Talk:Triple-negative breast cancer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Medicine / Hematology-oncology (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
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.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Hematology-oncology task force (marked as Mid-importance).

Nice article[edit]

Hello Haleyd, nice article you wrote! Please tell us more about you in your personal page. Emmanuelm (talk) 17:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Lots more to add[edit]

The external links provide a huge amount of recent data, theories, treatments etc which we could summarise here. It would be useful to categorise the various subtypes of TNBC and to summarise the types of treatments undergoing late stage clinical trials. Rod57 (talk) 11:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Research section can be deleted[edit]

It's current content (eg re Triple Negative Breast Cancer Symposium ) is covered by the external links and the See Also. And there is already a Research subsection under Treatment. Any objections to this section (or its current contents) being deleted ? Rod57 (talk) 03:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

No objections; so I've hidden it for now. Rod57 (talk) 15:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Review article[edit]

Directed Therapy of Subtypes of Triple-Negative Breast Cancer. Carey. 2010 looks like a good source. Rod57 (talk) 15:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Abortion discussion[edit]

The section you claimed didn't exist certainly does, not in the overview but in the full text of the article. If you need that referenced instead of the overview page, that can be done, but not bothering to read the full paper doesn't mean the sited material isn't there. Reattaching deleted sections, with full article links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The quote you have given in this edit is out of context and does not refer to TNBC specifically and thus does not belong here. The full quote is "In analyses of all 897 breast cancer cases (subtypes combined), the multivariate-adjusted odds ratios for examined risk factors were consistent with the effects observed in prior studies of younger women (Table 1). Specifically, older age, family history of breast cancer, earlier menarche age, induced abortion, and OC use were associated with an increased risk of breast cancer. "
If you look at table 1 of the same article it says clearly that the correlation is not statistically significant for TNBC (95% CI 0.9-2.2). You would misrepresent the cited article if you would claim that they have noticed anything more than a random statistically insignificant association. We have a page somewhere that discusses abortion and breast cancer risk, try to discuss the issue there.
Also please observe that like for any medical articles WP:MEDRS should be observed. Exceptions are possible only when there is consensus to allow particular exceptions and this is not the case here. Richiez (talk) 11:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The specific page I referred to is Abortion–breast cancer hypothesis. All further discussion should go there until there is a WP:MEDRS source claiming some statistically significant effect specifically for TNBC. Richiez (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Clinical trials in development after success with CBD[edit]

This article might be a good place for a write-up of this recent research showing cannabidiol holds promise for halting the spread of breast cancer. petrarchan47tc 22:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you have the PMID of a WP:MEDRS source? Richiez (talk) 22:39, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
See if these are what you're looking for: (discussion)abstract a abstract b. petrarchan47tc 21:28, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Looked at various sources, eg PMID 22038019. Interesting research but at the moment it is unclear if anything will ever grow from that. Right now not relevant for this article which needs plenty of work on clinically relevant aspects. Also, a particular caution to avoid naive "self-medication":
Systemic administration of THC increases the local tumor size and the number and size of metastasis in mice injected with 4T1 tumor cells into the rear footpads. This effect may be due to the fact that THC suppresses the anti-tumor immune response, which is mediated by CB2. (from PMID 22038019)
Richiez (talk) 18:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
I think it deserves a mention. petrarchan47tc 23:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
There is a few dozens other things that deserve a mention. Lapatinib, Cabergolin, Bicalutamide, Metoprolol, Aspirin are all readily available and supported by more evidence. Cancer vaccines such as E75 are very promising and have passed many human trials. From all the research articles I saw on CBD there was nothing that would explain why it should be particularly beneficial for TNBC, the sfgate article probably confused TNBC and metastatic. It does not seem there was any human trial ever?
It would be nice to have an up to date research sections for every article but right now we are lagging very far behind on basic information. Richiez (talk) 00:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
That does put things in perspective. If you have human trials that aren't entered here, it wouldn't make sense to add this research yet. (It is difficult to keep Wikipedia articles updated with what seems like a small number of editors these days, and some articles are in sad shape).
This bit from Daily Mail UK explains why I thought this might be a good article for the CBD studies: petrarchan47tc 01:32, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Professor Desprez had previously found that a protein called ID-1 seemed to play a role in causing breast cancer to spread. Meanwhile Dr McAllister had discovered the cannabidiol had anti-cancer potential.

The pair teamed up to see if they could treat a particularly aggressive form of breast cancer called 'triple negative.' This form, which affects 15 per cent of patients, doesn't have three hormone receptors that the most successful therapies target. Cells from this cancer have high levels of ID-1.

When they exposed cells from this cancer to cannabidiol they were shocked to find the cells not only stopped acting 'crazy' but also returned to a healthy normal state.

They discovered that the compound had turned off the overexpression of ID-1, stopping them from travelling to distant tissues.

Other potentially treatable cancers are forms of leukaemia, lung, ovarian and brain cancers, which also have high levels of ID-1.

And from PUBMED Cannabidiol as a novel inhibitor of Id-1 gene expression in aggressive breast cancer cells.:

CBD represents the first nontoxic exogenous agent that can significantly decrease Id-1 expression in metastatic breast cancer cells leading to the down-regulation of tumor aggressiveness

In my opinion, we can't really censor science out of fear that people will try to self medicate, or for any other reason, on Wikipedia. petrarchan47tc 02:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I have seen PMID 18025276. PMID 22038019 is a much better source, it is recent, WP:MEDRS, from a well known institute. Now if you would try to summarize that article in 2-3 sentences what would be left? Mid-term it would be better to have an eye on ID1 and ID2, ERK and Akt pathways as well as the vaniloid receptor mentioned in the source. The vaniloid receptor btw is activated by paracetamol as well iirc. I am not aware of any human trials, are you? PMID 22038019 is my level of knowledge. I have no idea if that will ever lead to some real world success but I have seen literally thousands of similarly promising substances that never made it. Have you examined some epidemiological evidence regarding pot and cancer? If there is any advance the metastatic breast cancer article would be the first one to get it. Btw is any of the CBD-like substances available in any form outside laboratory use? Richiez (talk) 13:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I will try to send my biochemist friend over here to answer your questions; we've surpassed my level of knowledge by a long shot. I try to stick with quoting secondary sources. Human trials are being developed now. There exists CBD-only strains of cannabis now. Researchers are busy creating pharmaceutical preparations, like Sativex (which is equal parts THC and CBD and is sprayed under the tongue), though I am no authority on the latest advances, it's really hard to keep up. I do see why you would recommend the metastatic breast cancer article as a next step. petrarchan47tc 20:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Wondering.. are you aware of other significant sources of CBD like substances in human diet? It would be unusual that such substances would be confined to just one sort of plants. Richiez (talk) 14:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
CBD is found in high concentrations in mother's milk, according to Dr. Donald Abrams. Cannabinoids in general are also found in Echinacea and a few other plants, but little research has been done on them. Cannabis has at least 100 cannabinoids, while Echinacea has 28. Cannabis is the only plant source for CBD, as far as we know. See if this is of interest to you, it's about cancer and cannabinoids. petrarchan47tc 00:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
yes, very interesting. Trying to summarize the cell line info.. there were tests on MC-7,EFM-19 (both hormonally positive), 4T1 (ER+), T47D(ERa), MDA-MB-231 (TNBC, mesenchymal-stemcell-like) cell lines. Did I miss some? MDA-MB-231 although TNBC is more frequently a model for metastatic BC, among early TNBC cancers (subject of this article) the mesenchymal-stemcell-like variant is probably very rare. Ideally there would be data on the cell lines mentioned in PMID 21633166, Table 3 which would allow better predictions where research should go. Richiez (talk) 12:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Misleading first section re age distribution[edit]

The line "While it is frequently presumed to affect predominantly young women, the distribution is similar in all age groups." is not only false but the source it cites contradicts the statement. In the article, under the heading EPIDEMIOLOGY AND RISK FACTORS FOR TRIPLE-NEGATIVE BREAST CANCER (page 2), the first sentence is "Higher rates of triple-negative breast cancer have been observed in women who are younger, which may be associated with a greater likelihood of BRCA1 expression." I'm going to delete this line from our wikipedia article. Patently false. [ 16:57, 8 July 2013‎ User: ]

Have there been any FDA or EU approvals for TNBC[edit]

If there have been, lets mention them explicitly ? - Rod57 (talk) 12:12, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Possible target - glutathione-S-transferase Pi1 (GSTP1)[edit]

Triple-negative breast cancer target is found. May 2016 says "cells from triple-negative breast cancer cells rely on vigorous activity by an enzyme called glutathione-S-transferase Pi1 (GSTP1)" and describes mice studies on an inhibitor. - Rod57 (talk) 12:27, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Encouraging resuts in 2017 from various clinical trials[edit]

Could use Encouraging Early Results for Use of Immunotherapy in Triple-Neg Breast Cancer to track down some MEDRS to update the research/trials section, eg on the prognostic value of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs). - Rod57 (talk) 08:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Also TNBC: Novel Targetable Pathways Under Active Investigation Sept 2017 gives an update. - Rod57 (talk) 11:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)