epidemiol. 2000;151:715-22.

7. Liu Q, Wuu J, Lambe M, Hsieh SF, et al. Transient increase in breast cancer risk after giving birth: postpartum period with the highest risk (Sweden). Cancer Causes Control. 2002;13:299-305.

8. Schedin P. Pregnancy-associated breast cancer and metastasis. Nat Rev Cancer. 2006;6:281-91.

We try to use refs from the last 5 to 10 years User:Cbba1656. (3) appears okay but need a page number if possible.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about this review [1] from 2012? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WRT “ having children late or not at all..” cancer.gov states "Older age at first birth or never having given birth." as a risk factor [2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response Doc James. The review from 2012 is great, however doesn't necessarily talk about metastasis, so inclusion of Schedin P 2006 may be necessary as well.

In response to the risk factor part of the article, could we consider adding a recent childbirth? Since these articles support the idea that there is increased risk of developing breast cancer 5-10 years postpartum? We could use the same references.--Cbba1656 (talk) 22:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure so we can use Viswanathan, S; Ramaswamy, B (December 2011). "Pregnancy-associated breast cancer". Clinical obstetrics and gynecology. 54 (4): 546–55. PMID 22031245.. What exactly do we want to change or add? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doc James. Can we add "a recent childbirth" to the current sentence:

Risk factors for developing breast cancer include: female sex, obesity, lack of physical exercise, drinking alcohol, hormone replacement therapy during menopause, ionizing radiation, early age at first menstruation, having children late or not at all, and older age.[2][4] Citations that support this addition are: PMID: 22785217 and PMID: 16557280.

And also edit the "pregnancy" section to say this:

Breast cancers occur during pregnancy at the same rate as breast cancers in non-pregnant women. However, 5-10 years following a pregnancy there is an increased risk of developing breast cancer, termed postpartum breast cancer, and these cancers have worse outcomes. Women with postpartum breast cancer have an increased risk of distant spread of their disease and mortality(PMID: 22785217 and PMID: 16557280).

And I will start working on a postpartum breast cancer entry that could link to this article where further information could be found.--Cbba1656 (talk) 23:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This ref does not say recent pregnancy is a risk factor in the abstract just those that get breast cancer associated with preg do worse PMID: 22785217 correct?

The next ref does not mention an increased risk in the abstract just the increased severity. Which sentence in these sources support "a recent childbirth" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah here we go "It is known that pregnancy exert a bi-directional effect on breast cancer development with a short-term increase in risk (up to 5 or 10 years), and a somewhat protective effect afterwards" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Updated here [3] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doc James The edits look great, and are accurate according to the literature and the references cited. Thanks for your help. --Cbba1656 (talk) 20:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Cbba1656 for raising this :-) Feel free to continue editing Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New text

The ref by Hayes states "Current and recent users of oral contraceptives have a 24% increase in the risk of breast cancer compared with never users; RR 1.2 (1.2–1.3), 3,18 but this declines after stopping use, with no excess risk 10 years from last use.31"

Not sure how this supports " but whether oral contraceptives use may actually cause premenopausal breast cancer is a matter of debate." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That claim was previously unsourced; I wonder whether it is actually true that there is actually a debate. I thought that there was good (but not great) evidence that it had a small effect, especially if used late (and by "small", I mean "saves lives, net, because of its causative role in reducing ovarian cancer"). The NHS and Cancer.gov seem to take it as settled that there is an effect, despite their interest in more research.

Perhaps the solution is to remove the claim that a serious debate still exists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The next ref discusses the question of whether or not the link is causal. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External link to a risk calculator

A lot of our articles related to this cancer talk about low-risk or high-risk women, and a lot of American women incorrectly believe that they are high-risk. I wonder whether it would be good to include a link to this risk calculator. It covers more than the old Gail model, and with the article under Pending Changes, I don't think we need to worry about it becoming spambait. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DCIS JAMA Oncol 2015

The study of DCIS in JAMA Oncology should change a lot of this entry. I posted links in the DCIS talk page, Talk:Ductal_carcinoma_in_situ#JAMA_Oncol_2015. They did a large epidemiological study which found that DCIS doesn't increase mortality from breast cancer, in my understanding. --Nbauman (talk) 17:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to Edwin Papyrus in the 'History' section

The Edwin Smith Papyrus describes 8 cases of tumors or ulcers of the breast that were treated by cauterization

I cannot find any reference for this assertion in the translation of the Edwin Smith Papyrus, although it is repeated over and over on the web. All I can find is a description of chest tumors (Case 45, 15,9-19), that could be breast tumors, although the writer definitely talks about a male person. See for yourself at the National Library of Medicine^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyana (talk • contribs) 21:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ U.S. National Library of Medicine

Tagging 10 dead links using Checklinks

Doc James, Tagging 10 dead links using Checklinks. Left them unfixed. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 04:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. The previous tool you were using however was not fixing them either. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doc James, Checklinks does not fix them, it just finds them. The fixes are done manually then Checklinks inserts the fixes. I do not know of an automated tool for fixing dead refs. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 01:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cyberpower678 has built one. It is going to be using Internet Archive. Not sure when a big run is going to begin. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully soon. There's a major flaw that needs to be fixed. It has fixed several thousand links on several thousand pages.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 02:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the bright side, the engine has practically a 0% chance of fetching a bad archive at this point.

Then there's the task of installing a heuristic to detect untagged dead links.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 02:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well thank you for tackling this :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James and C678:, one problem with Checklinks is it does not find dead subscription links; another problem is that it takes up to 18-months for links to have archived versions. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 04:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing about Endocrine-resistant breast cancer

so where should we direct to ? - Rod57 (talk) 21:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Breast cancer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Breast cancer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Breast cancer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101120135605/http://barbaraehrenreich.com/cancerland.htm to http://www.barbaraehrenreich.com/cancerland.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:56, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lapatinib

Lapatinib has been used for breast cancer treatment (in combination with other substances), see for example a PubMed review article by Fleeman et al [4]. There is also one study on using a combination of lapatinib and trastuzumab for treating HER2 positive breast cancer [5] by Bundred et al and a PubMed article (not a review) by Blackwell et al on the combination of lapatinib and trastuzumab [6]. Could it be worth mentioning lapatinib in this article, or would it be necessary to wait for (further) review articles?

--2A02:810D:D40:9910:2C2B:13B2:9B:8AC5 (talk) 20:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[1] U.S. National Library of Medicine

[1]

@@ Line 178: / Line 178: @@
 Cheers.—[[User:Cyberbot II|<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II]]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">[[User talk:Cyberbot II|<span style="color:green">Talk to my owner]]:Online</sub></small> 19:56, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
+== Lapatinib ==
+:Lapatinib has been used for breast cancer treatment (in combination with other substances), see for example a PubMed review article by Fleeman et al [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22152751]. There is also one study on using a combination of lapatinib and trastuzumab for treating HER2 positive breast cancer [http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-03/eeco-lat030816.php] by Bundred et al and a PubMed article (not a review) by Blackwell et al on the combination of lapatinib and trastuzumab [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22689807]. Could it be worth mentioning lapatinib in this article, or would it be necessary to wait for (further) review articles?
+:--[[Special:Contributions/2A02:810D:D40:9910:2C2B:13B2:9B:8AC5|2A02:810D:D40:9910:2C2B:13B2:9B:8AC5]] ([[User talk:2A02:810D:D40:9910:2C2B:13B2:9B:8AC5|talk]]) 20:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)