Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pancreatic cancer/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 109.158.8.201 (talk) at 14:03, 28 December 2014 (→‎Comments by Jfdwolff: in Mechanism - a query regarding genetics of PanNETs). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Pancreatic cancer

Pancreatic cancer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Wiki CRUK John (talk) 15:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is about one of the most aggressive and hard to treat cancers. Improving the article has been one of the targets of Wikipedia:WikiProject CRUK. I'm very grateful to all the many editors who have contributed. The article has had a thorough peer review, with several editors editing as well as commenting. The article has also been reviewed internally at Cancer Research UK. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 15:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review by SandyGeorgia

Great to see you here, John! I am watchlisting, and will review, but not today, and perhaps not tomorrow. Right off the bat, though, I am seeing several incomplete citations; could you run through and make sure all of your citations are complete and in a consistent format? Your PMID sources seem consistent, but some others are incomplete. Also, could you explain minor deviations from MEDMOS suggested sections? More later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of citation consistency moved to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Citation consistency and some MOS issues are mostly cleaned up, and I've left some prose and sourcing discussion on article talk.[1] Please ping me for more thorough review when some of that has been processed. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from an ip

I don't to make any review comments on sections I've worked on, but I think it's probably ok to help out elsewhere.

  • In the "Risk factors" section:
    Some studies have found links with diets high in red meat, processed meat,[35] and sugar-sweetened drinks (soft drinks).[36] The abstract of ref. 36 concludes "a slight correlation between risk of pancreatic cancer and [carbonated soft drinks] consumption has been found." Personally I don't think "a slight correlation" (whatever that may be) would provide strong enough causal evidence to deserve this mention. According to PMID 22194529 (technically, another potential MEDRS), "Although we were only able to examine a modest intake of [carbonated soft drinks], there was a suggestive and slightly positive association for their intakes which reached statistical significance in certain subgroups of participants (e.g., nondiabetics, nondrinkers of alcohol)." [2] Hmm, I'd cut it...
    Fwiw, I'd also perhaps avoid starting the sentence with the phrase "Some studies have..." as this can give an impression of cherry picking of primary studies, whereas the evidence for red and processed meats is actually sourced to a meta-analysis (ref. 35), albeit of observational studies. 86.164.164.29 (talk) 22:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've cut the soft drinks, although they did actually show up in my survey of advice from NCI, CRUK, ACS et al, which was why they were there. The meta-analysis shows that "some studies have...". Wiki CRUK John (talk) 22:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't have much to say but it's in regards to the same section as what 86.164.164.29 just commented on so I'll just piggyback off them:
      • "though see the sections on obesity and alcohol" should probably be cut – there is no (longer?) a section on obesity and the section on alcohol is literally a sentence away.
Yes, rewritten, pending including source just below. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 10:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • PMID 24403441, a systematic review on nutrition and pancreatic cancer, seems like a useful source for this section. There are a lot of conclusions about particular foods that are drawn from observational studies, so lets skip ahead briefly to the conclusion: "There is an abundance of evidence in the literature on the role of nutrition in pancreatic carcinogenesis. Often the evidence is inconclusive due to confounding factors...The lack of large randomized control trials makes it harder to establish causative associations for various nutrient types. [list of associations follow]."
    • Good luck! NW (Talk) 22:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Classification" section basically provides information on histological types, without really summarizing the clinical classification in terms of grading and staging etc, which as usual in Wikipedia disease articles is located (usefully, imo) under "Diagnosis". Broadly per the spirit of a helpful discussion at Cancer Research UK on the fringes of Wikimania and subsequent proposals at MEDMOS, including this one, I think it would be both more appropriate and more reader-friendly to title the section as "Types". As I feel that the heading "Classification" may needlessly be a source of discouragement to our readers – this is the opening section after the lead - I've boldly implemented the suggestion I made at PR... 86.164.164.29 (talk) 09:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Curly Turkey

  • Way out of my comfort zone (and makes me queasy), but let's see if I can make it through. I'm only looking at the prose, and through the eyes of a (very) non-subject expert.
  • I see a mix of serial and non-serial commas
Lead
  • One to two in every hundred cases of pancreatic cancer: there can't be 1 1/2 cases out of a batch of a hundred, so perhaps this would be better as "one to two per cent of"
It's been changed from that for reasons of accessibility; %s are less widely understood than one might think. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 22:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A smoker's chances of developing the disease are reduced if they cease smoking: I personally think the singular they should be freed from the closet, but I thought I'd point it out just in case this wasn't intended.
No, out and proud. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 22:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Treatment options are partly based on the cancer stage.: meaning they are decided based on the cancer stage?
Yes, both of those, which seem slightly different but valid statements to me. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 22:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • the top three vary by gender, including breast cancer for women and prostate cancer for men: I wonder if this should be in the article, as it's US-specific
It's in a note (or should be) & that bit is certainly not US-specific. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 09:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • the 5-year survival rate rises about 20%: rises to or by 20%?
"to", done. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 22:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • signet ring cell carcinomas: I don't think "signet ring" is linking where you intended
No indeed, someone had changed it. Sorted Wiki CRUK John (talk) 09:02, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Classification

* ("invasive" and "ductal" may be added to this term): are "invasive" or "ductal" carry any meaning?

Yes, the ones you'd expect: invasive because cancer (and a very agressive one) and arising in the ducts. Meaning is not really the issue, it's a question of the variable names used. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 10:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This has now been rephrased somewhat. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 09:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • endocrine cancers (see next section): perhaps "(see the [[#Endocine|Endocrine section]])" in case someone rearranges sections (say, by alphabetizing them)
Anything is possible, but they are more likely to rename them, messing up the link, aren't they? I thought such links were discouraged. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 10:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can avoid having the links break by using {{anchor}}. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See Sandy Georgia on her Talk review complaining about "bouncing the reader around". Wiki CRUK John (talk) 09:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Signs and symptoms
  • This is one of the main reasons for the generally poor survival rates. Exceptions to this are the functioning PanNETs, whose over-production of hormones is likely to give a range of symptoms according to the type.: is this supposed to share an inline cite with the previous statement?
No, needs another. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 22:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the UK, about half of new cases: is this comparable to other countries?
I don't have comparative figures for anywhere, which may not exist, but it should be fairly comparable for developed countries, perhaps on the high side; probably rather more so than US figures which are endlessly given in these articles without arousing any comment, and are often also at the extremes for the developed world. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 22:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Up to two-thirds of people have abdominal pain, < !-- Wolgang 341 cites 2007 study that says "nearly 75%" -- >: "nearly 75%" is more than two-thirds---what's the story here?
Refined per the source to "In up to two-thirds of people abdominal pain is the main symptom" which probably accounts for the difference, though actually such statistics do jump around between different studies. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 18:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Risk factors
  • CDKN2A is a disambiguation page
Yes, though I doubt that it should be (is anybody familiar enough to confirm?). Linked to p16 Wiki CRUK John (talk) 10:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There was another one, fixed: [3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There a commented-out bit on gingivitis. What's the story?
From the old version, but most main sources don't mention. I should cut. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 10:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This and partial gastrectomy now removed,; noted on talk at Talk:Pancreatic_cancer#Risk_factors_removed. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 14:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the association between alcohol abuse and pancreatitis is well established ... the majority of studies have found no association: the association is well established, yet the majority of studies find no association?
2 diseases: "While the association between alcohol abuse and pancreatitis is well established, considerable research has failed to firmly establish alcohol consumption as a risk factor for pancreatic cancer." Wiki CRUK John (talk) 10:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Diagnosis & Staging
  • < !-- Yes, refs needed; I know; Wolfgang I think -- >: so you plan to deal with this? The following paragraph lacks cites, too.
  • Pancreatic cancer is usually staged using a CT scan.: also uncited
Done, but also moved down Johnbod (talk) 00:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • (e.g. cholangiocarcinoma) and some stomach cancers; thus, it may not always be possible to be certain that a tumor found in the pancreas arose from it.: where should the closing parenthesis fall? Also, lacking a cite
Changed. Re the ref, I have implicit ones, & I'm ptetty sure this is correct, but I don't have a ref now I can use. Does anyone? The point is worth keeping I think. Johnbod (talk) 00:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to take a break---I've got a cold that's making it hard to concentrate on this. If I don't return, ping me. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 07:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Curly Turkey, feedback from someone who is "out of their comfort zone" is a good thing! Suppose your long-lost Aunt Mabel is diagnosed with Pancratic cancer tomorrow? You, as a layperson, should be able to get from this article info you seek. Layperson review is desirable ... so please keep going! (Since you've inquired many times at WT:FAC about how to manage a review, see my section above as a sample of how to use article talk to shorten very long FACs :) I hope you're feeling better soon. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:43, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I was actually over it by Friday but neglected to return. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mechanism
  • use of CT scans for other reasons are not all treated: because it's decided they don't need to be?
Yes, the surgery is still usually major, with its own risks, and as mentioned elsewhere, the criteria for choosing to intervene are not fully established. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 18:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • three types of precancerous lesion are recognized.: The "first" and "last" are enumerated—you might want to do the same with the second for consistency and ease of skimming
Done. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 18:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • neoplasia. These are: "neoplasia" is plural?
Yes, for neoplasm. There's a neoplasms I need to lose too. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 17:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neoplasia in general and intraepithelial neoplasia in particular are definitely singular. And there's nothing wrong with neoplasm. NikosGouliaros (talk) 19:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
hmmm. Neoplasia just goes to neoplasm, but on further investigation refers to the process of formation of neoplasms, or the condition of having one (or more). And neoplasms is the correct plural it seems. Neoplasm doesn't really explain this very well. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 21:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • (the so-called "Mothers against decapentaplegic homolog 4"): this aside seems more confusing than helpful at this scope
  • < !-- Ryan 25% risk?? -- >: is this going to be dealt with?
Prevention
  • Taking a daily low-dose aspirin regimen for more than five years may decrease the risk of developing pancreatic adenocarcinoma (ductal pancreatic cancer) by as much as 75%.: I might append this to the previous paragraph
Done. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 18:40, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Management
  • Gemcitabine is administered intravenously on a weekly basis.: uncited
Removed, too close to dosage info which we don't do. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 14:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Treatment of pancreatic endocrine tumors, including the less common malignant tumors, may include a number of approaches. Watchful waiting of small tumors identified incidentally, for example on a CT scan performed for other purposes, may not ultimately need treatment, but the criteria for watchful waiting are unclear. This is mainly because the risk of surgery far outweighs the overall risk of aggressiveness for small tumours.: uncited
  • If the tumor is not amenable to surgical removal and is causing symptoms by secreting functional hormones, targeted medication for PanNETs can be effective, both in reducing symptoms and slowing the progression of the disease. These are covered in more detail in the relevant section of the main article on neuroendocrine tumors.: uncited
  • Radiation therapy is occasionally used if there is pain due to anatomic extension, such as metastasis to bone. Radiolabeled hormone: some PanNETs absorb a hormone called norepinephrine and these may respond to nuclear medicine medication, radiolabeled MIBG therapy (or, experimentally, other hormones), given intravenously. Radiofrequency ablation (RFA), cryoablation, and hepatic artery embolization may also be used.: uncited
Now cited, and indeed we have a new article for hepatic artery embolization from User:FeatherPluma. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 18:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-colon by the time I got to it. But the 5 commas after nearly bust some form of record: "... therapy, such as iobenguane (I131-MIBG), or, experimentally, other hormones, given intravenously." so I've rejigged. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 18:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Outcomes
  • although the outlook greatly varies according to the type.: uncited
  • <! -- Sp p27, but Table 12 shows the much better uterine rates have been flat -- >: I don't know what this means, but will it be dealt with?
Distribution
  • Deaths from pancreatic cancer have changed little over time.: meaning the proportion of deaths?
  • over the course of their lifetime is very low": how is this punctuated in the original?
?That's a cut n' paste quotation - see the page. There is a missing word "cancer" however", which I'll point out to them. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 09:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Missing word added on the site & the note here. Is there a remaining issue here? Wiki CRUK John (talk) 10:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • risk for African Americans is over 50% greater than for whites: I'd expect "black" to be paired with "white", or "African American" with "caucasian" (or whatever the current accepted terms are).
I don't like saying blacks, which even with the context of a US para risks suggesting this is also true for Africans, which it isn't. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 23:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm ... there's a White American article, and it distinguishes "whites" from "caucasians". Is this a distinction that plays a role here? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Surely we should take no account of WP articles on racial groups...? I certainly wouldn't expect to see "Caucasian" paired with "African American" myself; I don't think it's a respectable term these days, used for whites. SEER, who produce the US figures, report on "whites, blacks, Asian/Pacific Islanders, American Indian/Alaska Natives (footnote here), and Hispanics (who they note are "not mutually exclusive from" the other groups. Race and ethnicity in the United States Census has more on this, though the census categories jump around like anything between censuses, and are not directly comparable, which I expect SEER tries to minimize. But the main thing is to avoid at all costs giving the impression that African Americans (generally with up to 40% white genetics I believe) will have a similar risk profile to global "black" figures. Typically African people have lower cancer risks because they have very different lifestyle factors and (yet) live less long. I'll link to White American, but am against changing African American, to which "Black American" unsurprisingly redirects. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 18:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Officially, in the US: "“Black or African American” refers to a person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa. It includes people who indicated their race(s) as “Black, African Am., or Negro” or reported entries such as African American, Kenyan, Nigerian, or Haitian." (in the 2010 US census) Page 3 here. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 16:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pancreatic cancer is the tenth most common cancer in the UK (around 8,800 people were diagnosed with the disease in 2011), and it is the fifth most common cause of cancer death (around 8,700 people died in 2012).: seems to jump out of nowhere---perhaps merge with the other UK rates immediately above?
The one UK figure above is risk, in a bit on risk. I'll see if the whole section can be better arranged, but the flow is fairly logical. No-one ever complains about US figures seeming "to jump out of nowhere", though they often do. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 18:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
History
  • but the person only survived: or "patient"? "the person" could be the surgeon (I'd've just changed it to "patient", but I wnat to make sure that's the right word)
We don't like using "patient" so no doubt someone will change it back before I get to it. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 23:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then it needs to be otherwise reworded to avoid ambiguity. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How is it ambiguous? Wiki CRUK John (talk) 23:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"the person" could be Codivilla. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He couldn't be really. Maybe it's ok to use "patient" when referring to a single specific (and long-dead) individual? I think so - what do others think? Wiki CRUK John (talk) 18:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See below, in JDW section; I'm rooting for "patient" in the history section only. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 17:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the 1900s, after some: does this mean the early 1900s, or the whole century?
1900-1909, always, no? Wiki CRUK John (talk) 23:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not where I come from—"1900s" is usually a synonym for "the 20th century". How about "the opening decade of the 20th century"? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No thanks! Precise range used. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 18:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • total removal of the duodenum is compatible with life: "compatible with life" sounds somehow odd to me
Any alternative suggestion? Is "compatible with survival" better? Wiki CRUK John (talk) 18:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now "mistaken beliefs that it was essential for life to preserve the duodenum" Wiki CRUK John (talk) 09:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • until recent decades: recentism; should be more specific
It is certainly not WP:RECENTISM! I think the next paragraph conveys very adequately which "recent decades" are meant. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 18:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • [[Vitamin K deficiency|bleeding]]: that's quite the Easter egg!
it would be if we weren't already talking about Vitamin K I think. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 23:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If I wasn't reading the source in Emacs I never would have guessed that "bleeding" was pointing to Vitamin K deficiency (and I'd be far less likely to click through—after all, I "know" about "bleeding"). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough - link now piped from "bleeding with jaundice", which I hope resolves. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 09:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For the next decade, little attention was paid to this report; however, over the subsequent 15 years, there has been a virtual explosion in the recognition of this tumor.": who is being quoted, and can this not be paraphrased?
The reference. What's wrong with quoting? I don't understand why we are so scared of it. Any encyclopedic paraphrase would be far more bland. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 23:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing wrong with quoting per se, but it often integrates poorly into the surrounding text. The important thing is to be clear what's being quoted—the vast majority of readers with ignore the inline cites, and even if they don't, is the quotation from the author of the reference, or quoted by the reference? Another problem is with the way this particular quote is introduced—very abrupt. If read out loud, there would be no clue at all that this was a quote. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Research
  • are being intensely looked at: sounds like a stare-down
Changed to "investigated", though I should make it clear I don't actually think that's an improvement. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 16:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That brings me to the end of the article. I'll be back again to take a look at your responses to my first batch of comments. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 01:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from NikosGouliaros

I've previously reviewed the article, making minor contributions; I'll try not to repeat myself. I feel the need to congratulate Wiki CRUK John and everyone else who has worked for this excellent result.

Classification
  • "("invasive" and "ductal" may be added to this term)": I still feel that the meaning - i.e., that some sources refer to the same disease as "invasive pancreatic adenocarcinoma" and "ductal pancreatic adenocarcinoma"[1][2] - isn't clear; to this attests the comment by Curly Turkey. Some minor rephrasing might be warrantied.
I see the problem, but I certainly don't want to list of the variants (I make it 7 or more, with "of the pancreas" etc). Gone with "dominated by pancreatic adenocarcinoma (variations of this name may add "invasive" and "ductal")". Wiki CRUK John (talk) 16:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This cancer arises in the tiny ducts that carry certain hormones and enzymes away from the pancreas": I'm not sure what the sources exactly say; however, the epithelial cells adenocarcinomas arise from aren't only found in the "tiny ducts", but also in the main pancreatic duct. Moreover, strictly speaking, these tiny ducts carry pancreatic products outside the organ not directly but through the pancreatic duct. Some rephrasing might be warrantied.
"tiny" removed; don't think I put that in. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 22:51, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a bit baffled by the link to islet cell carcinomas. Is the linked article article about the PanNETs (and therefore an article with a mistaken/obsolete name), or to another pathologic entity? In the latter case, the link might confuse the reader.
Jumping in here... Hum, fair point... The problem is that Wikipedia is a bit behind the curve here, and that page should perhaps (imo, at least) be renamed as Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor and updated accordingly, based on current MEDRS. Thoughts? 86.164.164.29 (talk) 18:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The main, far longer, article is neuroendocrine tumor, covering a wider range of sites, which I think is reasonable. Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor (you had a typo, 86) redirects to Pancreatic cancer; I'm not sure it should. islet cell carcinoma should be merged to one of these (NET or here) I think. Mind you the codes are still there in the ICD/Mesh databases - would they get removed? It doesn't feature in the most recent literature, as the text says. I'd welcome other views. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 18:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, those are all questions I'd been asking myself too (but wasn't really in a hurry to get involved in... help!) At present, the information at Neuroendocrine tumor#Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors is largely genetic, and I feel "Pancreatic cancer" probably is the more appropriate redirect, for the moment at least. 86.164.164.29 (talk) 18:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see exactly what's going on, and can "unbaffle" it. It will take about 2 hours. I can aim to get to this in about 10 days as I have a surge in non-wikipedia activities. FeatherPluma (talk) 03:10, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What was "nesidioblastoma" until October 16, and was correctly that topic (despite wrongly having general statistics for "islet cell tumors" - removed) is moved back to nesidioblastoma. Keeping all neuroendocrine tumor content within that main article has proven unwieldy. Pulmonary neuroendocrine tumors already have a specific article, and in usage carcinoid marches forward through time (despite WHO). The traditional pancreatic terms, "islet cell tumor" and "islet cell carcinoma", are now redirected to pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor. PanNET is now linked to pancreatic cancer but no longer redirects there. I reorganized (and will further edit) the contents. I think these changes address these suggestions for this bullet point item. FeatherPluma (talk) 21:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - these wide-ranging improvements address the concerns I raised above (as 86.164.164.29). 109.158.8.201 (talk) 16:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Signs and symptoms
  • Image caption: I propose "Man with jaundice etc" instead of "Painless jaundice" (pain isn't shown!)
But he's smiling! [joke]. I agree, done. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 18:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Painless jaundice": The problem here is that, in the line just above, we say that jaundice with pain is much more common than painless one. We could just delete the adjective painless here. On the other hand, cancer (pancreatic, bile duct, ampulla of Vater, metastatic liver) is a typical cause of painless jaundice.[3] This is not a contradiction: a disease can be the most common cause of a given symptom, and this symptom can still be uncommon in this disease.
Yes. Am I right in thinking that the jaundice itself is never the cause of the pain as such? Wiki CRUK John (talk) 22:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you are. In painful jaundice jaundice and pain only have a common cause. NikosGouliaros (talk)
Rewritten to:"Jaundice, a yellow tint to the whites of the eyes or skin, with or without pain, and possibly in combination with darkened urine. This results when a cancer of the head of the pancreas obstructs the common bile duct as it runs through the pancreas."
  • It might be better if every paragraph in the bullet list begins with a mention of the actual manifestation; e.g. one can rephrase: "Nausea and a feeling of fullness, caused by compression of neighboring organs by the tumor, which disrupts digestive processes and makes it difficult for the stomach to empty".
But this point, which has been rewritten by about 6 people including you, also includes the floating stools. I think it's ok & I'm reluctant to reopen this one. We are going round and round in circles on several of these points. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 22:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. NikosGouliaros (talk)
  • I still disagree with the subheading "other symptoms" in this context. It just isn't clear what separates symptoms below the subheading from symptoms above. This must be solved somehow. Just deleting the subheading might be enough.
Doc James has changed to "Other findings", which I think works well. As I said in the peer review, I want to keep the main list of symptoms very simple and accessible. This is how it was in early May, by the way. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 17:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It does work better. NikosGouliaros (talk) 22:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This bullet point could be added: "Other non-specific manifestations of the disease include: weakness and fatigability; dry mouth; sleep problems; constipation; dyspepsia; and a palpable abdominal mass."[4]
Is the "palpable mass" the same as in Courvoisier's law (which I know you want to move up here)? The rest are really non-specific, and don't feature in the main sources. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 17:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is not the same; a palpable mass can be anywhere, and it's the actual tumor, not the gallbladder. It's rare though, so I insist no more. NikosGouliaros (talk) 22:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A more general issue: Symptoms and signs are different types of disease manifestations. Are we supposed to make a distinction clear and list them separately? (No distinction is made in the FA lung cancer.)
Imo, no. Symptoms can also be signs (though not all signs are symptoms). 86.164.164.29 (talk) 18:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was and I am in favor of a subsection dedicated to Metastasis; however, one might expect that, if this will be in the "Signs and symptoms" section, it must include some symptoms of metastatic disease.
Too various, allowing for the major possibilities, aren't they? Also they are not given in any of the main sources I've used on pancreatic cancer, which makes me think we have gone far enough down this path. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 22:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. NikosGouliaros (talk)
We now have a metastasis section though (see elsewhere this section) Wiki CRUK John (talk) 17:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gone. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 15:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Risk factors

Everything looks great, aside of the paragraph on rare hereditary syndromes, which looks wedged in the bullet list. Why don't we just connect it to the previous paragraph?

Indented, which works I think. It's all too long for one para. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 03:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Diagnosis
  • I'm still not sure that repeating the disease symptoms in this section is justified. Could other reviewers say what they think?
I don't think it's appropriate either. (Commented here, under "Anything else outstanding?). 86.164.164.29 (talk) 18:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And I must add that this repetition is not present in the Diagnosis sections of any of the 4 FA's on maligancies (acute myeloid leukemia, cholangiocarcinoma, endometrial cancer, and lung cancer). Unfortunately the medical MOS is not clear on what should be included in this section. NikosGouliaros (talk) 23:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, I think the place for Courvoisier sign is the Symptoms and signs section.
Well, that's one that actually is diagnostically relevant. Since MEDMOS doesn't really follow the usual practice for journal review articles anyway, I think a reasonable case could be made, from a WP perspective, for including this sort of diagnostic red flag here. 2c, 86.164.164.29 (talk) 18:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree; the same case could be made for painless jaundice. Courvoisier sign is a sign and is probably warrantied to be in the S&S section. NikosGouliaros (talk) 23:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only now do I notice that the CT image has the arms of a disconnected cross pointing at the tumor. I was thinking of making this a bit more obvious, e.g. by coloring the arms - this could be requested at the graphics lab.
Caption changed, to "... Cross lines towards top left surround a macrocystic adenocarcinoma of the pancreatic head.", but yes, added colour is an achievable improvement. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 02:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Requested at the graphics lab. NikosGouliaros (talk) 08:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm grateful to Centpacrr for doing it. I think it looks better. NikosGouliaros (talk) 15:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Thanked, and added color noted in caption. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 17:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. Glad this worked out well for you. Centpacrr (talk) 18:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Staging
  • The mention of Stage III seems a bit out of the blue; the average reader does not know how many the AJCC-UICC stages are. I propose the following rewriting of the first paragraph (my additions in italics):
The cancer staging system used internationally for pancreatic cancer is that of the American Joint Committee on Cancer and Union for International Cancer Control, referred to as AJCC-UICC; it designates 4 stages, which correspond to specific TNM stages. Stage I and II tumors are resectable, and so are the subset of Stage III tumors that do not involve the celiac axis or superior mesenteric artery and are classified as "borderline resectable"; the remaining Stage III and Stage IV (metastatic) tumors are unresectable. The TNM staging system builds up an overall stage by assessing the Tumor size, spread to lymph Nodes and Metastasis. Stage T1 is localized tumors less than 2 cm in size, T2 tumors over that size but still wholly in the pancreas, and the other T stages are defined by the degree of spread beyond. A simpler practical classification groups the tumors as "resectable", "borderline resectable", and "unresectable" because of locally advanced or metastatic disease.
Rewritten along these lines, but with shorter sentences: "...referred to as AJCC-UICC. This designates 4 stages, which correspond to specific TNM stages. Stage I and II tumors are candidates for successful surgical removal or resection. The staging system makes an important distinction within Stage III between tumors that are classed as "borderline resectable" because they do not involve the celiac axis or superior mesenteric artery, and "unresectable". Surgery is likely to be possible for the former, but is not usual for the latter." Wiki CRUK John (talk) 17:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it acceptable that the images have more details on the TNM staging than the text mentions? (It's a question, not an opinion.)
I think so. There's not much more. But I can add if desired. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 17:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The TNM image gallery isn't centered but its heading is. Could it be formatted a bit better? Maybe center the gallery too?
For me the gallery is left-aligned and the heading right-aligned, the latter looking a bit odd. At Help:Gallery tag I'm not seeing options for these at all (on IE). Maybe there are different templates or tags to use. Wiki CRUK John (talk)
By "Heading" I mean the words "Pancreatic cancer staging". And what I mean is this. NikosGouliaros (talk)
Sorted, thanks Wiki CRUK John (talk) 15:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mechanisms
  • Intraepithelial neoplasia merits a wikilink. The article on it is little more than a disambiguation page; imo it should become a redirection page to carcinoma in situ, where our wikilink should also be directed to (despite the fact that this page too is in heavy need of improvement). (Or perhaps Carcinoma in situ should be renamed intraepithelial neoplasia; this is a tricky subject, expert opinion is warrantied, and not very relevant to pancreatic cancer).
  • I'm not entirely sure that all or most exocrine pancreatic cancers evolve from cysts; is it supported by the sources? (I've no access to the NEJM article). In my mind, intraepithelial neoplasia is the universal preliminary lesion of adenocarcinoma.[5][6] NB: The existence of several types of precancerous cysts that often evolve to frank cancer does not mean that these lesions are the major precursor lesion of adenocarcinomas.
I'm not an expert on the subject; but after rereading this section (in more depth than I did while peer reviewing the article) I wonder if it might not be totally accurate. I admit not having the time to dig into the matter in detail (not being an expert on it).
Having checked (Wolfgang mostly) I think you're right - rewrite to come. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 17:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your answer, and your rewrite. It looks excellent![7] (And note that I was mistaken that intraepithelial neoplasia [IN] is the universal preliminary lesion). One could add that IN is by far the most common of the three.[8] However, the first paragraph seems to need adjusting now that intraepithelial neoplasia has been added.
A question though Besides pancreatic serous cystadenomas (SCNs), which are almost always benign, three types of precancerous lesion are recognized. Does it mean that SCNs are precancerous too? NikosGouliaros (talk) 23:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ominous image of liver metastases might be better off in the Metastasis section of Signs and Symptoms.
Moved Wiki CRUK John (talk) 15:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering... is this illustration really so pertinent? (Though I suppose it could be argued that it's illustrating where symptoms are coming from.) 109.158.8.201 (talk) 10:07, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure why the parenthesis "(cystic lesions)" is necessary to accompany "cysts".
Indeed - leaving for rewrite of this bit, per point 2 up. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 17:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Management
  • "Encasement": maybe, for the sake of clarity, make it "encasement by the tumor"?
Now rewritten to: "...but not "encasement" by the tumor, defined as the tumor touching more than 180° round the vessel." Wiki CRUK John (talk) 17:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It needed rewriting, and old vandalism reverting, but now done at first occurence, in the chemo section. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 14:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Τhe changes of the last few years have only increased average survival times by a few months": And let's always pay attention never to refer to "average" when it's about "median".
Time to read the lead section of average, I think. I'd be amazed if it was not about equally true of both, but will check the sources. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 23:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"average" removed; not needed I think. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 14:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Watchful waiting of small tumors identified incidentally, for example on a computed tomography (CT) scan performed for other purposes, may not ultimately need treatment, but the criteria for watchful waiting are unclear.": Something sounds wrong here.
Yes, needed a "which" I think, but now rewritten to: "Small tumors that are identified incidentally, for example on a CT scan performed for other purposes, may be followed by watchful waiting. Ultimately, these small tumors may not need treatment, but the criteria for watchful waiting are unclear. " Clear, if a tad repetitive. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Radiolabeled hormone: some PanNETs absorb a hormone called norepinephrine and these may respond to nuclear medicine medication, radiolabeled MIBG therapy (or, experimentally, other hormones), given intravenously.": May I suggest rephrasing?
Now: "Some PanNETs absorb specific peptides or hormones, and these PanNETs may respond to nuclear medicine therapy with radiolabeled peptides or hormones such as iobenguane (iodine-131-MIBG).[55][56][57][58] Radiofrequency ablation (RFA), cryoablation, and hepatic artery embolization may also be used.[59]". Wiki CRUK John (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Outcomes
  • "increased average survival rates": As above: is it truly average or actually median? If unsure, it might be better to just mention "increased survival rates".
As above; the rates are calculated on the medians, but I avoid that term for accessibility reasons (and even more "measures of central tendency"), so your dichotomy is strictly incorrect (a median is an average). But the whole issue can be skipped by omitting any measure I think, and the source often does so in discussing them. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 15:20, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no strong view on it (I would if it wrote "mean" instead of "average"); why don't you just leave it as it is. NikosGouliaros (talk)
Distribution
  • The fact that I do not support "Distribution" as a substitute for "Epidemiology" as a section heading still applies (see the discussion in MEDMOS), but it wouldn't oppose a FA candidacy for it.
  • "In recent clinical guidelines": I'm not sure this offers anything
Otherwise people will tag/query "These are variously estimated ..." I think. Mention of divergence between sources tends to produce such a reaction in my experience. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
History
  • Maybe add a couple of words on how vitamin K helped with postoperative survival?
Will do, though I now see from this that my source appears to be mistaken in calling this a discovery of 1940, since the key papers came out in 1938 (notes 2 & 3)! Irritating & I'd better say something. Probably a mistaken confusion with the line following. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 15:30, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done as: "The discovery in the late 1930s that vitamin K prevented bleeding with jaundice,..." Wiki CRUK John (talk) 23:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Research
  • I'm not sure that "the tissue surrounding the pancreatic tumor" is the most accurate definition of "stroma" we could come up with.
Ane the reason is that it gives the impression of stroma as surrounding the tumor like a capsule; stroma is an actual part of the tumor mass.[9] How about "the tissue surrounding the cancer tissue"/? --NikosGouliaros (talk) 08:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
References
  • Are citations supposed to be totally uniform? E.g., have all the same links (linkable title, DOI, PMID), uniformly mention either full journal titles or initialsms, etc? I don't particularly mind, but I can start working on it
Yes, very much so, see the top of the page (Sandy Georgia comment). But there has been a lot of re-editing by various hands, especially in the peer review. I think we may need a section on the talk page to confirm what the style for the article actually is - I don't have very strong views, since there appears to be (very wrongly imo) a local consensus that page refs should NEVER be used for articles, except that it should as close as possible to the auto-template style in the standard editing window menu. But various people have adjusted the refs to suit their own preferences and we need to be consistent. Any help on this greatly appreciated. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 15:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've copy edited the citations from the lead, adding some doi's and url's, and making the use of commas and semicolons more uniform. It's an example of what I have in mind. I haven't touched the journal names though; I see some articles in PMC without uniform style for them.[5] NikosGouliaros (talk)
Lead
I wasn't aware that had a mistake too; what is it? Both of those images are already used, and I'd rather have one that shows the pancreas in its surroundings in that position. I'll look for another.
There's this, thias, or this (COI), Wiki CRUK John (talk) 15:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the current one, the pancreatic duct should be much longer and continuing further down to the tail.
I think the "COI" one is the best of the three :) NikosGouliaros (talk)
Right, yes, I saw that. Will change to the CRUK one for now. There may be better ones but the categorization on Commons is unreliable so they are hard to find. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 16:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(To be cont'd) --NikosGouliaros (talk) 17:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC) Mostly done. --NikosGouliaros (talk) 15:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC) [Update: I have failed to mention a conflict of interest, as I am the translator of this source[4] to Greek. NikosGouliaros (talk) 10:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)][reply]

Comments from WS

Overall a great article which saw a lot of improvement over the last months. I am a bit confused over whether it is supposed to completely cover neuroendocrine tumors or not. Depending on the answer to that question it either contains much too little or too much information about them. Considering the big differences, wouldn't it be more clear to have a short general pancreatic cancer and then separate articles for adenocarcinoma and endocrine tumors? (no doubt this has been discussed before, I haven't looked that up).

The information about resectability is very short and simplistic and should be expanded. Vascular involvement does not necessarily preclude surgery, e.g. splenic artery and vein involvement in more distal tumors is usually not a problem as they can be resected en-bloc (with or without the spleen). There is a lot to be said about borderline resectable tumors, where vascular reconstructions (especially for venous involvement) and neo-adjuvant therapy (to increase the chance of free resection margins) are slowly becoming more commonly used. Also the info about resectability is now spread out across at least three sections, it would be helpful to consolidate that. --WS (talk) 10:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these, and the earlier comments. The scope issue has been discussed before, and does present a dilemma. At the moment the article is supposed to cover all, and arguably gives too much weight to PanNETs, while still too little information about them - they are a diverse group its hard to generalize about. We have the same issue at Brain tumor, but there the balance is different, and we are planning to consistently adopt the approach you suggest. Here I think the present solution is the best, given the predominance of PAC and other factors. One issue is that pancreatic cancer is the common name and the natural search term.
I'll look at the resectability question - I'd been meaning to add some bits, like looking for the fat-plane. So far I have avoided specifying blood vessels and similar detail, as once you start you may have to do a fair bit, and Pancreaticoduodenectomy and Pancreatectomy (hmmm) have their own articles, though neither touch on this at present. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 11:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Liver cancer is a good example with a similar situation (HCC vs cholangiocarcinoma), I think it works very well there to have three articles. I think it is almost impossible to comprehensively cover both in one article and at the least PanNet should be split out, leaving only the necessary bits here. Regarding respectability, that should be covered here as it is specific to pancreatic cancer and one of the most important aspects of the diagnosis. It does not need to be very difficult, as there is no definite consensus, but broadly speaking coeliac trunk/superior mesenteric artery/hepatic artery involvement is generally considered unresectable, SMV/portal vein involvement often unresectable but sometimes done with vascular reconstruction, and splenic artery/vein resectable. Assessing resectability with CT is hard to completely cover as various criteria exist, would keep that very general. --WS (talk) 12:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't changed the situation as I found it, which is that we have "Pancreatic cancer", to which PAC redirects, and neuroendocrine tumor covering all sites. There's been discussion but no great consensus to (effectively) move this to PAC and split out the PanNETs. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 13:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it can be done this way, but as you have nominated this as a featured article, in my opinion it completely fails the comprehensiveness criterion with regard to PanNETs. To get it featured, I think it should be decided to keep this in (hard, probably confusing) or out and keep only the basic information here or in an umbrella article. --WS (talk) 13:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of the article is "Pancreatic cancer", of which the many varied types of PanNETs, none predominating in the group, form 1-2% of cases. The comprehensiveness requirement reads "it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context". Which major facts or details do you think are neglected, within the scope of an article on the wider topic? It certainly is more comprehensive than the many review articles, several used as sources here, that are titled using "Pancreatic cancer" but then say (usually at the end of para 1) that they are in fact entirely, or almost entirely, about pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Examples, by first-named author, are: Wolfgang, Vincent, Ryan Syl de La Crz. Most sources directed at the general public have made the same choice as this article. Leading examples are: ACS, NCI (professional, also patient version), NHS Choices, WebMD, and so on. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well on one hand, there is indeed extensive information in the classification and management sections, but on the other hand, any specific information on diagnosis and prevention/screening is completely lacking. Signs and symptoms are very shortly mentioned but only within the classification section, and it is not clear that the information in the symptoms section does mostly not apply to them. --WS (talk) 02:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear in that the list is introduced as "common symptoms of pancreatic adenocarcinoma". I think the symptoms of PanNETs are too various to describe usefully in an article of this type, but I'm willing to be pursuaded otherwise. The two main journal sources (Burns & Edil and Oberg et al) conspicuously duck giving comprehensive lists of symptoms, but I could add that (from B&E) the ~90% of non-functioning cases "typically present with symptoms related to local mass effect or metastatic disease" which is all they have to say on that. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 10:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1) WS correctly points out thematically that resectibility criteria are examined only briefly herein. However, this is a busily debated / potentially moving target over the past 6 to 7 years e.g. - PMIDs: 16703621, 24787115, 22209537, 22064622, 25519932, 25516657, 25339810, 25071332, 24578248 - and many others. The issue is tangentially touched on within "Research." I would think that a brief encyclopedic synthesis of this corpus is possible, taking WP:NPOV care. I will address the issue tomorrow if I have time. 2) As far as "too much, or too little" on PanNETs, I don't have a strong opinion, although I might opt myself to reduce that content modestly. Such a trim would be procedurally simple, and I think might be a broad modest trim, with a particular focus on "Treatment. I'd be willing to do this - give me a nudge on my Talk page. I might even be tempted to do it boldly tomorrow. FeatherPluma (talk) 00:31, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather it was discussed first. The subject of "Pancreatic cancer" certainly includes them, and I'm more sympathetic to exapanding rather than reducing the coverage of them, where succinct generalization is possible. Expanding resection criteria somewhat is fine, though anything more than a few lines should go to surgical articles, perhaps even a new one. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 01:25, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Very good, I'll follow your preference as to PanNET content. Thus, in alignment with input here / other commentators: 1) I've added several WP:MEDRS in response to the comment that there was inadequate sourcing for the section. In so doing, the text mildly consolidates. 2) As far as resectibility considerations for the "adenocarcinoma family" I will add a one or two sentence synthesis with selected reference later today - but this topic is a modestly warm potato that should not to allowed to become disproportionate in an article for general readers. For example, the NEJM review dodges over-engagement by conveying the essence as a sliding scale "continuum of resectibility" i.e. contentious, evolving, and dependent on "risk acceptance". 3) In terms of PanNET symptoms and diagnosis, I think briefly expanding on these as recommended by WS would be reasonable, perhaps along the lines of referencing Burns & Edil and Oberg et al as you suggest. However, substantial enlargement is not needed.FeatherPluma (talk) 14:47, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've added content, perhaps too much (and over ref) to fully address resectibility - and in doing so added neoadjuvant Rx. I do not time to get to PanNET symptoms and diagnosis today. FeatherPluma (talk) 00:25, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks! That sounds a good approach to me, and I hope others. Wiki CRUK John /Johnbod (talk) 00:43, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I too definitely support FeatherPluma's improvements. (I've also started a subsection on staging of PanNETs) 109.158.8.201 (talk) 14:31, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dwaipayan

  • "In people not suitable for curative surgery, palliative chemotherapy may be used to improve quality of life and extend life." There seems to be a minor technical problem in the language. The chemotherapy, whether purely palliative versus curative versus both palliative and curative, depends on the intent. Palliative intent does not necessarily mean that the intent is against lengthening life; however, usually palliative chemotherapy means chemotherapy not particularly intended to lengthen life. So, in this instance, is Gemcitabine (or other regimen) really palliative, if the intent is to increase life? Again, I admit that the same agent can be used with palliative versus curative intent. What I propose is to omit the word "palliative" preceding chemotherapy, and use "chemotherapy may be used to improve quality of life (palliative intent) and extend life". Other comments are welcome. --Dwaipayan (talk) 23:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see the point, but I think "...chemotherapy may be used to extend life or improve its quality" is neater. Johnbod (talk) 00:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I've been doing some edits, here and to the article, as Johnbod, my other a/c, which I try not to do to avoid confusing people. Anyway, we're both going to bed now. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 01:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've been, and am, travelling, so won't be editing much, but I have some refs, rewrites etc stored up for after I get back. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 00:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cas Liber

Reads well - some queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the United States, pancreatic cancer is the fourth most common cause of deaths due to cancer - surely "death" here? (collective noun?)
I don't think so - they count the deaths one by one (in theory anyway). Or you can use both. I don't like "cancer death", which is collective. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 18:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pancreatic adenocarcinoma typically has a poor prognosis - I'd word it stronger - "dismal prognosis" (but not a deal-breaker)
Happy to do that - it is just the word that a large number of sources use. I anticipate flak from some though. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 18:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While agreeing that "poor prognosis" may be considered an understatement, I think it would be preferable to avoid here the cliché of "dismal prognosis", for the sake of some of our lay readers (personally, I'd prefer "very poor"). 109.158.8.201 (talk) 15:32, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I said! Wiki CRUK John (talk) 23:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pancreatic adenocarcinoma has a number of symptoms, but none that are individually distinctive to it or appear in the early stages of disease. - first clause redundant (all conditions have "a number of symptoms") - I would reword to "The symptoms of pancreatic adenocarcinoma are not distinctive, and do not generally appear until the disease is well advanced"
I'd like to see some quantification/elaboration of defining "family history" or genetic loading. This interests me personally as I've had an uncle and great aunt die of Ca pancreas - so giving the reader some idea, even as a footnote, would be good.
Quantification should all be in terms of increased risk, I think, and these are what the sources give (this sort of thing). Actual incidence is probably too variable in human populations to use. Some of the increases are rather low, others alarmingly high. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 18:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise article looking pretty good -doing a nice job of balancing accessibility and exactness (i.e. minimising jargon and maximising plain English) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Jfdwolff

Great collaborative effort, and testimony to the hard work by a number of dedicated editors.

  • The word "patient" should generally be avoided and replaced with a neutral term.
I have gone through & replaced with "person" or "case", except in the "history" section. See User:Curly Turkey's comments above - he thought that "The first reported partial pancreaticoduodenectomy was performed by the Italian surgeon Alessandro Codivilla in 1898, but the person only survived 18 days before succumbing to complications" was ambiguous, as "person" might refer to the surgeon. I find this "ambiguity" implausible, but "patient" certainly reads more naturally. CT changed it to patient, Doc James changed it back, but I've now changed it to patient again. I understand the general avoidance of "patient", but I don't see that it applies when referring to specific but un-named historical individuals who died decades ago or more (and from their disease). There's also the one just after about one of Whipple's cases in the 1930s: "Only one of the patients had the duodenum totally removed, but he survived for two years before dying of metastasis to the liver". If anyone doesn't agree with these, please supply arguments relating to such historical examples, and suggestions on alternative phrasings - "case" and "person" don't really work. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 12:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The opening line sounds a little bit clunky. While cancer is thought to arise from a single cell, the current phrasing suggests that it is diffuse/hyperplastic growth rather than a mass lesion. I suggest this is rephrased.
Another of the places where the grass has been churned up. See Talk:Pancreatic_cancer#Opening_line. I agree it could be improved, but I'm not sure how at present. Perhaps discussion should continue at that talk page section. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 12:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is my personal view that "Classification" should not precede "Signs and symptoms", because as a section it usually requires a lot of context from other sections. It is probably best covered as a subsection of "Diagnosis".
The current position follows WP:MEDMOS. Personally I think (in this case anyway) it is much easier and effective to get this clear early on. It gives even more context than it takes to/from "Signs and symptoms" and "diagnosis", doesn't it? I've noticed that other web pages that don't have it early on get into difficulties, and risk being misleading. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 12:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Imo, without assuming some background knowledge (from the lead?) appropriate contextualization is always going to be an editorial challenge (eg describing a spectrum of symptoms depends on background knowledge of tumor types). However, I do share some misgivings about the choice of heading. Apart from the strictly editorial question of whether it's appropriate to expect our readers to know that we're only referring to pathological (rather than actual clinical) classification, the fact is we're not even really getting close to outlining that – and I wouldn't suggest we attempt to do so (though a ref might be helpful[?]). Imo, 'Types' would be a far more appropriate heading, which is both unpretentious and reader-friendly. And fwiw, I don't think a highly restrictive interpretation of MEDMOS should be a reason for veto (per WP:MOSvT??). 2c, 109.158.8.201 (talk) 13:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not quite clear why "Alcohol" is a subsection of "Risk factors" despite only consisting of three sentences. I would suggest breaking out the genetical causes into their own subsection, seeing that genetics is thought to contribute substantially to many cases.
It's in a sub-section to avoid it being taken as part of the list, because it isn't endorsed as a risk factor, but I thought that there has been so much investigation as to whether it is that it shouldn't just be omitted. I'm thinking what to do with inherited genetic factors in the light of Cas Liber's comments above too. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 12:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Diagnosis", the paragraph beginning with "About 80% to 85%" doesn't have reference despite making a specific numerical claim. Similarly, the next paragraph ("Patients sometimes") duplicates content from earlier in the article, but has no reference. Further on in this section, "Pancreatic cancer has an immunohistochemical profile [...]" has no reference despite being a rather specific claim.
  • In "Mechanism", I'm wondering whether it might be an idea to move the highly technical content about mutations into a table. I am concerned that the reader will change channels after being put off by the terminology.
    • (piggybacking again) I'm also having trouble understanding one of the sentences about the genetics of PanNETs, which currently seems focused on Multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1: Instead, common mutations affect MEN1, as in the inherited Wermer's syndrome, DAXX, mTOR and ATRX.[Burns 2012] Since I don't have access to the full text of the cited source, it's difficult for me to fix the wording. (Another source that might conceivably come in handy here is PMID 22586144 [4].) 109.158.8.201 (talk) 14:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Prevention" is a short section, and I am unsure why it needs a tiny subsection called "screening". How about calling the whole section "prevention and screening"?
Yes, done that. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 12:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Management" section is very good, although I am wondering if all discussion of chemotherapy could be conducted in a single section. After all, the adjuvant and palliative regimens are effectively identical.
I rather think it was like that until the FAC began .... Wiki CRUK John (talk) 12:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Piggybacking here just to say that I think the subsection on PanNETs still needs some attention (commented here). Also I agree it would be preferable to avoid having a separate "Palliative care" subsection. 109.158.8.201 (talk) 11:15, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "History" - is there any source that discussed how the condition was first recognised? Who was the Courvoisier's sign of the eponymous sign? I am a bit unsure about the direct quote at the end of the section. Any reason it can't be paraphrased?
I didn't find any, though I'm sure it's somewhere. Ludwig Georg Courvoisier (1843–1918), a surgeon from Basel, published Casuistisch-statistische Beiträge zur Pathologie und Chirurgie der Gallenwege in 1890, describing the sign as eliminating the possibility of gallstones, but not actually mentioning cancer (according to Wikipedia), which is why I left him out. But he could be mentioned. I also looked for the early radio & chemo history, but couldn't find it easily - I imagine the early chemo results were so poor it hasn't been written up much. Personally I like the quote, and on a general point think Wikipedia medicine doesn't use direct quotation often enough (I think mainly put off by gross overuse by some poor editors). The "virtual explosion" is graphic phrasing I'd like to keep, and would obviously need to quote, and by that time you might as well keep the whole line, imo, rather than a paraphrase that would probably take more words to convey the meaning in a blander fashion. See also Curly Turkey above, who doesn't like this either (but also CasLiber above, rooting for "dismal" prognosis). Wiki CRUK John (talk) 12:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
comment moved from Talk:Pancreatic cancer (as requested): There's an unexplained quotation (following a semicolon): "For the next decade, little attention was paid to this report; however, over the subsequent 15 years, there has been a virtual explosion in the recognition of this tumor."[38] Without consulting the reference, this juxtaposition makes no sense. I'd also question the explosive tone, which seems to jar with the more encyclopedic prose. Couldn't the quotation be inserted in the reference? (Note: I'm also unsure about the reliance on primary sources in the surrounding text - can't we have secondary source/s [PMID 24206780?] alongside?) 109.158.8.201 (talk) 20:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
RE Courvoisier's sign: Based on this review/historical article, which I've used to source/rephrase a statement in the Diagnosis section, I agree with John that no mention of Courvoisier himself is needed here, given that he seems not actually to have mentioned pancreatic cancer in his original publication of 1890 (unsurprisingly perhaps, given the incomplete recognition of the disease at the time he was writing). 109.158.8.201 (talk) 15:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Research" - good balanced coverage of the current state of research.

Happy to offer unqualified support once the above is addressed. JFW | T@lk 10:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Pancreatic_cancer/archive1&oldid=639944951"