Talk:Cancer/Archive 7

@RexxS: moved this from bilateral cancer:

Bilateral cancer is a cancer that occurs in both of a pair of organs.^[1]

I'd say it is basically a dicdef but it does not constitute formal terminology. It also raises a lot of questions as to whether both cancers arose simultaneously or one spread to the other. JFW | T@lk 18:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jacob: See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine #Bilateral cancer. The point is that the article Bilateral cancer was one sentence and effectively a dictionary definition. From the page views, it seems likely that people are searching for the term. If that is the case, what is preferable:

1. To have no destination in Wikipedia for the search term "Bilateral cancer"?
2. To have a one-line article that is merely a dictionary definition?
3. To have a very short paragraph in the cancer article?

My own preference would be the mention within the Cancer article, but if you don't want the text here, then you really ought to also revert my changing the Bilateral cancer to a redirect. It makes no sense for someone who searches for "Bilateral cancer" to arrive at Cancer #Definitions only to find no mention of the search term they were looking for. --RexxS (talk) 00:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm one of the editors who weighed in on the discussion at WP:Med. There, I questioned the need for the one-sentence Bilateral cancer article, and I still do. It should be merged into the Cancer article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• It should redirect here. Alexbrn (talk) 03:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
• JFW, would you be less dissatisfied if it didn't say that it was "a" cancer? I think it might also be desirable to give a few examples (something like "both breasts, both lungs, both kidneys" – something that an average teenager could understand). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I would be okay with it as long as it is not bolded. Not important enough to deserve bolding. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Bolding is not equivalent to importance on Wikipedia, James - see MOS:BOLD: "The most common use of boldface is to highlight the first occurrence of the title word/phrase of the article (and often its synonyms) in the lead section, as well as terms that are redirected to the article or its sub-sections." (my emphasis). Boldface is regularly used where a likely search term takes a reader to a particular page or section, as it would do in this case. --RexxS (talk) 16:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Sure and we regularly do not follow this recommendation as one can ends up bolding very minor terms of little importance. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

It's not a recommendation, it's part of the Manual of Style and as such has project-wide consensus, so we need good reason to go against that guidance. The importance of a topic has no connection to whether it should be boldface on Wikipedia. The bolding is there to reassure readers who searched for a term that they have arrived at the correct place; that's all. --RexxS (talk) 16:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

As another example we do not bold brand names outside a few main ones in the lead. Otherwise we could end up with a section that lists hundreds of brands with them all bolded. I disagree with bolding every conceivable redirect to a page. IMO using common sense / IAR is applicable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I also disagree with bolding every conceivable redirect and with bolding hundreds of brand names. It's for those sort of extreme situations that the MOS states "This is done for the majority of articles, but is not a requirement." However, you're employing the fallacy of the Logical extreme here. Just because we should not be rendering hundreds of terms in boldface does not refute an argument in favour of rendering one term, as was done in this case. --RexxS (talk) 18:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree the cases I mention are extreme. I am just not seeing "bilateral cancer" as being important enough to redirect. I see it as falling into the uncommon brandnames situation. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:26, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, taken a while to get back to this. I wonder if bilateral cancer comes up in people's searches because they want to know what "bilateral" means. I actually think it should be redirected to Anatomical terms of location#Medial and lateral! JFW | T@lk 18:51, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

That makes sense. If there is something to say about the word "bilateral cancer" beyond a definition (such as e.g MEDRS compliant sources saying that prognosis is worse or that genetic counseling may be warranted) having a dedicated page may be worth it. Or Terminology of cancer if there are other terms to write about that don't all merit their own article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:25, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

according to this trial[1] around 1000 iu of vitamin d and calcium reduce all cancer risks by like 50 percent... considering that 1000 ui is pretty low dose of vitamin d , higher dose will probably even reduce the risk even more. and considering that anyone with internet connection can cross check data from CDC regarding cancer rates per state[2] vs Sunlight days avg per state [3] and see there is high negative correlation (-0.6<) and considering in wiki article it says cancer patients got low vitamin D compared to healthy. I think its safe to say that vitamin D reduce cancer risks by a pretty robust effect size. I mean, some cancer risks as red meat consumption increase of 17 percent cancer rate/100 grams daily , are only based on Correlations studies if I understand correctly ,and they get more spotlight in wiki article then the 0 attention the controlled trial of vitamin d and calcium with reduce risk by 50 percent ?

[1]http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/85/6/1586.full Vitamin D and calcium supplementation reduces cancer risk: results of a randomized trial1,2 Joan M Lappe, Dianne Travers-Gustafson, K Michael Davies, Robert R Recker, and Robert P Heaney [2]https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/dcpc/data/state.htm [3]https://www.currentresults.com/Weather/US/average-annual-state-sunshine.php RebelRex (talk) 09:55, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Some tentative evidence. Will need more study to make it stronger. Cancer was a secondary rather than primary end point. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Doc James , let me get this straight, tentative evidence for you means: (1) randomized trials demonstrating that low dose of vitamin d (and calcium) reduce all cancer risks by more then 50 percent ; in conjunction with (2)(3) naturalistic data that shows reduce cancer rate with more sunshine hours a year ; in conjunction with (4) data shows cancer patients got low vitamin d compare to healthy individuals; in conjunction with (5) scientific observational data that shows reduce breast cancer with intake of vitamin D - about 50 percent reduction; in conjunction (7) with scientific observational data showing high serum of 25(oh)d (>33) are linked to reduce risk of Colorectal Cancer, again 50 percent reduction; in conjunction (6) with data showing individuals with skin pigmentation with increase risk of cancer and finally in conjunction with (8) recommendations of the non profit health organization MayoClinic of vitamin d intake to reduce cancer risk

Statements that are false, and/or without scientific proof behind their claims in the cancer wiki article: "Vitamins are not effective at preventing cancer," - this has not been proven. For a start, the scientific paper which the upon it wiki based on is poorly made, not even mentioning Vitamin D in it (9). And as you say, in order to prove something you need replications of it. I haven't seen much replications of studies showing all vitamin doesn't reduce cancer risk. " People who have cancer are also at a high risk of *developing* vitamin D deficiency"- this statement is not backed with scientific data presented in the article and hints for inverse cause and effect , the article that is cited (10) clearly says "Patients with cancer are at high risk for vitamin D deficiency." Why wikipedia decided to add the word "developing"? The sad part is that even the articles wikipedia cites cleary says that intake of vitamin D is safe way to reduce cancer risk.

(1)http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/85/6/1586.full Vitamin D and calcium supplementation reduces cancer risk: results of a randomized trial1,2 Joan M Lappe, Dianne Travers-Gustafson, K Michael Davies, Robert R Recker, and Robert P Heaney (2) https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/dcpc/data/state.htm (3) https://www.currentresults.com/Weather/US/average-annual-state-sunshine.php (4) wiki cancer article (5) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749379706004983 (6) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960076006003918 (7) http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2004.045260 (8) https://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements-vitamin-d/art-20363792 (9)https://web.archive.org/web/20120525134048/http://english.prescrire.org/en/81/168/46461/0/2010/ArchiveNewsDetails.aspx?page=2 (10)http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ben/acamc/2013/00000013/00000001/art00010

RebelRex (talk) 18:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:MEDRS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Doc James , I took the time to write a well referenced and backed up answer to you, you haven't read it , and only gave me a link to irrelevant Wikipedia guidance article. If you had taken the time to even read the last paragraph of what I said, you would have seen that I was referring to the errors inside the current Wikipedia article and the inconsistency BETWEEN WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE AND ITS OWN CITES: Statements that are false, and/or without scientific proof behind their claims in the cancer wiki article: "Vitamins are not effective at preventing cancer," - this has not been proven. For a start, the scientific paper which the upon it wiki based on is poorly made, not even mentioning Vitamin D in it , so how does it get a conclusions about all vitamins?(9). And as you say, in order to prove something you need replications of it. I haven't seen much replications of studies showing all vitamin doesn't reduce cancer risk. " People who have cancer are also at a high risk of *developing* vitamin D deficiency"- this statement is not backed with scientific data presented in the article and hints for inverse cause and effect , the article that is cited (10) clearly says "Patients with cancer are at high risk for vitamin D deficiency." Why wikipedia decided to add the word "developing"? The sad part is that even the articles wikipedia cites cleary says that intake of vitamin D is safe way to reduce cancer risk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RebelRex (talk • contribs) 22:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC) (9)https://web.archive.org/web/20120525134048/http://english.prescrire.org/en/81/168/46461/0/2010/ArchiveNewsDetails.aspx?page=2 (10)http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ben/acamc/2013/00000013/00000001/art00010 RebelRex (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

So you read this "No vitamin or mineral supplement has a proven benefit in preventing cardiovascular disease or cancer in adults in developed countries."

As saying vitamin D prevents cancer?

Not really sure anything more to discuss unless you have other good sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I'll try to be more clear, I have a problem with Wikipedia's Cancer article , Section "Prevention" , under "Medication", second paragraph which state:

Vitamins are not effective at preventing cancer,[111] although low blood levels of vitamin D are correlated with increased cancer risk.[112][113] People who have cancer are also at a high risk of developing vitamin D deficiency.[114] Whether this relationship is causal and vitamin D supplementation is protective is not determined.[115] Beta-carotene supplementation increases lung cancer rates in those who are high risk.[116] Folic acid supplementation is not effective in preventing colon cancer and may increase colon polyps.[117] It is unclear if selenium supplementation has an effect.[118]

THE ARTICLE YOU CITE IS THE ONE WIKIPEDIA IS CITING NUMBER [111] . I BROUGHT THIS ARTICLE UP TO SHOW IT IS TRASH,NOT TO SHOW THAT VITAMIN D HELP CANCER. WIKIPEDIA SHOULDN'T BASED SUCH A DECISIVE AND FALSE STATEMENT UPON IT AS THE ARTICLE ITSELF DOESN'T BACK ITS OWN STATEMENT. WHY IT IS TRASH? BECAUSE THE ARTICLE ITSELF DOESN'T MENTION VITAMIN D (READ THE LINK TO IT) ,NOR DO CHECK RELEVANT LITERATURE REGARDING VITAMIN D .

REGARDING THE STATEMENT:

People who have cancer are also at a high risk of developing vitamin D deficiency.[114]

THIS STATEMENT IS THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT [114] TRYING TO SAY, FROM THE ARTICLE:

A multitude of studies have associated improved vitamin D status with decreased risk for developing several deadly cancers including colon, breast, pancreatic and ovarian cancers. Patients with cancer are at high risk for vitamin D deficiency. Sensible sun exposure, vitamin D fortification and vitamin D supplementation should be encouraged to improve the vitamin D status of children and adults not only for bone health but for reducing risk of developing and dying of cancer. The goal is to achieve a blood level of 25-hydroxyvitamin D of 40-60 ng/mL. This can be accomplished by children taking 600-1000 and adults 1500-2000 international units (IU) vitamin D daily from diet and supplements along with sensible sun exposure when the sun is capable of producing vitamin D in the skin.

THE ARTICLE DOESN'T STATE THAT IF YOU HAVE CANCER YOU HAVE CHANCE TO DEVELOP VITAMIN D DEFICIENCY! IT SAYS PEOPLE WITH CANCER ARE MORE LIKELY TO HAVE VITAMIN D DEFICIENCY. CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION!

As long as wikipedia article try to convey that vitamin d doesn't reduce cancer risk, because of some strict rules of WP:MEDRS , practically saying the opposite, then Wikipedia cancer article is maybe scientifically mainstream but not Empirical or based on facts.

[111] "Vitamins and minerals: not for cancer or cardiovascular prevention". Prescrire International. 19 (108): 182. August 2010. PMID 20939459. Archived from the original on 25 May 2012. [114] Holick MF (January 2013). "Vitamin D, sunlight and cancer connection". Anti-Cancer Agents in Medicinal Chemistry. 13 (1): 70–82. doi:10.2174/187152013804487308. PMID 23094923. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RebelRex (talk • contribs) 02:31, 7 November 2017 (UTC) RebelRex (talk) 02:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Added some newer sources Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

First of all , I have no access to the full article you linked. But this article is meta analysis , and personally I wouldn't trust meta analysis of any kind to prove my point. Not relaying on the them exclusively that for sure. To me it seems you try to avoid at any cost actually looking at the science data , and using your brain to understand the facts. If you have 10 positive clinical trials regarding vitamin d and cancer, and 10 negative clinical trials regarding vitamin d and cancer, so the conclusion by your logic is that there is no evidence because the 10 positive and the 10 negative trials negate each other , right? By your logic, If you have 3 big trials that saying vitamin d reduce cancer, and 3 bigger trials saying vitamin d doesn't reduce cancer , then the bigger the trials negate the big trials?

This is not how scientific deduction works. The facts are still that vitamin D is reducing cancer risks. I BROUGHT 8 LINKS TO RESEARCHES THAT IN CONJUNCTION TO EACH OTHER PROVED IT IS SO. YOU IGNORED THEM.

RebelRex (talk) 17:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cancer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110904052252/http://www.apocpcontrol.org/page/popup_paper_file_view.php?pno=MzcxIFBhcmsucCZrY29kZT04MjI=&pgubun=i to http://www.apocpcontrol.org/page/popup_paper_file_view.php?pno=MzcxIFBhcmsucCZrY29kZT04MjI=&pgubun=i

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:37, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

The WHO cancer fact sheet from 2009 has been updated to its newest, 2018 version. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 11:38, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

This edit request to Cancer has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hi, I'd like to update some of the links to the National Cancer Institute. There are about eight links in this article that point to old URLs (the ones with the prefix: www.cancer.gov/cancertopics). Thanks! Yaelnussbacher (talk) 15:33, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

@Yaelnussbacher:, just for future reference, edit requests are more likely to be answered if you phrase them more specifically as "Please change X to Y." That said, thei request gace me enough information to search for the information and find the current urls for the National Cancer Institute pages, some of which have been updated significantly or changed entirely. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

The opening line is "Cancer is a group of diseases involving abnormal cell growth"

Is the use of the word disease appropriate? Isn't cancer more appropriately called a condition, as cancer itself is not a pathogen (even if it may be caused by them). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.93.68.42 (talk) 02:10, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

"I just reverted an edit that removed the source (WHO) for the claim that tobacco use causes 22% of cancer deaths (I don't mean removing the reference, just the text in the article itself). I'm not disputing the claim at all, I just think that when the wording goes like "is thought to cause" as opposed to "causes", we should name the source in the article text. Recent reverts are all done by experienced editors, so I think it's best to get a consensus here." - Jason Fortenberry (▀̿Ĺ̯▀̿)Pinging @Doc James:, @SQGibbon: and @Johnbod:. byteflush _Talk 23:28, 6 June 2018 (UTC) (▀̿Ĺ̯▀̿)

Also, I don't have a strong opinion about this either way, it just seemed more logical to me that if we have the word thought in the sentence, we should specifiy thought by whom (I really hope that's the correct use of whom =)) byteflush _Talk 23:34, 6 June 2018 (UTC) . (▀̿Ĺ̯▀̿)

"Thought to cause" is about as far as you are going to get with any such hugely broad epidemiological statement - nobody can say what caused even a single probably smoking-related cancer case with certainty. This isn't research by the WHO, just their summation of all the masses of actual research, so it is rather misleading to attribute it to them. Note from WP:WEASEL "The examples given above are not automatically weasel words. They may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution. Likewise, views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if they accurately represent the opinions of the source." Johnbod (talk) 23:55, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Fair point. Didn't think of that. However, 22% is still a pretty accurate number, it could be lower or higher, depending on the research cited. Are the more numbers from reliable sources, so we can make it i.e. 20%-30% in wikipedia's voice? I'm pretty bad at finding good WP:MEDRS. byteflush _Talk 00:09, 7 June 2018 (UTC) . (▀̿Ĺ̯▀̿)

• Okay have restored it to "causes" were it stood initially. This is not a disputed fact so we can state it as fact. If we were to begin every sentence with "The BMJ says" The Lancet says" etc etc etc our articles would become unreadable. No reason to do it here. We already have "about" meaning that this is an estimate. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:13, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

• @Doc James: I'm fine with that. It does read a lot better this way. byteflush _Talk 02:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC) . (▀̿Ĺ̯▀̿)

There are at least two places in the article where it is asserted that various kinds of cancer can be 'prevented' by appropriate lifestyle choices. In both cases the claim is cited to printed literature that I am unable to check.

"It is my understanding that almost any cancer attributable to lifestyle choices could also be caused by radiation or random mutation. I do appreciate that the great majority of cancers are in fact the result of lifestyle choices; but surely it is incorrect to claim that by not making those choices, one has actually prevented the cancer - i.e. that it is guaranteed not to occur?" - Jason Fortenberry JasonFortenberry (talk) 08:42, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Prevention refers to decreasing risk not necessarily eliminating it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:21, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/new_study_finds_that_most_cancer_mutations_are_due_to_random_dna_copying_mistakes — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnDoe30001 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

User:JohnDoe30001 Typically we stick with sources described at WP:MEDRS.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:12, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

how exactly is linking to an article that MENTIONS its source as another article and dosent link to said article, a legitimate way of sourcing anything? especially considering said article itself is quite difficult, if at all possible, to actually find? not to mention the website links some of its sources yet chooses which ones to not actually source. so if these claims cannot be PROVEN, only cited to random examples that nobody can find, why are they here?67.246.187.128 (talk) 21:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what precisely your point is. Is this a general concern about WP:MEDRS? JFW | T@lk 08:37, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Cancer statistics.

I suggest putting some of this at the top of the talk section so that it is not archived. It is near-useless once archived. Maybe create a banner for it.

Resources:

• Cancer - Our World in Data. Many free charts and maps. At the bottom of every page on the site is this: "Our World in Data is a creative commons publication about human civilization at a global scale." CC link is to CC-BY-SA which is accepted by Wikipedia and the Commons.

The tabs below the images provide sources, chart data, SVG, and PNG downloads.

You may have to upload the charts and maps you want to the Commons of course:

• Commons:Special:UploadWizard

Check these categories first to see if the images are already uploaded:

• commons:Category:Cancer statistics
• commons:Category:Cancer maps

--Timeshifter (talk) 02:58, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

{{Commons category|Cancer statistics|position=left}}

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Cancer statistics.

I added this to the external links section. It does not make the page longer since the other stuff is on the right side. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I was wondering how to combine them. Someone else combined them. Can position the combined one to the left.

{{Commons category multi|Cancer|Cancer statistics|position=left}}

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Cancer and Cancer statistics.

--Timeshifter (talk) 01:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I noticed that a space in front of the template prevented some weird problem with extra indentation being added to lines and section headers that followed here on the talk page. {{clear}} did not help. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Unindent. {{Commons cats}} - easier to remember and use.

{{Commons cats|Cancer|Cancer statistics|position=left}}

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Cancer and Cancer statistics.

--Timeshifter (talk) 10:05, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Everything is relevant to the topic being discussed but could use some improvement in terms of the amount of information. In the first paragraph rather than stating, “While these symptoms may indicate cancer, they may have other causes” the writer should also specify which other causes they can have. Another section that needs improvement is the “Causes” section because it fails to elaborate on the given information. The overall tone of the article is neutral which helps eliminate any bias. Rnp2w (talk) 00:40, 15 September 2018 (UTC)Rnp2w

The article did not go off topic and it seemed to cover a lot of different subjects about cancer. I also checked some of the article's sources and they seemed to be up to date and reliable. The article does need more detail though; many topics were covered, but they were broad. The article needs a little more detail about how cancer cells are produced and how they spread throughout the body. More statistics and facts would be helpful for a topic like cancer. It informs the audience how cancer can affect them and what the chances of survival are for different types and stages of cancer. Rachelv37 (talk) 02:24, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I really enjoy this article and how it was laid out, it was very informal but not over whelming. This article gives you facts and also give pictures to help show what cancer looks like. I am a son that his mom had cancer, so I know a good amount about it too, unfortunately, but this article was a good read and I enjoyed it. It was not to harsh but it let you know the facts, whys, and what to expect. For someone that maybe has been diagnosed this might give them a general and better idea in what to expect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaaccc 11 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

The introductory sentence describes cancer as a disease. It is not contagious. Is it not a condition? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.254.209 (talk) 11:49, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

This edit request to Cancer has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add more about the cell cycle and mitosis 173.33.13.13 (talk) 13:19, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done. What text should be removed and what is the verbatim copy of the text that should replace it? The request must be of the form "please change X to Y" and suggest a reference. Cell cycle and mitosis as WP articles both have discussions about cancer within. --Zefr (talk) 13:27, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I believe this is an extremely relevant information to the article. According to cancer.org, the risk of developing cancer during lifetime is 39.66% for males and 37.65% for females, so it is as big as 1 in 3 to 1 in 2. Was searching for this information in Wikipedia, could find it only on an external site. Jack who built the house (talk) 14:22, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

For this we'd need international data, including from developing countries. Perhaps the Global Burden of Disease study could provide such information. JFW | T@lk 22:12, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Continuation of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fasting#Uses_in_cancer_treatment_or_prevention

https://www.aging-us.com/article/101382/text “The Ketogenic Diet (KD), a high-fat/low-carbohydrate/adequate-protein diet, has recently been proposed as an adjuvant therapy in cancer treatment [1]. KDs target the Warburg effect, a biochemical phenomenon in which cancer cells predominantly utilize glycolysis instead of oxidative phosphorylation to produce ATP. Furthermore, some cancers lack the ability to metabolize ketone bodies, due to mitochondrial dysfunction and down-regulation of enzymes necessary for ketone utilization [2]. Thus, the rationale in providing a fat-rich, low-carbohydrate diet in cancer therapy is to reduce circulating glucose levels and induce ketosis such that cancer cells are starved of energy while normal cells adapt their metabolism to use ketone bodies and survive. Furthermore, by reducing blood glucose also levels of insulin and insulin-like growth factor, which are important drivers of cancer cell proliferation, drop.”

The Warburg Effect: How Does it Benefit Cancer Cells? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4783224

--7henix (talk) 07:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

No response. So everyone approves of inclusion? --7henix (talk) 10:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

{u|7henix}}, are there any more sources to support this? Nigos (t@lk • Contribs) 10:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Already covered at Ketogenic diet#Other applications, in some detail. Would be undue here. So not to be included - and in fact on closer inspection the Aging piece is just an editorial, so is not WP:MEDRS in any case. Furthermore, the ketogenic diet is the locus for quite a bit of cancer quackery so we need to be very careful about how this topic is approached on Wikipedia. Alexbrn (talk) 10:27, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

"Aging" is a journal with doubtful editorial policies.

Your support for KD as quackery is a blog post without citations. The aging-us site is a peer reviewed journal with an editorial board: https://www.aging-us.com/editorial-board. The authors are: Daniela D. Weber 1 , Sepideh Aminazdeh-Gohari 1 , Barbara Kofler 1 (1 Research Program for Receptor Biochemistry and Tumor Metabolism, University Hospital for Pediatrics of the Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburg 5020, Austria) --7henix (talk) 01:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I think rather than discussing one diet, I think we should discuss all diets in context. PMID 30474102 is a source. JFW | T@lk 11:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Good idea. Now I remember, we have a whole article: Diet and cancer. Alexbrn (talk) 11:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I think, that only those diets that are being used for treatment should be discussed in the cancer management section. User JFW mentioned PMID 30474102 which says a bit about KD. --7henix (talk) 01:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

"Not supported by strong scientific evidence" seems to sum it up. These diets are not being "used for treatment". Alexbrn (talk) 04:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Is NPR quackery too? https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/03/05/468285545/fighting-cancer-by-putting-tumor-cells-on-a-diet --7henix (talk) 00:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

It's not a reliable source for medical content. The quackery aspect is well covered by the Gorski piece I linked above, should we wish to cover it. Alexbrn (talk) 04:39, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Your support for KD as quackery is a blog post without citations. The aging-us site is a peer reviewed journal with an editorial board: https://www.aging-us.com/editorial-board. The authors are: Daniela D. Weber 1 , Sepideh Aminazdeh-Gohari 1 , Barbara Kofler 1 (1 Research Program for Receptor Biochemistry and Tumor Metabolism, University Hospital for Pediatrics of the Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburg 5020, Austria) --7henix (talk) 01:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Nobody has cast "KD as quackery". But there is a strong quackery aspect to the way that some people promote it, as is obvious from the Gorski source (or just some trivial Googling). This is maybe an aspect Wikipedia should cover somewhere, though probably not in this article. As to general cancer-treatment efficacy, taking this diet - as with others - is "not supported by strong scientific evidence"; that is probably all we can say here. Alexbrn (talk) 18:07, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll leave it to you to add the ketogenic diet, that is currently being used in cancer centers (such as UCSF) as an adjunctive therapy. I'll probably stick to working on another wiki. This one doesn't suit me. Anyone reading this, I recommend you try out Everipedia. It's has a novel concept to apply fairness and keep tyranny from forming, as it has at Wikipedia. --7henix (talk) 21:00, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

info box replace deaths total 2015 with 2018 of 9.6million https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/cancer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.204.102 (talk) 03:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

This edit request to Cancer has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I would like an edit authorization and access because I have found that other users have added deceitful information therefor i would like access so when I am skimming over information and find some false i can simply change it so others can find this as a secure website with accurate information 208.84.138.49 (talk) 17:17, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Only use this template to request edits for which consensus has already been reached here. To gain editing privileges start an account and start making some decent edits. Alexbrn (talk) 17:19, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Does cancer affect plants and insects? If not, why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.154.73.17 (talk) 05:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes Hjoker4 (talk) 00:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

This edit request to Cancer has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I would like to see the addition of this article under "additional reading". Thank you for your consideration.

Association of financial toxicity (FT) with depression, anxiety, and quality of life (QoL) in older patients with advanced cancer: An analysis of 544 patients from 31 practices in the University of Rochester NCI Community Oncology Research Program (UR NCORP). Asad Arastu, Joseph Ciminelli, Eva Culakova, Lianlian Lei, Huiwen Xu, David W. Dougherty, Mostafa R. Mohamed, Megan Wells, Paul Duberstein, Marie Anne Flannery, Gary R. Morrow, Charles Stewart Kamen, Chintan Pandya, Jeffrey L. Berenberg, Valerie Aarne, and Supriya Gupta Mohile Journal of Clinical Oncology 2018 36:15_suppl, e22037-e22037 Valerie210 (talk) 15:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

See WP:MEDRS - this is a primary study, so sorry, but no. Johnbod (talk) 15:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

In addition, I would like to add that the topic is rather ancillary to the subject of cancer. If the study qualified for Wikipedia as a secondary or tertiary source, it would be cited in an article dealing with the downstream social and psychological consequences of cancer, if such an article exists in en.wikipedia.--Quisqualis (talk) 16:42, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Cancer prevalence is currently given as 90.5 million for 2015 based on a paper in the Lancet from 2016.^[1] There is a Lancet paper from the same group published in 2018 for 2017 ^[2] (see prevalence 2017, neoplasm) that puts prevalence at 100.5 million. This should be updated. Next Lancet paper for 2019 will probably be published in late 2020. Update will be needed then too.

Update: Deaths should also be updated to 2017 numbers and the same citation number should be used for both. Currently citation 6 and 7 are identical.

200.27.72.243 (talk) 15:59, 2 March 2020 (UTC) Dr. Matthieu J. Miossec, 15:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to Cancer has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add “not to be confused with Cancer_(astrology)” 98.148.167.84 (talk) 03:31, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Such confusion is improbable given the "group of diseases" in the first sentence and the CT scan infobox image. Larry Hockett (Talk) 03:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

It's not 'crab and tumor', καρκίνος means just 'crab', in ancient Greek. Please change that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MavropaliasG (talk • contribs) 14:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Where is the evidence to suggest that non-ionising radiation can cause cancer? It isn't stated in the citation used for that line so I have good reason to believe it is simply not true and is spreading misinformation. SeanKirk (talk) 13:18, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@SeanKirk, UV light is non-ionizing and causes skin cancer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:55, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2019 and 15 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rcadet1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jenjhayashi.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to Cancer has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I believe that the use of viruses to kill cancer should be documented in imunotherapy, or in its own subsection under management. Deathisaninevitability,soifearitnot-1234 (talk) 20:02, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Not currently part of standard management. It may be suitable for interventions under investigation only. JFW | T@lk 21:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

It's possible that it could be mentioned in the ==Research== section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:57, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Cancer has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please replace this: "The benefits of screening in breast cancer are controversial" with this: "The benefits of screening for breast cancer are controversial".

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.4.156.30 (talk • contribs) 10:03, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done Melmann 11:32, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Cancer has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

<a href="https://newsbharti01.blogspot.com/2022/02/max-hospital-saket-dispatches-ai-based.html" rel="dofollow">cancer</a> Rks8059 (talk) 09:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 10:36, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Malignancies and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 27#Malignancies until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

A "looks promising" potential miricle cure for Rectal Cancer (and at least theoretically all and every single other cancers as well) has been discovered in the Clinical trial of the Drug Dostarlimab with 18 patients over a period of 6 months. If confirmed by further trials , it is an uttermost strong contender for the Nobel Prize for Medicine. Currently Cancer is responsible for about 1 in 6 deaths amongst the 7.8 Billion Total Population worldwide , and this is quantum leaps by more the uttermost brilliant breakthrough in the fight by all Professional Doctors and Researchers against this very serious De Facto Death Sentence in most patients. According to Dr. Luis A. Diax III it is "the fist time it has happened in the history of Cancer". As part of the Professional Medical Trial of 18 patients by a team of Doctors and Professional Medical Scientific Researchers , the Drug Dostarlimab was administered to 18 Clinical Trial Rectal Cancer Patients every three weeks for the Clinical Trial Period of six months. At the end of the Six Month Trial Period every single one of the 18 Patients participating in the trial witnessed one of the uttermostly astounding Miricles in the history of Mankind as far as the Medical Profession is concerned , A COMPLETE CURE OF DETECTABLE CANCER , and certainly the most astounding Miricle in the History of Cancer Research.Dostarlimab is a Drug with laboratory produced molecules and act as , once administered to the patient , as substitute antibodies in the human body. 197.184.165.135 (talk) 12:05, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to Cancer has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In section 4.2, under the header "epigenetics", please consider the following edits: Please replace the following "Later epigenetic alterations' role was identified.[92]", with "Later a role for epigenetic alterations giving rise to chromatin variants was identified.[92]" Thank you for considering. Obelista (talk) 20:54, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done, although differently. Zefr (talk) 00:41, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to Cancer has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

79.76.109.78 (talk) 13:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC) change 'prostate cancer in men' to 'prostate cancer in men who have a prostate' if you're going to say 'women who have a cervix' then its only fair

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:47, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

"change 'prostate cancer in men' to 'prostate cancer in men who have a prostate' if you're going to say 'women who have a cervix' then its only fair" is the dumbest thing I've read on Wikipedia today. Congrats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.212.232.131 (talk) 19:23, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Please remove this from the article. It is a commercial promotion and unnecessary. 2605:8D80:62D:D4B7:99D4:F1B:E41B:1866 (talk) 18:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed and  Done. Zefr (talk) 15:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

The current risk language around obesity is not medically valid, as it could track a correlation rather than a causation. Mokshafarmsanctuary (talk) 06:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

"While these symptoms may indicate cancer, they can also have other causes."

Very humane to put it in there, but it ought to be a footnote instead. Will try to make that change when I can figure out the mechanism. Abeg92contribs 21:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

@Abeg92, I think it's fine where it is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:26, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Along with a generic tag at the top, I included four citation needed tags. I advise medical regulars to combine the numerous brief paragraphs, add inline citations, and improve the "other animals" section. Since this medical article is of paramount importance, Wikipedia needs to have a well-presented entry. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 20:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Brief paragraphs tend to be easier for people to read. Combining paragraphs to reach a particular size is not likely to be a good idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:28, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

The journal titled "Cancer Incidence, Mortality, Years of Life Lost, Years Lived with Disability, and Disability-Adjusted Life Years for 29 Cancer Groups from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019" offers a comprehensive analysis of the global burden of cancer. Here is a brief summary of its key contents:

1. Incidence Rates: The study provides data on the number of new cancer cases globally, highlighting significant increases in cancers such as breast, lung, and colorectal cancers.

2. Mortality Rates: It details the number of cancer-related deaths, with lung cancer being the leading cause of cancer mortality worldwide.

3. Years of Life Lost (YLL): The study measures the loss of life due to premature cancer deaths, identifying cancers like lung, liver, and stomach cancers as having the highest YLL.

4. Years Lived with Disability (YLD): It evaluates the years lived with disability due to cancer, showing that cancers causing long-term health issues, such as colorectal and breast cancers, contribute significantly to YLD.

5. Disability-Adjusted Life Years (DALY): The study combines YLL and YLD to provide an overall measure of the disease burden, revealing that lung, liver, and stomach cancers account for the highest DALY globally.https://scholar.unair.ac.id/en/publications/cancer-incidence-mortality-years-of-life-lost-years-lived-with-di FIn4nwatin (talk) 08:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@FIn4nwatin, this sounds like good information for the article. You can edit the article now. Would you like to have a go at updating it? I suggest trying this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer?veaction=edit so you can have a word-processing-like environment with auto-formatting references. Just click the "Cite" button, and put https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34967848/ into the "Automatic" box. (That link also gives you a link to a free, full-text copy of the whole paper. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

FIn4nwatin indef'ed as part of a sock-farm spamming unair publications. DMacks (talk) 06:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

This sentence in the prognosis section "A majority of cancer deaths are due to metastases of the primary tumor" has a citation pointing to a review on cancer heterogeneity in mice - theres no research in the paper about cancer deaths in humans with or without metastasis. Jasonisme (talk) 07:42, 28 April 2025 (UTC)