Talk:Wilms' tumor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Medicine / Nephrology (Rated C-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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-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 Nephrology task force (marked as High-importance).
 

'Normal'[edit]

what s normal child? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.77.241 (talk) 19:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I've[edit]

I've moved this from Wilms tumor, as the spelling with the apostroph is the more correct one. Jfdwolff 14:48, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Nephroblastoma vs. Wilms?[edit]

Which has precedence-- medical or common?

Pubmed (hits)[edit]

  • "Wilms" 5784
  • nephroblastoma 6851

Google (hits)[edit]

  • "Wilms tumor" 150,000
  • nephroblastoma 49,100

I'm not fan of eponyms and think nephroblastoma is a better term 'cause it describes the condition -- nephro - kidney, blastoma - tumor arising from embryonic tissue. Any thoughts on this... rules? Nephron 23:35, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Nephroblastoma vs. Wilms? - Reply[edit]

"Which has precedence - medical or common?"

Good point, and well argued. However, why not have a quick think about this: who is wikipedia directed at - medical professionals, or the public as whole (medical or not). Your evidence from google functions as a double edged sword, while weakening your arguement it strengthens my own, by illustrating that the term "Wilms' tumor" permits greater accessibility than 'nephroblastoma'.

We don't want to impose rules on Wikipedia that would stiffle accessiblity to the majority. Wouldn't that essentially oppose the ethos of "The Free Encyclopedia"?

Such rules would be counterproductive.

Wilms' vs. Wilms[edit]

My impression was that the apostrophe is not needed or standard. If others agree, please edit the article appropriately.


The form with the apostrophe is the original form. It's "Wilms' tumor". The other eponyms associated with Max Wilms are "Wilms' amputation", "Wilms' cones", "WIlms' symptom", and "Wilms' operation". See Who named it?. There has been a trend toward eliminating possessive eponyms (thus Down's syndrome, the original form, is often "Down syndrome" today, and this is reflected in dictionaries; however, while Merriam Webster's Collegiate has entries for both "Down syndrome" and "Down's syndrome", it has an entry only for "Wilms' tumor", and not "Wilms tumor", so the former, with the apostrophe, is still the standard spelling. - Nunh-huh 10:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I had it Wow this was a journey but I survived and am ALIVE. I was ten.

Wilms' vs. Wilms[edit]

This disease does not need an appostrophe to show ownership as it is named after the scientist who discovered it, his last name was Wilms. So, it is a Wilms tumor.

FIXED Eponym[edit]

To say 'it is eponymously named after' is a truism! It would be better to say 'it is named after...' or 'it is eponymous to...'

Fixed. --Una Smith (talk) 18:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

FIXED Adult Onset[edit]

The at risk group is larger than children. My father died of it at age 49. My half-brother has been on dialysis since his 40s.

Fixed. --Una Smith (talk) 18:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Benign or malignant[edit]

I have made several edits to the article to address questions here, but there is still more to do. At present the article is inconsistent re whether Wilms' tumor is always a malignant cancer, or sometimes benign. Would someone care to research this question and clean up the article? --Una Smith (talk) 18:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Assessment[edit]

About five hundred new cases each year in the U.S. is "extremely rare" and therefore does not justify an importance rating of "high". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Constellations of Conditions[edit]

Wilms is also present in other syndromes and medical constellations, such as WAGR, Denys-Drash...I am adding them to the See Also. Any objections?Shigaon (talk) 05:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

CT scan is of right kidney[edit]

The CT scan on this page shows a tumor in the right kidney, not the left kidney (as stated before). CT scans are read in cross-sectional slices as if the patient were lying on a bed, feet facing you; therefore, the left side of the image corresponds to the patient's right side. This orientation is also consistent with the position of the aorta and aortic arch, liver, et cetera in this particular scan. I have edited the page accordingly. --shrimppesto (talk) 06:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there any way to slow down the CT scan video. It is tedious having to press stop and play so many times to jsut slow it down. AriaNo11 (talk) 17:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


Survival Rates[edit]

Direct citation and in text references necessary for survival rates. Particularly because a 4 year survival rate is listed for stage V. Rare at best. 143.111.239.73 (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Percentage numbers for stages[edit]

If you add them up, you get 104%. How come? -The T-Man (talk) 12:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Link removed - not useful[edit]

I reverted the addition of the "See Also" link to article Sara Shamsavari - the subject's only connection is that she has Wilms' tumour. I don't think it adds anything to list people with a condition. If others think otherwise, there should be a separate list or some annotation. DavidCh0 (talk) 11:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)