Talk:Prostate cancer

Early Detection and Diagnosis

There is a large industry built up around testing for prostate cancer and the article as it was written seemed biased towards testing. I have attempted to remove some of this bias and balance it with the American Cancer Society's position statement. Further, new EN2 testing may greatly alter how frequently expensive procedures such as a biopsy are called for.

To help prevent what is hopefully a more balanced and update section from magically disappearing, I have created this discussion to record changes made and offer a place for anyone that deems the section needs to be changed a spot to record changes.

Diet and lifestyle

I think the current first sentence best reflects the reference information. Jmh's version does not reflect that source. Please explain or make another submittal.

I tried to organize the main topics into paragraphs, instead of lumping all into one run-on disorganized first paragraph.32cllou (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Have reverted these edits as they are based on a number of primary sources and removes secondary sources.

This is a primary source [1]

As is this [2]

This ref works just fine were I am [3] and is a secondary source. Doc James (talk ·contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The first sentence of our section on prevention is "The data on the relationship between diet and prostate cancer is poor" and is based on this ref which concludes "Due to the number and heterogeneity of published studies investigating diet and PCa, it is difficult to determine what nutrients make up the perfect diet for the primary and secondary prevention of PCa." and "Current literature linking these nutrients to PCa is limited at best". All conclusions are made in light of this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree taking out those two primary studies. I didn't put them in, just left them (As did you in your prior edit).

These two reviews are quite usable: http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/4841/1/4841.pdf and http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/cid/documents/webcontent/002577-pdf.pdf WHICH YOU REMOVED. Please explain.

As for the first sentence; Just as mine was taken almost verbatim from that review, your's is too. But yours is too strong (poor, versus scant or limited in number). And you remove the "Context" of the Western-style diet. Based on the other two reviews (see paragraph above) lets try (see article).32cllou (talk) 17:27, 21 March 2013 (UTC

I've added a second very high quality secondary source to support the first sentence in diet and lifestyle.32cllou (talk) 18:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

If you look at this sentence "There is some tentative evidence for foods containing lycopene and selenium." you will notice that the review is there just properly formatted.

If you look at this sentence "Men who get regular exercise may have a slightly lower risk, especially vigorous activity and the risk of advanced prostate cancer." you will notice that the other review is also there.

You will notice the primary research in the article before my edit and it not being there after [4] specifically this source [5]

You have still not provided justification for why you have removed this textbook Male Reproductive Cancers. Springer New York. 2010. p. 27. ISBN 9781441904508. and its conclusions. Thus reverted again as there is no consensus for your changes. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

You were also missing page numbers in for the WCRF. And the caps in the heading are wrong. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Let go through sentence by sentence

You write "The incidence of prostate cancer is associated with consumption of the common "Western-style" diet." Yet page 194 of the ref states "Analysis of data from the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study found no association between a ‘western’ dietary pattern and prostate cancer risk."[6] and no page number for the above is given. The other ref says it is correlated with regions where men consume a so-called Western diet and that is only context not conclusion [7]. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Good to talk more. I am sorry to have added that [8] reference, because it wasn't needed (the existing masko2012 meta had that statement). The sentence you cited (from page 194) is from a primary study and can't be used here. The sections 1.3 and 1.4 delve into diet / migrant studies which support the sentence. But I'll take out the citation if you want.

We are free / encouraged to include "Context" from a meta.

You have removed lots of other text from secondary sources. Why?32cllou (talk) 22:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Which text are you referring to? I have summarized some of the text supported by reviews further.

So section 1.3 and 1.4 but what page and exactly? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The sentence you selected (pg 194) was citing one primary study; It's not in general overview text, or conclusions. See pg 76? The migrant studies 1.3 - 1.4 simply find much higher incidence of cancer in general after people move to eat a Western diet. I will not use that reference because the meta you use for the first sentence already contains the meaning under Context. I guess you left the two other reviews, but why insist on such a short sentences? How about: The incidence of prostate cancer seems to be correlated with the common "Western-style" diet.32cllou (talk) 00:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I think we should use "probable cause" just like the review.32cllou (talk) 00:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Why do you write "In light of this?32cllou (talk) 00:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The heading should be diet and lifestyle, not just lifestyle. More that half the text is about foods.32cllou (talk) 00:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The reference on pg 27 does not support "While the available evidence is poor," in the masturbation / pc sentence.[[9]] They say pretty much the opposite. I can't find why you included pg 16 [[10]] so I took that reference out.32cllou (talk) 03:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

And next we work on Dietary.32cllou (talk) 04:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I reverted a few changes that didn't make the best use of the sources. The most important point of Masko is the poor evidence, same with Foulkes. Also reverted were some wording changes, article content was more clear in version reverted to, and clear wording is essential to expressing what's in the source. Zad68 04:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I do not believe you read the study abstract and book references before making those statements.32cllou (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Masko says that the state of the evidence makes it "difficult to determine" recommendations and "further prospective studies are warranted", so it's correct to characterize the evidence as poor, and this sort of wording is accessible to the general reader. Per WP:MEDRS we focus on evidence quality, so this is important and should not be removed from the article. The reasoning for the characterization of the evidence discussed in Male Reproductive Cancers is similar. The bit sourced to Comprehensive Textbook of Genitourinary Oncology is tentative and old but it's on a topic without a huge research base, I'll look for something more recent but I'm OK with it coming out until something more recent and/or definitive is found. Zad68 03:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Hogwash. What you are doing is synthesis, which is prohibited! I was nearly quoting the source. Wikipedia is corrupt to the core.32cllou (talk) 18:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Since I PERSONALLY think the research is scant, I've no reason to fix this sentence to make it accurate. Next time Jmh, Talk before warring.32cllou (talk) 19:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

This is a very unbalanced page

The introduction to this article presents as settled a topic which is in fact extremely controversial, i.e., the question of prostate cancer screening and its effect on mortality. I am far from a Wikipedia expert, but every attempt I have made to introduce balance has been immediately revised back to baseline. In point of fact, the best evidence to date demonstrate clearly that there is a mortality benefit screening, though this of course does come at the cost of overdiagnosis. This is not an opinion, is rather a statement of fact. I added citations to both primary and secondary sources supporting this and they were all deleted. I have on three occasions attempted to insert references to guidelines which disagree with the USPSTF and in all cases they were immediately deleted. The USPSTF did a poor job with its evidence review. The fact that they have the imprimatur of the government does not mean they are the only experts (indeed, with one exception the task force membership has no expertise whatsoever in prostate cancer). It is a major disservice to general readers that both sides of the controversy are not presented here. I realize there is a separate page devoted to the controversy, but the overall introduction to prostate cancer on the page cannot start with incorrect information without any disclaimer or rejoinder. Drcoop (talk) 23:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Drcoop (talk • contribs) 23:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC) 

A number of suggestions were made on your talk page. I think you're right that something should be mentioned about the other guidelines, though I think the USPSTF just by default should be the one with the most space in the lead paragraph. Perhaps something like "Other specialty societies have publicly disagreed with the recommendations of the USPSTF" with references, and then perhaps a bit more explication either in the screening section, or on the Prostate cancer screening page (as I suggested at your talk page). If I have some time in the next few days and there is no disagreement with this approach I should be able to do so myself. I think you may also find benefit from taking a look at WP:PILLARS, WP:AGF, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and WP:MEDRS. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 23:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Ginger has been shown to benefit prostate cancer. see: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21849094 Arydberg (talk) 20:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Squid Ink for Prostate Cancer

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3497014/ does this study meet the standards for a medical article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CensoredScribe (talk • contribs) 14:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Simple answer is: No. That's an in vitro primary research study. We're looking for secondary sources to make statements about health effects in humans. See WP:MEDRS. Zad68 14:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

NICE guideline

National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Clinical guideline 175: Prostate cancer. London, 2014. is out. It might be useful. JFW | T@lk 06:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

clinical prostate cancer?

What is the difference between clinical prostate cancer and regular prostate cancer? I'm just wondering if it's wordy or verbose? Zaurus (talk) 18:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes just wordy and verbose. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Poor diagram

I think the diagram with the caption "When normal cells are damaged beyond repair, they are eliminated by apoptosis." is very simplistic and should be removed. Firstly, it is general to all cancers so should be on the main cancer page if anywhere. But the main problem is that it is so simplistic that it adds absolutely nothing to the article, and the caption requires no illustration. Andrewthomas10 (talk) 14:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)