From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Pharmacology (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Cell Signaling  
WikiProject icon
This article is part of WikiProject Cell Signaling, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to cell signaling and signal transduction. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the Cell Signaling WikiProject project, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

External link to Wall Street Journal article[edit]

I recently added the section on the Genzyme Test to the Gefitinib article.

User:Jfdwolff is a Dutch physician who repeatedly removes a reference that I added.

I included a reference to an article from the Wall Street Journal, because it was a good analysis that would be understood by patients. I also included the press release from the drug company. Jfdwolff continues to remove the Wall Street Journal link, he feels that the press release from the drug company is enough.

In the edit summary we began a dialogue of sorts. I asked him if he had read the article and he said he does not have a subscription to the Wall Street Journal.

I don't think this was a good reason on his part and also I think that Wikipedia articles should be helpful to the lay person, as well as the professional. A patient with cancer would go to the library or spend the money to read this article -- it is a good article which mentions other similar tests for current targeted therapies.

User: September 29, 2005

I need no introduction on Wikipedia. It is my impression that the link serves no purpose. If you could summarise what the article adds, then please do it here. The article is presently helpful to lay and professional people alike. JFW | T@lk 19:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Your response, I need no introduction on Wikipedia speaks volumes.
Before I answer your inquiry, I'd like to know why are you so rude to newcomers? I have seen other users' comments about your rude behavior. If you'd like, I'd be happy to start listing them here. You are in the habit of using multiple reverts to protect what you have written. You scare new people away.
As for the WSJ article, it uses plain English, it is geared toward the lay person, it has a chart that lists several targeted therapies, the cancers they are used on, the tests (like Genzyme's) that look for the target. The chart tells if the test is available or not. It is a very useful article for the patient, maybe not of value for an esteemed physician like yourself.
Now, what is your justification for a. using multiple reverts to wipe out this WSJ reference?
Joaquin Murietta 20:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
My rudeness is directly proportional to the amount of force used by an anon to maintain a particular version. Instead of explaining the merits of the article (for the removal of which I gave reasons), the anon simply put it back. As for "I need no introduction on Wikipedia" I actually meant that it is pointless to refer to me as a "Dutch physician", because I'm here as a Wikipedian and not as a product of my profession or nationality. JFW | T@lk 21:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I've been asked to comment. My thought is that we shouldn't link to a paid use only site. If you can find a mirror of the article in question, or another site w similar facts, that would be better. Thanks, Sam Spade 20:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Linked articles that require subscriptions (paid or not) should be deprecated. However, it should be good practice to substitute the removed link with another of equal worth, if available. This may be hard if you haven't got a subscription, and so don't know what to look for: it that instance, it would be reasonable to ask for a substitute on the talk page. Noisy | Talk 20:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree, the link serves little value to the article in question. Sasquatcht|c 21:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

What the article needs (and I would appreciate help in finding this) is support for the assertion that Astra and Genentech will have it easier marketing their -tinibs now that an EGFR assay has become available. Is this assertion supported by the WSJ link, or is this original research? JFW | T@lk 21:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Oh, and I am curious what molecular biological method the Genzyme assay actually employs to assess EGFR positivity - is this with immunostaining/ELISA/something else? This would markedly improve the quality of Joaquin's fine contribution. JFW | T@lk 22:00, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Here's a good link: The test was discovered at Massachusetts General Hospital and Dana-Farber. It is performed in Genzyme's own lab. Tumour cells are microdissected, DNA is extracted and amplified by PCR before bidirectional sequencing of exons 18-21 of the EGFR is undertaken. The presence of mutations predicts response to gefitinib. JFW | T@lk 22:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

  • I appreciate the chance to discuss this with reasonable people as opposed to a Pompous-Newbie-Basher.

As for the merits, is it correct that Wikipedia never cites to the Wall Street Journal because it is a for-pay service? Even if the WSJ has the best article?


Joaquin Murietta 23:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

    • I think you should be able to cite it if you use information on it directly in the article (i.e. quote it or paraphrase what it has to say in a relavent fashion that fits in). But it's value as a stand alone external link is questionable at the best. Sasquatcht|c 01:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

More Rude Comments[edit]

For the record:

Regarding Gefitinib[edit]

No matter how trivial the change, you should always watch WP:3RR. Please don't violate it on something as trivial as a link, rather wait for consensus and then make changes. Thank you! Sasquatcht|c 21:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Consensus? With a pushy anon who wants to push his AstraZeneca stocks? JFW | T@lk 21:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
This is from my talkpage. I will discuss the issue on Joaquin's talkpage, as this is not pertaining to the article but to user conduct. JFW | T@lk 16:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

About Me[edit]

  • I don't own the stock. I don't own Astra Zeneca
  • Jfdwolff opined that the Press Release from Asrtra Zeneca was a good substitute for the WSJ article. I did not accuse him of pushing the stock.
  • I am not a physician, I am a patient.
  • Patients need access to the WSJ article.
  • Does the three reverts rule apply to everyone?
  • We have spent more bandwith discussing this than the link, so what is the harm in including it? Joaquin Murietta 00:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Noted. See you talk. JFW | T@lk 16:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


This article[1] from this week's Lancet makes it unlikely gefitinib has much of a feature. JFW | T@lk 23:23, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Some Issues[edit]

I've been researching this and found some points in the article that don't ring true: e.g. The Wikiepedia article says "In 2004, AstraZeneca informed the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that a large randomized study [1] failed to demonstrate a survival advantage for gefitinib in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)." [1] is Pao "EGF receptor gene mutations are common in lung cancers from "never smokers" and are associated with sensitivity of tumors to gefitinib and erlotinib." This paper says absolutely nothing about the FDA. It *doesn't* say gefitinib has no survival advantage either. It says something quite different from the above editor. Heck guys; we have to get our facts straight here. I read the above two weeks ago and didn't realize how out of whack this Wikipedia entry was until I went through the papers. We are talking about Cancer here. We owe it to the people reading this article to get our facts straight before we start blithely editing!

What reference [1] does do is refer to a study that says "In two phase II trials, radiographic regressions of tumors were observed in 28% of patients treated in Japan and 10% of those studied in Europe and the U.S." Here is the AstraZeneca announcement: "There was a statistically significant improvement in tumour shrinkage (objective response rate), which did not translate into a statistically significant survival benefit. Prospective subgroup analyses suggested survival benefits in patients of Oriental origin and in patients who never smoked. " There are other papers which tie in certain TGFR mutations with responsiveness to gefitinib treatment, which is why it only works in some patients. I'll get these straight then edit. - 24 August 2006‎ User:

New Comments[edit]

Some comments to consider from someone who unfortunately does not have the time to participate in Wiki as much as I'd like. There are several genetic biomarkers being researched to help identify those patients that will or will not respond to geftinib and erlotinib. These are EGFR amplification, EGFR mutations and KRAS mutations. If these are ready or not for clinical use is a matter of opinion and debate. There are a number of companies offering genetic testing for all of these genetic biomarkers. To focus on one company (Genzyme) when there are others, e.g. Quest Diagnostics, LabCorp, CARISDx, ResponseDx, PhenoPath and ARUP Laboratories, is a bias that ought to be corrected. --Leapy99 (talk) 04:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the focus on a single company and test in an article about a drug is a say the least.ChillyMD (talk) 20:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

various problems[edit]

I believe "The target protein (EGFR) is a family of receptors" should be "The target protein (EGFR) is a member of a family of receptors"; I think erbB1 is EGFR while erbB2 & erbB3 are different receptors (but check this before making any changes). Minor wording problems - Clinical uses - "As at August 2012" should be "As of August 2012". "In 2014 in the TRANSCOG study (Petty et al.), demonstrated..." is ungrammatical. I suggest deleting the word "in" & the comma. Studies - "longer for Gefitinib than chemotherapy" - gefitinib is chemotherapy; I suggest "standard chemotherapy". (talk) 05:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)