![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I would be inclined to split out the classification section into a new article, but leave basic detail there and in the staging section. 3 questions: 1) what should the new classification article be called ( classification of breast cancer?) 2) can the classification and staging sections be merged? 3) Is this a good idea? -- phoebe / ( talk to me) 17:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but the editors of Wikipedia are generally not trained medical professionals, and we can't offer you medical advice. (If you get any here anyway, you probably shouldn't trust it—see the Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer.)
For accurate, comprehensive responses to questions about your own health and symptoms, you should absolutely speak to a physician — some random folks on the Internet are a very poor fallback. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 15:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
1)cancer, sounds obusiv but curingor controling the cancers not the best thing to have in ur hole life then maybe u may need a treatment. metastasis is a complex series of steps in which cancer cells leave the original tumor site and migrate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.16.10 ( talk) 23:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
"people in less-developing countries reported to have low incidence rate than other in developed countries" What is a "less-developing country", compared to a "developed country"? Which incidence is low? Or is it just lower? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.176.9 ( talk) 12:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Is breast feeding with a cancerous boob contagiious? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.223.139 ( talk) 01:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
The section Breast_cancer#United_States quotes incidence rates, but as raw figures (141 and 122). These should be a proportion (e.g. 141 per 1000, or per 1,000,000) of a group (e.g adults, women of a particular age). 86.133.66.18 ( talk) 19:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Uhm, sorry for drive by editing, but isn't breast cancer *less* common than both non-melanomatous skin cancer and colon cancer? I'm pretty sure it is. Anyway, can't access the original reference to check up.
Also, the stuff about tamoxifen in the section on etiology on UK is out of place.
Lastly, under etiology, risk factors for male breast cancer should be listed, as they're distinct and different to the ones in female breast cancer.
The sentence "there is no cure for breast cancer" is odd too. Aside from not really being organised there, technically there is-ish; cutting it out, although I know what the editor means.
The section on prevention should probably be deleted and that link placed higher.
The screening section probably needs to be reorganised such that the common screening stuff is at the top, and the rarely used stuff is lower, eg the stuff on MRI. Also, FNAC isn't a screening tool.
The article really needs to be more gender neutral (what I would suggest), or split for a seperate article on men. While the fact that 1.5 (or so) of breast cancer in males may not seem very high, the fact that that leads to a lifetime risk of 1 in 600 makes it more common than many many other diseases which get more of a mention.
Anyway, I'll start working on fixing up screening. 128.250.5.246 ( talk) 14:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Done work on screening and diagnosis, still need sources, but a little better now. Cut the section on mammography not showing a mortality benefit, there's undue weight to that study and far more powerful studies have demonstrated the advantage to mortality. The section on CT US is undue weight to an thing that is not in common use. 128.250.5.246 ( talk) 15:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
This article sucks! How can you call this a balanced, encyclopedic article about breast cancer when no mention is made of the definitive and indesputable link between abortions and breast cancer. Most doctors agree that the majority of breast cancer cases appear in women who have had abortions. Mention must be made of this, and equal space and effort devoted to discussing it. If sutible changes aren't made, I'll have to add a NPOV tag. 69.122.133.58 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC).
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/frear/brind.htm 69.122.133.58 ( talk) 14:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6214655.stm 69.122.133.58 ( talk) 15:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Why does Dr. Susan Love ("Dr. Susan Love Breast Book") not have an article in Wikipedia? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
98.217.209.143 (
talk)
16:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
How can a statement of fact be removed? Under "Causes", I wrote:
Abortion: A peer-reviewed study published in the 2009 World Journal of Surgical Oncology
[1] found a statistically significant 66% increase in breast cancer risk: "Conclusion: These findings suggest that age and induced abortion were found to be significantly associated with increased breast cancer risk"
That this study took place fits the definition of a fact. Is the World Journal of Surgical Oncology not a reputable source? Please explain. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
209.148.89.134 (
talk)
13:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Let me just run through a few points:
Do I stand by the current text? No. I have always maintained that evidence is neutral without exception so it's simply stating something that would be impossible in any case. The same evidence that convict people also prove them innocent with a different interpretation. Something can only be proven or unproven and in this case it is the majority view that it's unproven. Biofase flame| stalk 17:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I would like to add a link to the American Cancer Society's Detailed Guide for Breast Cancer to this page.
karen7673 ( talk) 18:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Karen 7673 - Please the add the ACS link. RobinSM23 ( talk) 17:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I was horrified to see someone referring to a 20 year-old single study suggesting that exposure to semen is somehow protective of breast cancer. This observation was never reproduced. But many other studies suggested a much smarter explanation for what this French team observed: in 1989, the vast majority of their non-barrier contraceptive users used "the pill". It is now well known that any intervention that decreases the number of ovulations will decrease breast cancer risk. Bottom line: besides the non-modifiable genetic risks, most, if not all, known modifiable risk factors for breast cancer cause an increased exposure of the body to oestrogen. In fewer words, genes and oestrogen cause breast cancer. Emmanuelm ( talk) 17:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
This was recently added. The only link which is easily accessible is not a published study but looks like someone blog. Therefore I have moved it here to discuss in more detail. The references do not seem to relate to the topic at hand. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 00:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
In a two year "Bra and Breast Cancer Study" [2] including 5000 women in the United States, it was discovered that women with breast cancer had a history of sporting tighter and longer bra-wearing than did the women who had not (yet) developed the disease. Since this time many studies have independantly verified the connection between cancers and tight fitting clothing. [3] [4] [5] [6] in particular bras [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] and that wearing a bra significantly correlates with cancer rates. [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] One hypothesis is that restriction of lymphatic flow by bras could, by several possible mechanisms, cause breast disease. [20] [21] [22]
Some types of fibrocystic lumps are correlated with higher breast cancer rates. [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] Hormones that affect bra-fit have been related to breast cancer risk [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40]
Some people might think that women who do not wear bras would be smaller breasted and therefore have lower cancer rates because of size. However, cup size has been shown to not be significant. [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46]
Local hypoxia (lack of normal oxygen levels) can happen when circulation is compromised through wearing a bra (as in a heart attack or stroke). Hypoxia can reduce the effectiveness of cellular antioxidant mechanisms and has been related to altered gene expression and DNA damage. [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55]
The myth that bras prevent the breast ptosis has no scientific support. Medical research actually shows that weight-bearing and movement is necessary to the maintainence of healthy ligaments. And, ligaments are responsible for supporting and giving shape to the breasts [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63]
I think the pink ribbon in the infobox is too big and crowds the infobox information out of the screen. Perhaps it belongs below in the discussion of the pink ribbon? -- Nbauman ( talk) 20:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
(undent) If we had something better I would go with it. I do not see anything better on the page right now. The illustrating sound interesting.. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 01:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I have cropped the commons image down in two different ways [8] and [9] which do people prefer? Should we keep the contra-lateral breast for contrast? Still needs to be labeled with the signs of breast cancer. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 16:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I have concerns about the recurrent breast cancer image. It is rare to see a case this advanced and it does not illustrate typical breast cancer. I worry that this is a misleading image for those unfamiliar with breast cancer. I'll try to find a more suitable image from commons. Gobonobo T C 20:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind if somebody who knew more about the RAS/MEK/ERK pathway than I do would review that section. I know the PI3K/AKT pathway controls apoptosis. I'm not sure about RAS/MEK/ERK. -- Nbauman ( talk) 03:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
WP:IMAGE recommends that images be set to default. Gives all images the same width which I think is a good idea. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 20:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
This article reads like a medical text book, but doctors don't rely on wikipedia for medical information. We should work together to make it more appropriate for a lay audience -- not more than a college educated audience, preferably less educated. I have made some small efforts to do that today but it is a big job. I hope others agree with me. Umarylandmd ( talk) 16:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, I made a few revisions and will keep working on it. Umarylandmd ( talk) 20:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to see the image that is currently in the Prognosis section removed from this article. This image is an extremely severe case of recurrent breast cancer that represents far less than 1% of breast cancer cases. As it does not represent most women's breast cancer experiences, it gives a false impression of what breast cancer looks like, especially for those unfamiliar with the topic. Gobonobo T C 20:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Gobonobo. This photo is not at all typical of recurrent breast cancer. It would potentially provide false reassurance to women who think they don't have recurrent cancer because they don't look like this. And, it would be terrifying to children whose mothers have breast cancer. Since children use wikipedia, I think that is something we should be concerned about. Doc James says he has seen cases such as this, which I believe, but in what country and how many? This looks like a case of recurrence that was left untreated for a long time.
Umarylandmd ( talk) 00:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
The Research section seemed to be just about breast cancer cell lines so I gave it that name and started a more general Research section which needs much more. Most of the BCC section could move to a new article eg breast cancer cell line. Rod57 ( talk) 15:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Cancer of the breast is the most frequent malignancy that occurs in women. A little awareness goes a long way in terms of protection, while early diagnosis of breast cancer can even save your life.
Following are 9 natural ways to prevent from breast cancer
1. Every women should examine her breasts ever month.Any skin changes should also be noted, with changes in their shape and size. A lump or a cyst may just be a benign tumour, but it should be reported to the doctor immediately. There are many kinds of benign tumours of the breasts, but this is for your physician to decide.
2. Examine yourself every month just after the menstrual period. The best way to do this is by palpation of the breasts, with the flat of the hands, keeping the finger-tips together. Examine the upper part, the central and the lower parts, as well as the armpits.
3. Visual examination in front of a mirror helps to observe changes in size or outline, as well as any changes on the skin surface.
4. Some of the signs that may be danger signals, are certainly worth knowing. These are puckering of the skin, any discharge from the nipples, lumps, cysts or swellings, changes in the shape or size.
5. If there is pain that is not the normal pain that occurs before menstruation, it should be reported to the doctor. Regular self-examination of the breasts also helps one to become familiar with one's own normal size, shape and consistency, so that changes, if and when they occur, are more easily noticed.
6. Annual routine medical check-ups should also be undertaken. This is of particular importance after the age of thirty.The chances of malignancy increase with age and are more likely during middle age.
7. Self-examination and detection is one of the most effective ways by which possible malignant conditions are diagnosed and treated. Early detection has a very high cure rate-- about eighty percent. 8. The best way to examine yourself is to lie flat on a firm bed and then palpate the breasts with the flat of the palms. Changes in size and outline can be detected by observing the breasts in the mirror.
9. First with your arms at the sides and then with the arms held up over the head. While doing this, see if there are any changes in size, outline or skin surface.If it does than consult with doctor immediately. SOURCE:
I'm planning to start a new article at Breast cancer awareness in a few weeks. It will cover basically all of Breast cancer#Society_and_culture (except the art section). When it's done, we'll probably need to re-work this section as a {{ Main}} summary of the new article.
If you have ideas, sources, etc., please feel free to help out. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Progestin HRT seems to be accepted as a risk factor for breast cancer [12] but the article doesn't seem to mention that. Rod57 ( talk) 00:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
The text seems to have been added here. AFAICT, the information presented is correct and verifiable. The first half of the sentence (no evidence for either self-exams or clinical exams) can be verified through the no-cost portions of the cited Cochrane review. The second half of the sentence (the "slow-growing" claim) may or may not be mentioned in the gated paper. (If it isn't, then I've seen that claim elsewhere just in the last month or two; perhaps I'll be able to find the other source again.) WhatamIdoing ( talk) 08:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone have any opinions about the merge proposal at Breast cancer; calcium and vitamin D? I think it should be merged to something (either here, or at Risk factors for breast cancer). WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Merger complete. merged to Risk factors for breast cancer --
KarlB (
talk)
23:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
This probably explains why they are more often diagnosed, but less often die. Mammograms find some cancers before they can grow, and other cancers that might never have grown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdncntx ( talk • contribs) 19:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I've corrected the recently updated statistics. The column at Globocan that is labeled "ASR (W)" means "Weighted age-standardized rate", not "percentage of people who have this cancer". WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I removed this sentence: "Breast cancers can be classified by constant rallying for a 'cure' and saggy breast nipples which fizzle with out salsa."
In case there was originally some point being made that needs to be reinserted, can someone professional please look at the classification section? I thought the sentence rude enough to simply remove it but can't judge the accuracy or completeness of what's left. Elinruby ( talk) 04:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)elinruby
I actually think that some of the sociological points are well taken. But... ok, I am here to look stuff up for a friend's mother and am a little overwhelmed as it is. I am thinking that if I were the actual patient it would simply be too much. I find it rather ironic that I am saying this as I have commented on some other medical pages saying that they are too geared to professionals. This one is too geared to women's studies majors. Your average user of this page is likely to want to know about staging and prognosis.
I think that the over-estimate of cancer risk is an important point and should stay; the rather interesting material about breast cancer in history and in art should become its own section and have a reference and a link here.
That is my reaction to the page as it is now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby ( talk • contribs) 05:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Routinely done -- studies indicate it may not improve survival. Does have significant risks.
some journal articles:
Maybe it's still controversial? But a patient that risks losing the use of her arm wants to know that there's a reason why she is doing it. IMHO the question should at least be mentioned.
Elinruby ( talk) 11:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)elinruby
I do not see this mentioned anywhere and it's an important point. It gets a favorable mention in the case of BRCA, which may be appropriate. HOWEVER this section by its placement is given more importance than the other treatment options. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby ( talk • contribs) 10:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby ( talk • contribs) 15:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
So far I see:
As noted above, perhaps Prevention should be moved under Screening.
Perhaps the section sequence should be Screening, Diagnosis, Treatment vs current Diagnosis, Screening, Treatment
The current format uses unbolded titles and bolded subtitles. Offends readability. Suggest either all bold, or titles only in bold to make it easier to process the structure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby ( talk • contribs) 15:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
As there is no link this will not be appropriate for either the prevention or the cause section. Maybe under society and culture but we must watch WP:DUE as mentioned by WAID Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 06:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
This sentence from the pink ribbon section is a little odd, the generalization at the end does not add anything to the article and needs proof to be there. The first part seems worded incorrectly as well.
original: "...or to identify products that the manufacturer would like to sell to consumers that are interested in breast cancer—usually white, middle-aged, middle-class, educated women."
I would suggest: "...or to identify products that are being sold with part of the profits going to breast cancer related charities." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.244.143.177 ( talk) 01:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
In addition vacuum-assisted breast biopsy (VAB) may help diagnose breast cancer among patients with a mammographically detected breast (what??) in women.[52]
lump? tumor? mass?
Elinruby ( talk) 10:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)elinruby
Main page does not mention Taxol or ACT. Does mention CAT tho, so perhaps this is an oversight? Or is this combination unusual? I'd also love to see a risk-benefit analysis for adriamycin somewhere -- probably not on this page -- but I am not sure that actually exists anywhere let alone on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby ( talk • contribs) 11:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Pls is every lump found in one's breast cancerous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.73.13.162 ( talk) 11:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC) No, but this is not the place to be seeking specific personal answers (if that is your intent). Nonetheless, from an intellectual perspective your question serves as a stimulus to some thought that the differential possibilities of breast lumps, or indeed mammographic abnormalities, which ARE in fact mentioned tangentially in the article ("clear fluid from lump indicates...") might be briefly but more clearly alluded to in the article. FeatherPluma ( talk) 02:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC) I made a some minor adjustments to the text of the article to accommodate the intellectual perspective of your question; I personally think from the encyclopedia point of view that going further than what has been done is unnecessary. I hope any possible personal condition you have has been addressed by competent professional medical assessment. FeatherPluma ( talk) 03:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
The Prognosis subject is poorly written. It provides little or no information for the general reader hoping to find information on possible outcomes. Instead the section gives a rather academic approach to the definition of prognosis. Survival figures are available evn though Breast Cancer is complex. Mercks Manual has a good approach, giving survival for various stages of a middle ground type tumor. This is far better than Wikipedia's Breast Cancer prognosis. ~ ~ ~ ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oncologee ( talk • contribs) 11:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Reference no.63 - looks like vandalism as the URL directs to an article on Peyronie's disease. Shall I change back to the Breast Cancer section in the Merck Manual? Treagle ( talk) 14:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Following on from my comment about Reference no.63, I have been unable to edit the reference section as none of the items appear in the edit screen. Treagle ( talk) 10:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
OK, a bit more digging reveals that several of the references that link to the Merck Manuals appear to have been vandalised. I have looked back thru to early 2010 to see when this might have occurred, but not found the event yet. I will continue to look back to see if I can find the original links, but it would be a good idea for regular editors / subject experts to check this entire article for accuracy in the mean time. I am only a casual Wikipedia editor with no expertise in this area (I only visited as I'm researching on behalf of a friends wife). It is a pretty shitty person who would vandalise these pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Treagle ( talk • contribs) 10:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC) Treagle ( talk) 10:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Once I've tackled the Merck references I'll check the others. Hopefully they'll be OK. If anyone else feels better qualified to carry out this repair job just let me know. Treagle ( talk) 16:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
The links for the following references to Merck hosted content are suspect: 9, 16, 48, 63 & 73. 9 & 16 link to Merck Home Manual articles on infertility. 48, 63 & 73 link to a Merck article on Peyronies disease. I will attempt to edit the URL's for these references.
Treagle (
talk)
10:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
OK, I've tried and failed to edit the References section. None of the references appear in the edit window for this section, so I guess there is some other mechanism for making changes to this section. I will try and find a Wikipedia contact associated with this article and ask for guidance. Treagle ( talk) 10:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I've removed this from the lead:
Increased circulating levels of L-alpha-lysophosphatidylinositol (LPI) are associated with cancer and LPI is a potent, ligand for the G-protein-coupled receptor GPR55. [64] [65] Expression of Candidate of metastasis and protein 8, also known as NUPR1, correlate with outcome in breast cancer. [66]The endogenous cannabinoid anandamide inhibits human breast cancer cell proliferation in a P8 dependent fashion, as do phytocannabinoids [67] [68]
because it plainly doesn't belong there. I'm just not sure where it does belong. It's densely technical, and probably of no value to 99% of our readers. Is there some more specialized Pathophysiology of breast cancer somewhere? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
After James ( Jmh649 ( talk · contribs)) posted on WT:MED that this was a very high-traffic article I thought I'd come and have a look. What strikes me is how many of the references are not quite what one would call WP:MEDRS-compliant. Many of them are information pages and such, and I even noticed an abstract published at an ASCO conference. This could really do with fixing. I've tidied a few references, and will try to make some time over the next few days to sort out some of the weaker sources. JFW | T@lk 14:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I would be inclined to split out the classification section into a new article, but leave basic detail there and in the staging section. 3 questions: 1) what should the new classification article be called ( classification of breast cancer?) 2) can the classification and staging sections be merged? 3) Is this a good idea? -- phoebe / ( talk to me) 17:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but the editors of Wikipedia are generally not trained medical professionals, and we can't offer you medical advice. (If you get any here anyway, you probably shouldn't trust it—see the Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer.)
For accurate, comprehensive responses to questions about your own health and symptoms, you should absolutely speak to a physician — some random folks on the Internet are a very poor fallback. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 15:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
1)cancer, sounds obusiv but curingor controling the cancers not the best thing to have in ur hole life then maybe u may need a treatment. metastasis is a complex series of steps in which cancer cells leave the original tumor site and migrate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.16.10 ( talk) 23:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
"people in less-developing countries reported to have low incidence rate than other in developed countries" What is a "less-developing country", compared to a "developed country"? Which incidence is low? Or is it just lower? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.176.9 ( talk) 12:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Is breast feeding with a cancerous boob contagiious? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.223.139 ( talk) 01:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
The section Breast_cancer#United_States quotes incidence rates, but as raw figures (141 and 122). These should be a proportion (e.g. 141 per 1000, or per 1,000,000) of a group (e.g adults, women of a particular age). 86.133.66.18 ( talk) 19:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Uhm, sorry for drive by editing, but isn't breast cancer *less* common than both non-melanomatous skin cancer and colon cancer? I'm pretty sure it is. Anyway, can't access the original reference to check up.
Also, the stuff about tamoxifen in the section on etiology on UK is out of place.
Lastly, under etiology, risk factors for male breast cancer should be listed, as they're distinct and different to the ones in female breast cancer.
The sentence "there is no cure for breast cancer" is odd too. Aside from not really being organised there, technically there is-ish; cutting it out, although I know what the editor means.
The section on prevention should probably be deleted and that link placed higher.
The screening section probably needs to be reorganised such that the common screening stuff is at the top, and the rarely used stuff is lower, eg the stuff on MRI. Also, FNAC isn't a screening tool.
The article really needs to be more gender neutral (what I would suggest), or split for a seperate article on men. While the fact that 1.5 (or so) of breast cancer in males may not seem very high, the fact that that leads to a lifetime risk of 1 in 600 makes it more common than many many other diseases which get more of a mention.
Anyway, I'll start working on fixing up screening. 128.250.5.246 ( talk) 14:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Done work on screening and diagnosis, still need sources, but a little better now. Cut the section on mammography not showing a mortality benefit, there's undue weight to that study and far more powerful studies have demonstrated the advantage to mortality. The section on CT US is undue weight to an thing that is not in common use. 128.250.5.246 ( talk) 15:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
This article sucks! How can you call this a balanced, encyclopedic article about breast cancer when no mention is made of the definitive and indesputable link between abortions and breast cancer. Most doctors agree that the majority of breast cancer cases appear in women who have had abortions. Mention must be made of this, and equal space and effort devoted to discussing it. If sutible changes aren't made, I'll have to add a NPOV tag. 69.122.133.58 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC).
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/frear/brind.htm 69.122.133.58 ( talk) 14:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6214655.stm 69.122.133.58 ( talk) 15:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Why does Dr. Susan Love ("Dr. Susan Love Breast Book") not have an article in Wikipedia? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
98.217.209.143 (
talk)
16:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
How can a statement of fact be removed? Under "Causes", I wrote:
Abortion: A peer-reviewed study published in the 2009 World Journal of Surgical Oncology
[1] found a statistically significant 66% increase in breast cancer risk: "Conclusion: These findings suggest that age and induced abortion were found to be significantly associated with increased breast cancer risk"
That this study took place fits the definition of a fact. Is the World Journal of Surgical Oncology not a reputable source? Please explain. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
209.148.89.134 (
talk)
13:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Let me just run through a few points:
Do I stand by the current text? No. I have always maintained that evidence is neutral without exception so it's simply stating something that would be impossible in any case. The same evidence that convict people also prove them innocent with a different interpretation. Something can only be proven or unproven and in this case it is the majority view that it's unproven. Biofase flame| stalk 17:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I would like to add a link to the American Cancer Society's Detailed Guide for Breast Cancer to this page.
karen7673 ( talk) 18:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Karen 7673 - Please the add the ACS link. RobinSM23 ( talk) 17:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I was horrified to see someone referring to a 20 year-old single study suggesting that exposure to semen is somehow protective of breast cancer. This observation was never reproduced. But many other studies suggested a much smarter explanation for what this French team observed: in 1989, the vast majority of their non-barrier contraceptive users used "the pill". It is now well known that any intervention that decreases the number of ovulations will decrease breast cancer risk. Bottom line: besides the non-modifiable genetic risks, most, if not all, known modifiable risk factors for breast cancer cause an increased exposure of the body to oestrogen. In fewer words, genes and oestrogen cause breast cancer. Emmanuelm ( talk) 17:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
This was recently added. The only link which is easily accessible is not a published study but looks like someone blog. Therefore I have moved it here to discuss in more detail. The references do not seem to relate to the topic at hand. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 00:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
In a two year "Bra and Breast Cancer Study" [2] including 5000 women in the United States, it was discovered that women with breast cancer had a history of sporting tighter and longer bra-wearing than did the women who had not (yet) developed the disease. Since this time many studies have independantly verified the connection between cancers and tight fitting clothing. [3] [4] [5] [6] in particular bras [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] and that wearing a bra significantly correlates with cancer rates. [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] One hypothesis is that restriction of lymphatic flow by bras could, by several possible mechanisms, cause breast disease. [20] [21] [22]
Some types of fibrocystic lumps are correlated with higher breast cancer rates. [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] Hormones that affect bra-fit have been related to breast cancer risk [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40]
Some people might think that women who do not wear bras would be smaller breasted and therefore have lower cancer rates because of size. However, cup size has been shown to not be significant. [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46]
Local hypoxia (lack of normal oxygen levels) can happen when circulation is compromised through wearing a bra (as in a heart attack or stroke). Hypoxia can reduce the effectiveness of cellular antioxidant mechanisms and has been related to altered gene expression and DNA damage. [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55]
The myth that bras prevent the breast ptosis has no scientific support. Medical research actually shows that weight-bearing and movement is necessary to the maintainence of healthy ligaments. And, ligaments are responsible for supporting and giving shape to the breasts [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63]
I think the pink ribbon in the infobox is too big and crowds the infobox information out of the screen. Perhaps it belongs below in the discussion of the pink ribbon? -- Nbauman ( talk) 20:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
(undent) If we had something better I would go with it. I do not see anything better on the page right now. The illustrating sound interesting.. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 01:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I have cropped the commons image down in two different ways [8] and [9] which do people prefer? Should we keep the contra-lateral breast for contrast? Still needs to be labeled with the signs of breast cancer. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 16:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I have concerns about the recurrent breast cancer image. It is rare to see a case this advanced and it does not illustrate typical breast cancer. I worry that this is a misleading image for those unfamiliar with breast cancer. I'll try to find a more suitable image from commons. Gobonobo T C 20:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind if somebody who knew more about the RAS/MEK/ERK pathway than I do would review that section. I know the PI3K/AKT pathway controls apoptosis. I'm not sure about RAS/MEK/ERK. -- Nbauman ( talk) 03:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
WP:IMAGE recommends that images be set to default. Gives all images the same width which I think is a good idea. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 20:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
This article reads like a medical text book, but doctors don't rely on wikipedia for medical information. We should work together to make it more appropriate for a lay audience -- not more than a college educated audience, preferably less educated. I have made some small efforts to do that today but it is a big job. I hope others agree with me. Umarylandmd ( talk) 16:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, I made a few revisions and will keep working on it. Umarylandmd ( talk) 20:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to see the image that is currently in the Prognosis section removed from this article. This image is an extremely severe case of recurrent breast cancer that represents far less than 1% of breast cancer cases. As it does not represent most women's breast cancer experiences, it gives a false impression of what breast cancer looks like, especially for those unfamiliar with the topic. Gobonobo T C 20:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Gobonobo. This photo is not at all typical of recurrent breast cancer. It would potentially provide false reassurance to women who think they don't have recurrent cancer because they don't look like this. And, it would be terrifying to children whose mothers have breast cancer. Since children use wikipedia, I think that is something we should be concerned about. Doc James says he has seen cases such as this, which I believe, but in what country and how many? This looks like a case of recurrence that was left untreated for a long time.
Umarylandmd ( talk) 00:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
The Research section seemed to be just about breast cancer cell lines so I gave it that name and started a more general Research section which needs much more. Most of the BCC section could move to a new article eg breast cancer cell line. Rod57 ( talk) 15:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Cancer of the breast is the most frequent malignancy that occurs in women. A little awareness goes a long way in terms of protection, while early diagnosis of breast cancer can even save your life.
Following are 9 natural ways to prevent from breast cancer
1. Every women should examine her breasts ever month.Any skin changes should also be noted, with changes in their shape and size. A lump or a cyst may just be a benign tumour, but it should be reported to the doctor immediately. There are many kinds of benign tumours of the breasts, but this is for your physician to decide.
2. Examine yourself every month just after the menstrual period. The best way to do this is by palpation of the breasts, with the flat of the hands, keeping the finger-tips together. Examine the upper part, the central and the lower parts, as well as the armpits.
3. Visual examination in front of a mirror helps to observe changes in size or outline, as well as any changes on the skin surface.
4. Some of the signs that may be danger signals, are certainly worth knowing. These are puckering of the skin, any discharge from the nipples, lumps, cysts or swellings, changes in the shape or size.
5. If there is pain that is not the normal pain that occurs before menstruation, it should be reported to the doctor. Regular self-examination of the breasts also helps one to become familiar with one's own normal size, shape and consistency, so that changes, if and when they occur, are more easily noticed.
6. Annual routine medical check-ups should also be undertaken. This is of particular importance after the age of thirty.The chances of malignancy increase with age and are more likely during middle age.
7. Self-examination and detection is one of the most effective ways by which possible malignant conditions are diagnosed and treated. Early detection has a very high cure rate-- about eighty percent. 8. The best way to examine yourself is to lie flat on a firm bed and then palpate the breasts with the flat of the palms. Changes in size and outline can be detected by observing the breasts in the mirror.
9. First with your arms at the sides and then with the arms held up over the head. While doing this, see if there are any changes in size, outline or skin surface.If it does than consult with doctor immediately. SOURCE:
I'm planning to start a new article at Breast cancer awareness in a few weeks. It will cover basically all of Breast cancer#Society_and_culture (except the art section). When it's done, we'll probably need to re-work this section as a {{ Main}} summary of the new article.
If you have ideas, sources, etc., please feel free to help out. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Progestin HRT seems to be accepted as a risk factor for breast cancer [12] but the article doesn't seem to mention that. Rod57 ( talk) 00:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
The text seems to have been added here. AFAICT, the information presented is correct and verifiable. The first half of the sentence (no evidence for either self-exams or clinical exams) can be verified through the no-cost portions of the cited Cochrane review. The second half of the sentence (the "slow-growing" claim) may or may not be mentioned in the gated paper. (If it isn't, then I've seen that claim elsewhere just in the last month or two; perhaps I'll be able to find the other source again.) WhatamIdoing ( talk) 08:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone have any opinions about the merge proposal at Breast cancer; calcium and vitamin D? I think it should be merged to something (either here, or at Risk factors for breast cancer). WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Merger complete. merged to Risk factors for breast cancer --
KarlB (
talk)
23:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
This probably explains why they are more often diagnosed, but less often die. Mammograms find some cancers before they can grow, and other cancers that might never have grown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdncntx ( talk • contribs) 19:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I've corrected the recently updated statistics. The column at Globocan that is labeled "ASR (W)" means "Weighted age-standardized rate", not "percentage of people who have this cancer". WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I removed this sentence: "Breast cancers can be classified by constant rallying for a 'cure' and saggy breast nipples which fizzle with out salsa."
In case there was originally some point being made that needs to be reinserted, can someone professional please look at the classification section? I thought the sentence rude enough to simply remove it but can't judge the accuracy or completeness of what's left. Elinruby ( talk) 04:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)elinruby
I actually think that some of the sociological points are well taken. But... ok, I am here to look stuff up for a friend's mother and am a little overwhelmed as it is. I am thinking that if I were the actual patient it would simply be too much. I find it rather ironic that I am saying this as I have commented on some other medical pages saying that they are too geared to professionals. This one is too geared to women's studies majors. Your average user of this page is likely to want to know about staging and prognosis.
I think that the over-estimate of cancer risk is an important point and should stay; the rather interesting material about breast cancer in history and in art should become its own section and have a reference and a link here.
That is my reaction to the page as it is now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby ( talk • contribs) 05:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Routinely done -- studies indicate it may not improve survival. Does have significant risks.
some journal articles:
Maybe it's still controversial? But a patient that risks losing the use of her arm wants to know that there's a reason why she is doing it. IMHO the question should at least be mentioned.
Elinruby ( talk) 11:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)elinruby
I do not see this mentioned anywhere and it's an important point. It gets a favorable mention in the case of BRCA, which may be appropriate. HOWEVER this section by its placement is given more importance than the other treatment options. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby ( talk • contribs) 10:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby ( talk • contribs) 15:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
So far I see:
As noted above, perhaps Prevention should be moved under Screening.
Perhaps the section sequence should be Screening, Diagnosis, Treatment vs current Diagnosis, Screening, Treatment
The current format uses unbolded titles and bolded subtitles. Offends readability. Suggest either all bold, or titles only in bold to make it easier to process the structure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby ( talk • contribs) 15:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
As there is no link this will not be appropriate for either the prevention or the cause section. Maybe under society and culture but we must watch WP:DUE as mentioned by WAID Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 06:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
This sentence from the pink ribbon section is a little odd, the generalization at the end does not add anything to the article and needs proof to be there. The first part seems worded incorrectly as well.
original: "...or to identify products that the manufacturer would like to sell to consumers that are interested in breast cancer—usually white, middle-aged, middle-class, educated women."
I would suggest: "...or to identify products that are being sold with part of the profits going to breast cancer related charities." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.244.143.177 ( talk) 01:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
In addition vacuum-assisted breast biopsy (VAB) may help diagnose breast cancer among patients with a mammographically detected breast (what??) in women.[52]
lump? tumor? mass?
Elinruby ( talk) 10:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)elinruby
Main page does not mention Taxol or ACT. Does mention CAT tho, so perhaps this is an oversight? Or is this combination unusual? I'd also love to see a risk-benefit analysis for adriamycin somewhere -- probably not on this page -- but I am not sure that actually exists anywhere let alone on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby ( talk • contribs) 11:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Pls is every lump found in one's breast cancerous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.73.13.162 ( talk) 11:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC) No, but this is not the place to be seeking specific personal answers (if that is your intent). Nonetheless, from an intellectual perspective your question serves as a stimulus to some thought that the differential possibilities of breast lumps, or indeed mammographic abnormalities, which ARE in fact mentioned tangentially in the article ("clear fluid from lump indicates...") might be briefly but more clearly alluded to in the article. FeatherPluma ( talk) 02:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC) I made a some minor adjustments to the text of the article to accommodate the intellectual perspective of your question; I personally think from the encyclopedia point of view that going further than what has been done is unnecessary. I hope any possible personal condition you have has been addressed by competent professional medical assessment. FeatherPluma ( talk) 03:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
The Prognosis subject is poorly written. It provides little or no information for the general reader hoping to find information on possible outcomes. Instead the section gives a rather academic approach to the definition of prognosis. Survival figures are available evn though Breast Cancer is complex. Mercks Manual has a good approach, giving survival for various stages of a middle ground type tumor. This is far better than Wikipedia's Breast Cancer prognosis. ~ ~ ~ ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oncologee ( talk • contribs) 11:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Reference no.63 - looks like vandalism as the URL directs to an article on Peyronie's disease. Shall I change back to the Breast Cancer section in the Merck Manual? Treagle ( talk) 14:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Following on from my comment about Reference no.63, I have been unable to edit the reference section as none of the items appear in the edit screen. Treagle ( talk) 10:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
OK, a bit more digging reveals that several of the references that link to the Merck Manuals appear to have been vandalised. I have looked back thru to early 2010 to see when this might have occurred, but not found the event yet. I will continue to look back to see if I can find the original links, but it would be a good idea for regular editors / subject experts to check this entire article for accuracy in the mean time. I am only a casual Wikipedia editor with no expertise in this area (I only visited as I'm researching on behalf of a friends wife). It is a pretty shitty person who would vandalise these pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Treagle ( talk • contribs) 10:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC) Treagle ( talk) 10:28, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Once I've tackled the Merck references I'll check the others. Hopefully they'll be OK. If anyone else feels better qualified to carry out this repair job just let me know. Treagle ( talk) 16:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
The links for the following references to Merck hosted content are suspect: 9, 16, 48, 63 & 73. 9 & 16 link to Merck Home Manual articles on infertility. 48, 63 & 73 link to a Merck article on Peyronies disease. I will attempt to edit the URL's for these references.
Treagle (
talk)
10:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
OK, I've tried and failed to edit the References section. None of the references appear in the edit window for this section, so I guess there is some other mechanism for making changes to this section. I will try and find a Wikipedia contact associated with this article and ask for guidance. Treagle ( talk) 10:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I've removed this from the lead:
Increased circulating levels of L-alpha-lysophosphatidylinositol (LPI) are associated with cancer and LPI is a potent, ligand for the G-protein-coupled receptor GPR55. [64] [65] Expression of Candidate of metastasis and protein 8, also known as NUPR1, correlate with outcome in breast cancer. [66]The endogenous cannabinoid anandamide inhibits human breast cancer cell proliferation in a P8 dependent fashion, as do phytocannabinoids [67] [68]
because it plainly doesn't belong there. I'm just not sure where it does belong. It's densely technical, and probably of no value to 99% of our readers. Is there some more specialized Pathophysiology of breast cancer somewhere? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
After James ( Jmh649 ( talk · contribs)) posted on WT:MED that this was a very high-traffic article I thought I'd come and have a look. What strikes me is how many of the references are not quite what one would call WP:MEDRS-compliant. Many of them are information pages and such, and I even noticed an abstract published at an ASCO conference. This could really do with fixing. I've tidied a few references, and will try to make some time over the next few days to sort out some of the weaker sources. JFW | T@lk 14:02, 22 November 2011 (UTC)