Talk:Radionuclide therapy

Medicine: Hematology-oncology Low‑importance

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

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

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

On 2 April 2021, it was proposed that this article be moved from Unsealed source radiotherapy to Radionuclide therapy. The result of the discussion was moved.

Name change

Would there be any objection to renaming this article? While the current name is descriptive, I am not convinced it is a common name. I have come across molecular radiotherapy and radionuclide therapy more often, and the article itself uses RNT more often. Some of these are offered as alternative names in this article (and in the relevant section in radiation therapy, to which this discussion probably also applies). I've included a comparison of the number of results for some of the relevant names and variations in PubMed and Google (web). My instinct would be to go for molecular radiotherapy or radionuclide therapy, but don't have any strong opinions. I am partly just interested if "unsealed source radiotherapy" is a common term in any particular areas. My guess is that it may have been chosen to explicitly differentiate from brachytherapy, but I think the suggested terms are understood as distinct from brachytherapy, even if the literal meaning could be argued. The article itself does clarify the difference so I don't think this would be an issue.

Term	PubMed results	Google (web) results
Unsealed source radiotherapy	42	321,000
Systemic radioisotope therapy	16,007	693,000
Molecular radiotherapy	18,591	27,300,000
Radionuclide therapy	101,162	3,640,000

It's worth noting that molecular radiotherapy is perhaps the more fashionable at the moment, while radionuclide therapy has been used for decades, as demonstrated in the PubMed results histogram, and the explosion in web results for MRT. Beevil (talk) 13:01, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2 April 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) EN-Jungwon 17:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unsealed source radiotherapy → Radionuclide therapy – Please see rationale in section above. Although no comments have been made, I can see potential for disagreement. Beevil (talk) 12:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support nom. I agree that the proposed title is the common name, and it is also more easy to understand. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:52, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.