![]() | 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 |
Would like to discuss the possibility of adding a "Research" section to melanoma or to having a separate topic "Melanoma Research". Any thoughts? -- Khaj 06:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Sunlight is a controversial cause of melanoma is a color. Philiphughesmd 04:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC) Dr. Bernie Ackerman has written an entire book about the valueless sentinel lymph node biopsy. Philiphughesmd 04:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I think it may be prudent to indicate that imiquamod and Moh's are not exactly first line or established treatments for melanoma. I've aimed to do so politely. Wide local excision remains the standard of care so the value of Moh's here is unclear. It is rarely appropirate to accept inadequate surgical resection of a cancer to minimise a scar. Will Blake 06:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I have removed references to minimal deviation melanoma which is not a widely recognised subtype. Many feel it arises only when a pathologist is unwilling to commit to a benign or a malignant diagnosis. Hope no-one objects Will Blake 23:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was move. — Nightst a llion (?) 13:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I have asked to have this article moved to 'Melanoma' which is a more accurate, contemporary, precise and brief term. This is done on a consensus basis. Please record your feelings below. Any objectors? Will Blake 06:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
For
I'm wondering, I've never seen the tool used for a punch biopsy. I'm thinking though, it sounds more like hole-puncher, than a small cookie-cutter. Do you think maybe that might be a better description of it?
Please tell us how melanoma happens in English, not in jargon. How does normal suntanning (which can help prevent melanoma) suddenly cause the cancer? The section Causes is too technical for lay people. We are not doctors. 122.200.166.173 ( talk) 11:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
The "In lay terms" section appears to be conjecture. Are there any references for the statements made in this section? Danensis ( talk) 12:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
The last entry in this thread is five years old. FYI, https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Melanoma has but one paragraph and was 'simply' easy to understand. Thanks for the tip. Also, those wanting different source/information can now do a Google-search. It may yield some university basic info. -- AstroU ( talk) 09:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Does anyone know how to extract images from a PDF file ? There's a wealth of melanoma photos that are said to be in PD but inside this PDF. Kpjas 08:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I think as a current MCOTW, we should improve it to become FA. In my opinion, what is needed:
NCurse
work
11:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Also need link or source for British study which suggests that melanoma is more common in indoor than outdoor workers. Figma 23:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
This article page seems to provide medical advice more than once. Does the wiki give medical advice? Snowman 17:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Should we move it to Peer?
NCurse
work
17:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
When I change MCOTW, maybe this article could get a peer review. Why will that help? When I wanted Aortic dissection to be featured, peer review showed a lot of faults in the article. It could help because much more people use Peer review than MCOTW. But we can wait with that.
NCurse
work
18:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
NCurse please reign in your editing. Many of your changes are unnecessary and subtract from clarity. For example, you added a reference which was already existing (at the time of this writing references 8 and 9 are THE SAME, I noticed this because I wrote/edited much of the history section ... which you are editing to its detriment, please STOP). Despite your extensive efforts I think most of you're recent flood of changes are unnecessary. Khaj 09:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
First, please calm down. See that edit, it was an anonym edit, that's why I reverted it and told him on his talk page. If you edit something, regarding you're a specialist, I'd never revert it. I can't see why you create a war, I came here to improve the article, and I don't think that every of my edits were catastrophic. I accept that you know everything better in that topic, that's why I'd never revert your edit. Maybe the problem is your wikistress. Delete any of my edit, revert anything, I'm not interested, I'd never make a war (not like you). I've been able to learn here in wiki, everybody is as important and respected as much he works. Thanks...
NCurse
work
21:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Your last sentence is unfortunate. If everyone is given an equal voice in every article, then the truly knowledgeable drown in seas of mediocrity. Khaj 05:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Good link, perhaps you should read it yourself! Your alternative statement "Although melanoma is unlikely to be ..." itself begs for citation, what evidence is there for it to be unlikely? My version acknowledges the lack of strong evidence - there are no citations backing up your "unlikely to be new" position, it's a deficiency we will just have to accept, all we can point to is that nowhere (therefore "no") do you find scientific (therefore "serious") arguments against (therefore "doubt") the idea that melanoma has been around for a long time. Which version (yours or mine) is therefore weakest? The perception of grammatic awkwardness is just that, your perception only, read more review papers (read some of the ones in medical fields particularly). Given my expertise in this subject it WAS my original intention to devote more time to further areas, but as I worked on first the introduction (I did the first paragraph) and then started putting together the histories, this article had the extreme misfortune of becoming an MCOW. Like flies to honey well-meaning but essentially unqualified people started hashing in a flood of whatever data they could scrape together on the subject in the misguided belief that quantity equals quality. Now this article has become a mountain of confusion (the second paragraph of the introduction is hilarious from the perspective of someone who's work revolves around pigmented cells, it reads as if humans are either white or black and fails to acknowledge the spectrum which is reality - and that is just the LANGUAGE used). Therefore, I currently restrict myself to the sections I have worked on. When the dust dies down, and when time permits, I intend to do more. But the history section is something of a test case for me, if I don't get properly reasoned arguments behind changes which are made, then I don't see the point in devoting time to the other areas. Khaj 08:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Did you read the following text at the bottom of the editing page: If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.? It is great to have an expert onboard here, but that won't mean that no one will edit anything you wrote anymore. We are all trying to improve this (and other) article, but there is no guarantee that every edit will actually be an improvement or is 100% accurate. This is something you will have to live with and keep in your mind when you use wikipedia as a learning resource. -- WS 14:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Summary: Government scientists turned regular blood cells into tumor attackers that wiped out all signs of cancer in two men with advanced melanoma. The striking finding, unveiled Thursday, marks an important step in the quest for gene therapy for cancer. But the genetically altered cells didn't help 15 other melanoma victims. So scientists are trying to strengthen the shots.
Why is this paragraph duplicated exactly here when it already appears in the introduction?
"Melanoma of the skin accounts for 160,000 new cases worldwide each year, and is more frequent in white men.[3] It is particularly common in white populations living in sunny climates.[11] According to the WHO Report about 48,000 deaths worldwide due to malignant melanoma are registered annually.[5]"
TimothyPilgrim 13:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
There is some evidence that Vitamin D (including from sun exposure) may be protective. Also, there are studies showing that dietary omega-6/omega-3 imbalance contributes to susceptibility to melanoma.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1567907 --
Chave (
talk)
15:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Dear all
I think a short section on the naural history of the malignant melanoma - in situ/invasive radial/vertical growth phase would be good - as I find people even with medical background find difficult to understand the concept. Thic could help to understand the difference between the prognosis of a thin and a thick melanoma - not just give the numbers. I was thinking to include something along these lines below:
Natural history of malignant melanoma
The malignant melanoma starts as a proliferation of melanocytes, which is limited to the dermo-epidermal junction. This is also referred as radial growth phase - the tumour cells grow alongside the junction. At this phase the tumour does not have invasive potential, and the thickness of the lesion is less than 1 mm.
When the tumour cells start to move in a different direction - vertically up into the epidermis and into the papillary dermis, the behaviour of the cells changes dramatically.
The next step in the evolution is the invasive radial growth phase, which is a confusing term, however it explains the next step in the process of the radial growth, when individual cells start to acquire invasive potential. This step is important - from this point on the melanoma is capable of making a metastasis. The Breslow depth of the lesion is usually less than 1 mm, the Clark's level is usually 2.
The following step in the process is the invasive melanoma - the vertical growth phase. The tumour attained invasive potential, which is shown by the mitotic activity of the tunour cells. The metastatic cells are getting into the bloodstreem by invasion of the lymphatics and small blood vessels. The tumour thickness is usually more than 1 mm, and the tumour involves the deeper parts of the dermis.
The host elicits an immunological reaction against the tumour, which is judged by the presence and activity of the TILs (tumour infiltrating lymphocytes). These cells sometimes completely destroy the primary tumour, this called regression, which is the latest stage of the melanoma development. In certain cases the primary tumour is completely destroyed and only the metastatic tumour is discovered.
What do you think?
best wishes, Las
Laciga 00:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Seems to be a good start. But the name of the section is not the best. I'll suggest a new one. Be bold to insert the text. NCurs e work 05:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
It says "American physician, Dr. Roger Turkington, discovered the human melanoma gene." No references are cited and what exactly is "the human melanoma gene" anyway? IIRC there is no such thing. 130.60.28.29 15:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I've put a little bit in about equine melanomata, since there didn't seem to be anything available yet, and this article is sufficiently detailed that a separate page doesn't seem justified at this point. ( Dlh-stablelights 13:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC))
Why not go ahead and put in a special section for every species? Melanoma isn't restricted to horses and men. While many animals seem unsusceptible (e.g. mice), many animals are as susceptible as horses (e.g. pigs). I think the answer here is to NOT HAVE SPECIES-SPECIFIC SECTIONS. No wonder this article is such a disaster. 130.60.28.29 ( talk) 15:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Is there any reason for the growing directory of only vaguely useful websites? Most are are just info-pages from commercial services; and all that information should be incorporated into the article. 218.111.148.233 08:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Quote: In the future, however, physicians will hopefully be able detect melanomas based on a patient’s genotype, not just his or her phenotype. It is my understanding that one cannot detect a melanoma based on a whole body genotype- one can only detect pre-dispositions/risk factors. The only way to achieve a genotype diagnosis is to genotype the cancer cells specifically. Useful in confirmation of a suspected melanoma, but hardly useful in scanning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.208.80.102 ( talk) 12:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, this article is unhelpful to the average person seeking information about melanoma. It seems geared to grad students in biochemistry. I suggest some of the excessive, highly-technical medical language be toned down. Grumpy otter ( talk) 20:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the article could benefit from a more medical approach. Prevalence and incidence rates should be included. It should be stated that there is no medical proof that nevus trauma causes melanoma. Furthermore, the article should demystify the malignant melanoma: it is one of the most curable cancers in the US (after seminoma, thyroid cancer and prostate cancer). It is not as lethal as you might think after reading popular health magazines.
As far as I understand it, the routine use of sunscreen is still routinely advocated by mainstream medicine as an anti-melanoma measure; see this for instance. While I understand that sometimes mainstream medicine gets it wrong, we should make clear what the majority medical view is - which is still, strongly, in favour of sunscreen use as far as I know. -- Robert Merkel ( talk) 04:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
AHRQ does not agree. At the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Home Page (The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) is the lead Federal agency charged with improving the quality, safety, efficiency, and effectiveness etc etc) In Recommendations and Rationale, Counseling to Prevent Skin Cancer, U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) at http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/3rduspstf/skcacoun/skcarr.htm the following is the summary of their recommendation on counseling for behavior changes to prevent melanoma:
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force concludes that the evidence is insufficient to recommend for or against routine counseling by primary care clinicians to prevent skin cancer.
Rating: I Recommendation.
Rationale: The USPSTF found insufficient evidence to determine whether clinician counseling is effective in changing patient behaviors to reduce skin cancer risk. Counseling parents may increase the use of sunscreen for children, but there is little evidence to determine the effects of counseling on other preventive behaviors (such as wearing protective clothing, reducing excessive sun exposure, avoiding sun lamps/tanning beds, or practicing skin self-examination) and little evidence on potential harms.
Clinical Considerations: Using sunscreen has been shown to prevent squamous cell skin cancer. The evidence for the effect of sunscreen use in preventing melanoma, however, is mixed. Sunscreens that block both ultraviolet A (UV-A) and ultraviolet B (UV-B) light may be more effective in preventing squamous cell cancer and its precursors than those that block only UV-B light. However, people who use sunscreen alone could increase their risk for melanoma if they increase the time they spend in the sun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chave ( talk • contribs) 14:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
"It is not adequate that a dermatologist has a dermatoscope in his or her office, it should be a routine part of the skin exam that the instrument is used."
Since we are not doctors, how do we know when to use a dermatoscope over them? Seemed a little wonky and wanted other input before changing. Sheepeh ( talk) 03:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I removed this section because it was incorrect. The ideas it contained were not cited and are not generally accepted by melanoma cancer biologists. Biochemallurgist ( talk) 21:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
"In lay terms: Content made generalizations that are not supported by data. I edited the text to remove unsupported claims, and to explain that melanoma doesn't always result from UV exposure." (Revision as of 18:10, 30 November 2010, Blindh/ talk) Perhaps people should learn to do real research before imposing their pet beliefs on others. I'm not going to revert this unwarranted edit, but check this info out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeXtGHSt-5o
Skin Cancer/Sunscreen - the Dilemma::
UCSD School of Medicine and GrassrootsHealth:: Edward Gorham, PhD::
Series: Vitamin D Deficiency - Treatment and Diagnosis [2/2009] [Health and Medicine] [Professional Medical Education] [Show ID: 15770]::
LICENSE: Creative Commons (Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works)
The fact is that Melanoma always results from UV exposure and usually results in a place that never saw the sun. Further, melanoma does not result from UV damage to a melanocyte or melanin. 122.200.166.53 ( talk) 07:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I have reverted the edit made by User:Blindh on 18:10, 30 November 2010, to bring the section back to some factuality. All material in this section has been sourced from allied/related articles in Wikipedia. However, since Wikipedia is only a third-class reference, the sources should probably not be cited. As well, the whole article should be substantially re-arranged to present some logical order of reference, as it is currently a dog's breakfast with bits all over the place. 122.200.166.232 ( talk) 02:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
There may be no subpopulation of melanoma cancer stem cells, See [3] Rod57 ( talk) 14:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
I added a section about stem cells and melanoma for my Biology of Stem Cells class. There is evidence that the stem cells in hair follicle stem cell niches play a major role in melanoma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lpitzer ( talk • contribs) 16:55, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
All I have done is make sorely-needed grammatical changes. Do not understand whole-sale reverts. YMMV, but this needs to be discussed in more detail HERE before doing such reverts. 23:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackfirst ( talk • contribs)
Recent edits by 184.58.124.224 indicate this user is adamant about removing the word 'malignant' in front of 'melanoma,' citing it as redundant. While I can understand this view, since common reference to melanoma most always means malignancy, the actual term 'malignant melanoma' is used extensively in the literature, books, journal papers, etc. Terms like 'premalignant melanoma' and 'benign melanoma' are also sometimes used. I have left this user's changes to the text, but what is the proper convention here? 98.109.174.254 ( talk) 21:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi WhatamIdoing and MastCell -
This is my evidence chain:
Indirect DNA damage (Note: the first para of the lede is very badly written, it is not intuitive.) Indirect DNA damage occurs when a UV-photon is absorbed in the human skin by a chromophore that does not have the ability to convert the energy into harmless heat very quickly.[2] From the image "File:Indirect DNA damage.png" Indirect DNA damage: The chromophore absorbs UV-light ( * denotes an excited state), and the energy of the excited state is creating singlet oxygen (1O2) or a hydroxyl radical (•OH), which then damages DNA through oxidation.[1]
At Location of the damage Direct DNA damage is confined to areas that can be reached by UV-B light. In contrast free radicals can travel through the body and affect other areas - possibly even inner organs. The traveling nature of the indirect DNA damage can be seen in the fact that the malignant melanoma can occur in places that are not directly illuminated by the sun—in contrast to basal-cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma, which only appear on directly illuminated locations on the body.[citation needed]
Direct DNA damage Direct DNA damage can occur when DNA directly absorbs the UV-B-photon. UVB light causes thymine base pairs next to each other in genetic sequences to bond together into thymine dimers, a disruption in the strand, which reproductive enzymes cannot copy. It causes sunburn and it triggers the production of melanin.[1] From the image "File:Direct DNA damage.png" Direct DNA damage: The UV-photon is directly absorbed by the DNA (left). One of the possible reactions from the excited state is the formation of a thymine-thymine cyclobutane dimer (right). The direct DNA damage leads to sunburn, causing an increase in melanin production, thereby leading to a long-lasting tan. However, it is responsible for only 8% of all melanoma.
Melanin Production of melanin is stimulated by DNA damage induced by UVB-radiation,[1] and it leads to a delayed development of a tan. ... This property enables melanin to dissipate more than 99.9% of the absorbed UV radiation as heat[3] (see photoprotection). This prevents the indirect DNA damage that is responsible for the formation of malignant melanoma and other skin cancers.
There were obviously many other pathways, but they all led back to these three. 122.200.166.100 ( talk) 01:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I hope I can add perspective concerning the cause of melanoma. The UV light striking exposed skin results in that skin producing "Melanocytes: make melanin!" hormones that then circulate within the body. When they reach unexposed skin, they can tend to push melanocytes there into malignancy. The process could be similar to how estrogen can increase breast cancer risk. Joseph Meisenhelder ( talk) 14:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
AP (June 5, 2011). "Studies Find New Drugs Boost Skin Cancer Survival". New York Times. -- Javaweb ( talk) 14:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Javaweb
"New Promise Shown in Treatments for Melanoma, Breast Cancer". PBS News Hour. June 6, 2011. PBS. {{
cite episode}}
: External link in
(
help); Unknown parameter |transcripturl=
|transcripturl=
ignored (|transcript-url=
suggested) (
help)
--
Javaweb (
talk)
22:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Javaweb
Following reverted in this edit → http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Melanoma&action=historysubmit&diff=465081686&oldid=465081098
{{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)--User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 03:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Why the revert of my edit about the high incidence of melanoma in southern italy. Dammit, that is what it is, the literature reflects it, and I have the tickets to Italy (where I attend international skin cancer conferences) to prove it. Also, there is not a particularly high incidence of melanoma in "Northern Europe". What there is is a high incidence in areas of historical migration of northern europeans into southern climes. Classic example is Sicily, with its large Norman component to the gene pool. Other examples are Texas and Australia. And yes, I know experts don't count for much here, except we do know the literature. Drjames1 ( talk) 20:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Solicit input on bio of pioneering melanin researcher Peter Proctor. Nucleophilic ( talk) 13:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
I would recommend to mention that a locally excised melanoma has a good prognosis. In the second paragraph: "Melanoma is less common than other skin cancers. However, it is much more dangerous if it is not found early. It causes the majority (75%) of deaths related to skin cancer.[3]" I would put before mentioning the mortality rate, something like "Has a good prognosis if detected early" "Can be removed completely if detected early". That would be helpful for all the people that read article because being delivered the diagnose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadram2011 ( talk • contribs) 14:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Vemurafenib (already mentioned in Research) could now also be mentioned in the Adjuvant/chemo section and more emphasis on the V600E BRAF mutation.
Vemurafenib says Vemurafenib received FDA approval for the treatment of late-stage melanoma on August 17, 2011, Health Canada approval on February 15, 2012 and on February 20, 2012, the European Commission approved vemurafenib as a monotherapy for the treatment of adult patients with BRAF V600 mutation positive unresectable or metastatic melanoma, the most aggressive form of skin cancer. - Rod57 ( talk) 03:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
This page could be renamed "Cutaneous melanoma". Melanoma can be observed in numerous extra-cutaneous localization. What do you think to rename the page? patho ( talk) 15:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
The first paragragh of the Surgery section describes the standard practices of excision but at the end it says "This is a common pattern of treatment failure in melanoma", without explaining why or how, the reason that I find it a bit confusing. Can someone with the knowledge of the subject matter can have a look at it. -- SMS Talk 21:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
... of the management in the British Medical Bulletin doi:10.1093/bmb/ldu019 JFW | T@lk 15:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Not mentioned in article; what does it mean? Equinox ( talk) 23:16, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Ingredients in some sunscreens are not 'titanium' and 'zinc'; they are 'titanium dioxide' and 'zinc oxide'. 71.139.163.243 ( talk) 03:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Melanoma. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 21:52, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
This article has HIGH VISIBILITY; what do you think??
Headline-1: Bananas May Help Detect, Cure Skin Cancer
QUOTE: "Girault believes the scanner could be used one day to destroy tumors, hopefully rendering biopsies and even chemotherapy unnecessary.
“Our initial laboratory tests showed us that our device could be used to destroy the cells,” he said.
The research was published in the German science journal Angewandte Chemie." -- AstroU ( talk) 09:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future WP discussion/editing.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Melanoma. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Melanoma. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
https://www.moffitt.usf.edu/pubs/ccj/v12n4/pdf/223.pdfWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:59, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2367555 et al. Cliffewiki ( talk) 14:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
In this edit I added a short snippet including a citation, linking to mensacarcin. User Jytdog reverted this edit. While I added the sentence to a wrong section, there is no reason to delete it: The citation is from a high-level, peer-reviewed journal, the research is convincing. And the agent certainly is of high interest under the viewpoint of research. I will add it again to the Research section, slightly lengthened. Tomdo08 ( talk) 02:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Melanoma. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:52, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
It happens quite often that conclusions of original articles pertaining to the safety of biopsies are inadvertently mis-represented in the articles quoting them; this is the case of this article on melanoma. That causes much harm. The wording of the Abstract of this article, although technically flawless, is gravely misleading, because it requires not an average, but especially high degree if attention to hidden details. Unfortunately for melanoma sufferers, this article has been referenced in this Wikipedia article by someone who evidently had only a normal degree of attention to details.
Let us discuss the crucial declaration of this Wikipedia article: "Incisional biopsies such as punch biopsies are usually contraindicated in suspected melanomas, because of the possibility of sampling error or local implantation causing mis- estimation of tumour thickness. However, fears that such biopsies may increase the risk of metastatic disease seem unfounded.[55][56]" (Wikipedia's reference numbers). This is what the misleading wording of the original article SEEMS to say.
Even the title "Is incisional biopsy of melanoma harmful?" is inconsistent with the content. Reassuringly but incorrectly, that title's question is answered negatively in the Abstract's Conclusions: "The concern that incomplete excision of primary melanomas may result in an increased incidence of SLN (Sentinel Lymph Node) micrometastases, artifactual or real, is unfounded." Where is the misleading?
This misleads to read that it is a general conclusion, while in reality the harm of the incisional biopsy was discussed only comparing to excisional biopsy and punch biopsy; see the Abstract's Background: "The aim of this study was to evaluate the difference (...) for patients who undergo excisional versus incisional versus shave biopsy."
The idea of comparing the harm of biopsies to non-biopsying diagnostic methods did not seem to cross the Authors' minds; possibly because of the wrong "obviousness" that cancers and suspected cancers have to be biopsied.
The Authors of the original article are guilty of the lethal harm: When meaning to say that incisional biopsies are not more harmful than excisional and shave- types, their inconsistent wording misleading readers to think that incisional biopsies are harmless - which is inconsistent with the data of their own article, showing 20% of that increase. Biopsies do increase the incidence of metastasis (see Fig. 3 in Reference 56 in this Wikipedia's article on melanoma). For melanoma, metastasis is lethal in 90%, and this is what this misrepresentation is leading the Wikipedia's reading melanoma sufferers, and their doctors, into.
Let us "nail this down": In the Abstract's "Results" section, we read:
"The concern that incomplete excision of primary melanomas may result in an increased incidence of SLN (sentinel lymph node) micrometastases, artifactual or real, is unfounded." Does this conclusion match the two foregoing facts? All those 1760 patients were biopsied. This lack of the non-biopsy reference made Authors think that the metastasis of those 345 patients had nothing to do with the biopsies.
HOW DEADLY MISLEADING!
The Authors mean: Don't worry which kind of biopsy we will apply to you, they all are harmful to the same (20%) degree.
The readers read: All biopsies of melanoma are harmless.
This misleading is not intentional. But this does not help those who have died because they trusted such assurances.
The other Wikipedia's Reference [56] is very misleading too, albeit in a different way; I can expand on that.
Jerry Czarnecki, [email redacted: we post in public here and this page will be copied to many other websites and there is no reason to expose account to spam] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.93.71.22 ( talk) 03:06, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
biopsy with a small side margin."
Hi guys, I read this week in the news about this study and since I havent found a quality secondary source I wanted to ask for help in either finding this kind of reference or your opinions towards maybe including this in another part of the melanoma article.
My initial added content which was correctly and kindly reverted for lacking secondary reference reads: In July 2018, a study revealed an experimental blood test that could detect melanoma skin cancer early. The study, published in the journal Oncotarget, was able to identify people with melanoma with 79% accuracy and people without a melanoma with 84% accuracy. Further research will be made in order to achieve a 90% accuracy in detection, which will allow to be valued by clinicians. [1]
This inclusion, altough still in development, have a huge potential toward earlier detection. As I live in a caribbean island where many specialist such as dermatologist are in shortage, it gave me hope to see a study that gave new possibilities to a blood test that can help screen potential cases. I hope this development results in success so that it can be used in clinical settings and thus save countless lives. Thanks once again for your support.
Greetings from Puerto Rico. --Edwin. Efeliciano_ms ( talk) 01:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC) Efeliciano ms ( talk) 01:37, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
References
doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31559-9 JFW | T@lk 12:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello, we are a group of medical student's from Queen's University. We are working to improve this article over the next month and will be posting our planned changes on this talk page. We look forward to working with the existing Wikipedia medical editing community to improve this article and share evidence. We welcome feedback and suggestions as we learn to edit. Thank you. TheGrumpyGerman ( talk) 18:11, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
"Hello, we are a group of medical students editing this page as part of our class assignment. We have compiled a list of suggestions to improve this article and would appreciate community feedback before we proceed with these edits. Here is a list of our suggestions:
1. We propose to insert the following content into the Melanoma #Diagnosis section regarding updating the laboratory tests to include SOX10 and updating S100B information and can be found in the following sandbox: /info/en/?search=User:TheOccasionalHiker/sandbox
2. We propose to add the following content into the Melanoma#Prevention section regarding the risk of UV nail lamps and further promoting sunscreen application. The proposed change can be found at /info/en/?search=User:Metrobooomin/sandbox
3. We propose to make changes to the Melanoma #Treatment section, mainly pertaining to the subheading immunotherapy/chemotherapy and creating a subheading of Small-Molecule Targeted Therapies. The changes can be found in the following user sandboxes. Immunotherapy: /info/en/?search=User:Vincentso94/sandbox Chemotherapy: /info/en/?search=User:Kookaburra123/sandbox Small Molecule Targeted Therapies: /info/en/?search=User:TheGrumpyGerman/sandbox
4. We propose to make changes to the Melanoma#Staging section where we integrate the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging guidelines. The proposed changes can be found at /info/en/?search=User:Dawnarmstrong4/sandbox — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheOccasionalHiker ( talk • contribs) 17:25, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
5. We propose to make changes to the Melanoma #Cause section. -We would like to add the following sentences to the “Cause” section:
1)Melanoma can also occur in skin areas with little sun exposure (ie. inside the mouth). [1] -2)People with Atypical mole syndrome (also known as dysplastic nevus syndrome or familial atypical multiple mole melanoma (FAMMM))are at increased risk for the development of melanoma. [2]
We propose making the following changes to the #Genetics section: -I would like to add the acronym commonly used to describe familial melanoma. Where familial melanoma was first mentioned in the genetics section I added the acronym FAMMM in brackets. I defined this acronym earlier in the article under the cause section. -FAMMM is typically characterized by having 50 or more combined moles in addition to a family history of melanoma. [2] It is transmitted autosomal dominantly and associated with the CDKN2A mutation. Those with FAMMM do have an increased life-time risk of melanoma. [2]
Thank you for taking the time to read and critique our suggestions. We would appreciate and welcome any feedback or suggestions that you may have regarding our proposed changes. TheOccasionalHiker ( talk) 03:38, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
References
The 2nd sentence currently reads: Melanomas typically occur in the skin, but may rarely occur in the mouth, intestines, or eye. It is too long to be this early in the article. I suggest abbreviating it to Melanomas typically occur in the skin. The caveat word typically signals sufficiently that there are also other possibilities, so noone is fooled by this omission. Readers typically spend very little time on each article and typically start at the top. Therefore, we exert ourselves to be very compact in the intro, and especially in the beginning of the intro. The info that I suggest is removed here in the intro should of course be present in some other part of the article. (Which I also trust it is.) -- Ettrig ( talk) 08:14, 2 February 2019 (UTC) Oops, I checked for handling this info in the rest of the article, and it is not sufficiently treated there. I am trusting that this is true and important, since it is mentioned in the 2nd sentence. In that case it should be fully spelled out in the article. But it is not. The word intestine does not occur anywhere else in the article. The first sentence in Signs and symptoms seems to presume that melanoma occurs only in the skin. I think this would be an OK place to describe where in the body melanoma occurs. (Maybe it would be even better to add an earlier paragraph that describes what the illness is constituted of, for example its mechanisms.) -- Ettrig ( talk) 08:25, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
I would complement the nicely-written section on Pathophysiology with results from TCGA studies on recurrent genomic alterations in melanoma. For example, the notion that BRAF V600 is the most common mutation in melanoma would give context to BRAF inhibitors mentioned later Tave15 ( talk) 09:17, 9 April 2019 (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 |
Would like to discuss the possibility of adding a "Research" section to melanoma or to having a separate topic "Melanoma Research". Any thoughts? -- Khaj 06:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Sunlight is a controversial cause of melanoma is a color. Philiphughesmd 04:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC) Dr. Bernie Ackerman has written an entire book about the valueless sentinel lymph node biopsy. Philiphughesmd 04:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I think it may be prudent to indicate that imiquamod and Moh's are not exactly first line or established treatments for melanoma. I've aimed to do so politely. Wide local excision remains the standard of care so the value of Moh's here is unclear. It is rarely appropirate to accept inadequate surgical resection of a cancer to minimise a scar. Will Blake 06:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I have removed references to minimal deviation melanoma which is not a widely recognised subtype. Many feel it arises only when a pathologist is unwilling to commit to a benign or a malignant diagnosis. Hope no-one objects Will Blake 23:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was move. — Nightst a llion (?) 13:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I have asked to have this article moved to 'Melanoma' which is a more accurate, contemporary, precise and brief term. This is done on a consensus basis. Please record your feelings below. Any objectors? Will Blake 06:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
For
I'm wondering, I've never seen the tool used for a punch biopsy. I'm thinking though, it sounds more like hole-puncher, than a small cookie-cutter. Do you think maybe that might be a better description of it?
Please tell us how melanoma happens in English, not in jargon. How does normal suntanning (which can help prevent melanoma) suddenly cause the cancer? The section Causes is too technical for lay people. We are not doctors. 122.200.166.173 ( talk) 11:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
The "In lay terms" section appears to be conjecture. Are there any references for the statements made in this section? Danensis ( talk) 12:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
The last entry in this thread is five years old. FYI, https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Melanoma has but one paragraph and was 'simply' easy to understand. Thanks for the tip. Also, those wanting different source/information can now do a Google-search. It may yield some university basic info. -- AstroU ( talk) 09:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Does anyone know how to extract images from a PDF file ? There's a wealth of melanoma photos that are said to be in PD but inside this PDF. Kpjas 08:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I think as a current MCOTW, we should improve it to become FA. In my opinion, what is needed:
NCurse
work
11:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Also need link or source for British study which suggests that melanoma is more common in indoor than outdoor workers. Figma 23:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
This article page seems to provide medical advice more than once. Does the wiki give medical advice? Snowman 17:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Should we move it to Peer?
NCurse
work
17:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
When I change MCOTW, maybe this article could get a peer review. Why will that help? When I wanted Aortic dissection to be featured, peer review showed a lot of faults in the article. It could help because much more people use Peer review than MCOTW. But we can wait with that.
NCurse
work
18:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
NCurse please reign in your editing. Many of your changes are unnecessary and subtract from clarity. For example, you added a reference which was already existing (at the time of this writing references 8 and 9 are THE SAME, I noticed this because I wrote/edited much of the history section ... which you are editing to its detriment, please STOP). Despite your extensive efforts I think most of you're recent flood of changes are unnecessary. Khaj 09:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
First, please calm down. See that edit, it was an anonym edit, that's why I reverted it and told him on his talk page. If you edit something, regarding you're a specialist, I'd never revert it. I can't see why you create a war, I came here to improve the article, and I don't think that every of my edits were catastrophic. I accept that you know everything better in that topic, that's why I'd never revert your edit. Maybe the problem is your wikistress. Delete any of my edit, revert anything, I'm not interested, I'd never make a war (not like you). I've been able to learn here in wiki, everybody is as important and respected as much he works. Thanks...
NCurse
work
21:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Your last sentence is unfortunate. If everyone is given an equal voice in every article, then the truly knowledgeable drown in seas of mediocrity. Khaj 05:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Good link, perhaps you should read it yourself! Your alternative statement "Although melanoma is unlikely to be ..." itself begs for citation, what evidence is there for it to be unlikely? My version acknowledges the lack of strong evidence - there are no citations backing up your "unlikely to be new" position, it's a deficiency we will just have to accept, all we can point to is that nowhere (therefore "no") do you find scientific (therefore "serious") arguments against (therefore "doubt") the idea that melanoma has been around for a long time. Which version (yours or mine) is therefore weakest? The perception of grammatic awkwardness is just that, your perception only, read more review papers (read some of the ones in medical fields particularly). Given my expertise in this subject it WAS my original intention to devote more time to further areas, but as I worked on first the introduction (I did the first paragraph) and then started putting together the histories, this article had the extreme misfortune of becoming an MCOW. Like flies to honey well-meaning but essentially unqualified people started hashing in a flood of whatever data they could scrape together on the subject in the misguided belief that quantity equals quality. Now this article has become a mountain of confusion (the second paragraph of the introduction is hilarious from the perspective of someone who's work revolves around pigmented cells, it reads as if humans are either white or black and fails to acknowledge the spectrum which is reality - and that is just the LANGUAGE used). Therefore, I currently restrict myself to the sections I have worked on. When the dust dies down, and when time permits, I intend to do more. But the history section is something of a test case for me, if I don't get properly reasoned arguments behind changes which are made, then I don't see the point in devoting time to the other areas. Khaj 08:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Did you read the following text at the bottom of the editing page: If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.? It is great to have an expert onboard here, but that won't mean that no one will edit anything you wrote anymore. We are all trying to improve this (and other) article, but there is no guarantee that every edit will actually be an improvement or is 100% accurate. This is something you will have to live with and keep in your mind when you use wikipedia as a learning resource. -- WS 14:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Summary: Government scientists turned regular blood cells into tumor attackers that wiped out all signs of cancer in two men with advanced melanoma. The striking finding, unveiled Thursday, marks an important step in the quest for gene therapy for cancer. But the genetically altered cells didn't help 15 other melanoma victims. So scientists are trying to strengthen the shots.
Why is this paragraph duplicated exactly here when it already appears in the introduction?
"Melanoma of the skin accounts for 160,000 new cases worldwide each year, and is more frequent in white men.[3] It is particularly common in white populations living in sunny climates.[11] According to the WHO Report about 48,000 deaths worldwide due to malignant melanoma are registered annually.[5]"
TimothyPilgrim 13:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
There is some evidence that Vitamin D (including from sun exposure) may be protective. Also, there are studies showing that dietary omega-6/omega-3 imbalance contributes to susceptibility to melanoma.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1567907 --
Chave (
talk)
15:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Dear all
I think a short section on the naural history of the malignant melanoma - in situ/invasive radial/vertical growth phase would be good - as I find people even with medical background find difficult to understand the concept. Thic could help to understand the difference between the prognosis of a thin and a thick melanoma - not just give the numbers. I was thinking to include something along these lines below:
Natural history of malignant melanoma
The malignant melanoma starts as a proliferation of melanocytes, which is limited to the dermo-epidermal junction. This is also referred as radial growth phase - the tumour cells grow alongside the junction. At this phase the tumour does not have invasive potential, and the thickness of the lesion is less than 1 mm.
When the tumour cells start to move in a different direction - vertically up into the epidermis and into the papillary dermis, the behaviour of the cells changes dramatically.
The next step in the evolution is the invasive radial growth phase, which is a confusing term, however it explains the next step in the process of the radial growth, when individual cells start to acquire invasive potential. This step is important - from this point on the melanoma is capable of making a metastasis. The Breslow depth of the lesion is usually less than 1 mm, the Clark's level is usually 2.
The following step in the process is the invasive melanoma - the vertical growth phase. The tumour attained invasive potential, which is shown by the mitotic activity of the tunour cells. The metastatic cells are getting into the bloodstreem by invasion of the lymphatics and small blood vessels. The tumour thickness is usually more than 1 mm, and the tumour involves the deeper parts of the dermis.
The host elicits an immunological reaction against the tumour, which is judged by the presence and activity of the TILs (tumour infiltrating lymphocytes). These cells sometimes completely destroy the primary tumour, this called regression, which is the latest stage of the melanoma development. In certain cases the primary tumour is completely destroyed and only the metastatic tumour is discovered.
What do you think?
best wishes, Las
Laciga 00:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Seems to be a good start. But the name of the section is not the best. I'll suggest a new one. Be bold to insert the text. NCurs e work 05:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
It says "American physician, Dr. Roger Turkington, discovered the human melanoma gene." No references are cited and what exactly is "the human melanoma gene" anyway? IIRC there is no such thing. 130.60.28.29 15:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I've put a little bit in about equine melanomata, since there didn't seem to be anything available yet, and this article is sufficiently detailed that a separate page doesn't seem justified at this point. ( Dlh-stablelights 13:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC))
Why not go ahead and put in a special section for every species? Melanoma isn't restricted to horses and men. While many animals seem unsusceptible (e.g. mice), many animals are as susceptible as horses (e.g. pigs). I think the answer here is to NOT HAVE SPECIES-SPECIFIC SECTIONS. No wonder this article is such a disaster. 130.60.28.29 ( talk) 15:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Is there any reason for the growing directory of only vaguely useful websites? Most are are just info-pages from commercial services; and all that information should be incorporated into the article. 218.111.148.233 08:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Quote: In the future, however, physicians will hopefully be able detect melanomas based on a patient’s genotype, not just his or her phenotype. It is my understanding that one cannot detect a melanoma based on a whole body genotype- one can only detect pre-dispositions/risk factors. The only way to achieve a genotype diagnosis is to genotype the cancer cells specifically. Useful in confirmation of a suspected melanoma, but hardly useful in scanning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.208.80.102 ( talk) 12:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, this article is unhelpful to the average person seeking information about melanoma. It seems geared to grad students in biochemistry. I suggest some of the excessive, highly-technical medical language be toned down. Grumpy otter ( talk) 20:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the article could benefit from a more medical approach. Prevalence and incidence rates should be included. It should be stated that there is no medical proof that nevus trauma causes melanoma. Furthermore, the article should demystify the malignant melanoma: it is one of the most curable cancers in the US (after seminoma, thyroid cancer and prostate cancer). It is not as lethal as you might think after reading popular health magazines.
As far as I understand it, the routine use of sunscreen is still routinely advocated by mainstream medicine as an anti-melanoma measure; see this for instance. While I understand that sometimes mainstream medicine gets it wrong, we should make clear what the majority medical view is - which is still, strongly, in favour of sunscreen use as far as I know. -- Robert Merkel ( talk) 04:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
AHRQ does not agree. At the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Home Page (The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) is the lead Federal agency charged with improving the quality, safety, efficiency, and effectiveness etc etc) In Recommendations and Rationale, Counseling to Prevent Skin Cancer, U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) at http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/3rduspstf/skcacoun/skcarr.htm the following is the summary of their recommendation on counseling for behavior changes to prevent melanoma:
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force concludes that the evidence is insufficient to recommend for or against routine counseling by primary care clinicians to prevent skin cancer.
Rating: I Recommendation.
Rationale: The USPSTF found insufficient evidence to determine whether clinician counseling is effective in changing patient behaviors to reduce skin cancer risk. Counseling parents may increase the use of sunscreen for children, but there is little evidence to determine the effects of counseling on other preventive behaviors (such as wearing protective clothing, reducing excessive sun exposure, avoiding sun lamps/tanning beds, or practicing skin self-examination) and little evidence on potential harms.
Clinical Considerations: Using sunscreen has been shown to prevent squamous cell skin cancer. The evidence for the effect of sunscreen use in preventing melanoma, however, is mixed. Sunscreens that block both ultraviolet A (UV-A) and ultraviolet B (UV-B) light may be more effective in preventing squamous cell cancer and its precursors than those that block only UV-B light. However, people who use sunscreen alone could increase their risk for melanoma if they increase the time they spend in the sun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chave ( talk • contribs) 14:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
"It is not adequate that a dermatologist has a dermatoscope in his or her office, it should be a routine part of the skin exam that the instrument is used."
Since we are not doctors, how do we know when to use a dermatoscope over them? Seemed a little wonky and wanted other input before changing. Sheepeh ( talk) 03:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I removed this section because it was incorrect. The ideas it contained were not cited and are not generally accepted by melanoma cancer biologists. Biochemallurgist ( talk) 21:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
"In lay terms: Content made generalizations that are not supported by data. I edited the text to remove unsupported claims, and to explain that melanoma doesn't always result from UV exposure." (Revision as of 18:10, 30 November 2010, Blindh/ talk) Perhaps people should learn to do real research before imposing their pet beliefs on others. I'm not going to revert this unwarranted edit, but check this info out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeXtGHSt-5o
Skin Cancer/Sunscreen - the Dilemma::
UCSD School of Medicine and GrassrootsHealth:: Edward Gorham, PhD::
Series: Vitamin D Deficiency - Treatment and Diagnosis [2/2009] [Health and Medicine] [Professional Medical Education] [Show ID: 15770]::
LICENSE: Creative Commons (Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works)
The fact is that Melanoma always results from UV exposure and usually results in a place that never saw the sun. Further, melanoma does not result from UV damage to a melanocyte or melanin. 122.200.166.53 ( talk) 07:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I have reverted the edit made by User:Blindh on 18:10, 30 November 2010, to bring the section back to some factuality. All material in this section has been sourced from allied/related articles in Wikipedia. However, since Wikipedia is only a third-class reference, the sources should probably not be cited. As well, the whole article should be substantially re-arranged to present some logical order of reference, as it is currently a dog's breakfast with bits all over the place. 122.200.166.232 ( talk) 02:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
There may be no subpopulation of melanoma cancer stem cells, See [3] Rod57 ( talk) 14:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
I added a section about stem cells and melanoma for my Biology of Stem Cells class. There is evidence that the stem cells in hair follicle stem cell niches play a major role in melanoma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lpitzer ( talk • contribs) 16:55, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
All I have done is make sorely-needed grammatical changes. Do not understand whole-sale reverts. YMMV, but this needs to be discussed in more detail HERE before doing such reverts. 23:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackfirst ( talk • contribs)
Recent edits by 184.58.124.224 indicate this user is adamant about removing the word 'malignant' in front of 'melanoma,' citing it as redundant. While I can understand this view, since common reference to melanoma most always means malignancy, the actual term 'malignant melanoma' is used extensively in the literature, books, journal papers, etc. Terms like 'premalignant melanoma' and 'benign melanoma' are also sometimes used. I have left this user's changes to the text, but what is the proper convention here? 98.109.174.254 ( talk) 21:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi WhatamIdoing and MastCell -
This is my evidence chain:
Indirect DNA damage (Note: the first para of the lede is very badly written, it is not intuitive.) Indirect DNA damage occurs when a UV-photon is absorbed in the human skin by a chromophore that does not have the ability to convert the energy into harmless heat very quickly.[2] From the image "File:Indirect DNA damage.png" Indirect DNA damage: The chromophore absorbs UV-light ( * denotes an excited state), and the energy of the excited state is creating singlet oxygen (1O2) or a hydroxyl radical (•OH), which then damages DNA through oxidation.[1]
At Location of the damage Direct DNA damage is confined to areas that can be reached by UV-B light. In contrast free radicals can travel through the body and affect other areas - possibly even inner organs. The traveling nature of the indirect DNA damage can be seen in the fact that the malignant melanoma can occur in places that are not directly illuminated by the sun—in contrast to basal-cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma, which only appear on directly illuminated locations on the body.[citation needed]
Direct DNA damage Direct DNA damage can occur when DNA directly absorbs the UV-B-photon. UVB light causes thymine base pairs next to each other in genetic sequences to bond together into thymine dimers, a disruption in the strand, which reproductive enzymes cannot copy. It causes sunburn and it triggers the production of melanin.[1] From the image "File:Direct DNA damage.png" Direct DNA damage: The UV-photon is directly absorbed by the DNA (left). One of the possible reactions from the excited state is the formation of a thymine-thymine cyclobutane dimer (right). The direct DNA damage leads to sunburn, causing an increase in melanin production, thereby leading to a long-lasting tan. However, it is responsible for only 8% of all melanoma.
Melanin Production of melanin is stimulated by DNA damage induced by UVB-radiation,[1] and it leads to a delayed development of a tan. ... This property enables melanin to dissipate more than 99.9% of the absorbed UV radiation as heat[3] (see photoprotection). This prevents the indirect DNA damage that is responsible for the formation of malignant melanoma and other skin cancers.
There were obviously many other pathways, but they all led back to these three. 122.200.166.100 ( talk) 01:47, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I hope I can add perspective concerning the cause of melanoma. The UV light striking exposed skin results in that skin producing "Melanocytes: make melanin!" hormones that then circulate within the body. When they reach unexposed skin, they can tend to push melanocytes there into malignancy. The process could be similar to how estrogen can increase breast cancer risk. Joseph Meisenhelder ( talk) 14:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
AP (June 5, 2011). "Studies Find New Drugs Boost Skin Cancer Survival". New York Times. -- Javaweb ( talk) 14:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Javaweb
"New Promise Shown in Treatments for Melanoma, Breast Cancer". PBS News Hour. June 6, 2011. PBS. {{
cite episode}}
: External link in
(
help); Unknown parameter |transcripturl=
|transcripturl=
ignored (|transcript-url=
suggested) (
help)
--
Javaweb (
talk)
22:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Javaweb
Following reverted in this edit → http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Melanoma&action=historysubmit&diff=465081686&oldid=465081098
{{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)--User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 03:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Why the revert of my edit about the high incidence of melanoma in southern italy. Dammit, that is what it is, the literature reflects it, and I have the tickets to Italy (where I attend international skin cancer conferences) to prove it. Also, there is not a particularly high incidence of melanoma in "Northern Europe". What there is is a high incidence in areas of historical migration of northern europeans into southern climes. Classic example is Sicily, with its large Norman component to the gene pool. Other examples are Texas and Australia. And yes, I know experts don't count for much here, except we do know the literature. Drjames1 ( talk) 20:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Solicit input on bio of pioneering melanin researcher Peter Proctor. Nucleophilic ( talk) 13:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
I would recommend to mention that a locally excised melanoma has a good prognosis. In the second paragraph: "Melanoma is less common than other skin cancers. However, it is much more dangerous if it is not found early. It causes the majority (75%) of deaths related to skin cancer.[3]" I would put before mentioning the mortality rate, something like "Has a good prognosis if detected early" "Can be removed completely if detected early". That would be helpful for all the people that read article because being delivered the diagnose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadram2011 ( talk • contribs) 14:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Vemurafenib (already mentioned in Research) could now also be mentioned in the Adjuvant/chemo section and more emphasis on the V600E BRAF mutation.
Vemurafenib says Vemurafenib received FDA approval for the treatment of late-stage melanoma on August 17, 2011, Health Canada approval on February 15, 2012 and on February 20, 2012, the European Commission approved vemurafenib as a monotherapy for the treatment of adult patients with BRAF V600 mutation positive unresectable or metastatic melanoma, the most aggressive form of skin cancer. - Rod57 ( talk) 03:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
This page could be renamed "Cutaneous melanoma". Melanoma can be observed in numerous extra-cutaneous localization. What do you think to rename the page? patho ( talk) 15:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
The first paragragh of the Surgery section describes the standard practices of excision but at the end it says "This is a common pattern of treatment failure in melanoma", without explaining why or how, the reason that I find it a bit confusing. Can someone with the knowledge of the subject matter can have a look at it. -- SMS Talk 21:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
... of the management in the British Medical Bulletin doi:10.1093/bmb/ldu019 JFW | T@lk 15:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Not mentioned in article; what does it mean? Equinox ( talk) 23:16, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Ingredients in some sunscreens are not 'titanium' and 'zinc'; they are 'titanium dioxide' and 'zinc oxide'. 71.139.163.243 ( talk) 03:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Melanoma. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 21:52, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
This article has HIGH VISIBILITY; what do you think??
Headline-1: Bananas May Help Detect, Cure Skin Cancer
QUOTE: "Girault believes the scanner could be used one day to destroy tumors, hopefully rendering biopsies and even chemotherapy unnecessary.
“Our initial laboratory tests showed us that our device could be used to destroy the cells,” he said.
The research was published in the German science journal Angewandte Chemie." -- AstroU ( talk) 09:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future WP discussion/editing.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Melanoma. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Melanoma. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
https://www.moffitt.usf.edu/pubs/ccj/v12n4/pdf/223.pdfWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:59, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2367555 et al. Cliffewiki ( talk) 14:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
In this edit I added a short snippet including a citation, linking to mensacarcin. User Jytdog reverted this edit. While I added the sentence to a wrong section, there is no reason to delete it: The citation is from a high-level, peer-reviewed journal, the research is convincing. And the agent certainly is of high interest under the viewpoint of research. I will add it again to the Research section, slightly lengthened. Tomdo08 ( talk) 02:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Melanoma. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:52, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
It happens quite often that conclusions of original articles pertaining to the safety of biopsies are inadvertently mis-represented in the articles quoting them; this is the case of this article on melanoma. That causes much harm. The wording of the Abstract of this article, although technically flawless, is gravely misleading, because it requires not an average, but especially high degree if attention to hidden details. Unfortunately for melanoma sufferers, this article has been referenced in this Wikipedia article by someone who evidently had only a normal degree of attention to details.
Let us discuss the crucial declaration of this Wikipedia article: "Incisional biopsies such as punch biopsies are usually contraindicated in suspected melanomas, because of the possibility of sampling error or local implantation causing mis- estimation of tumour thickness. However, fears that such biopsies may increase the risk of metastatic disease seem unfounded.[55][56]" (Wikipedia's reference numbers). This is what the misleading wording of the original article SEEMS to say.
Even the title "Is incisional biopsy of melanoma harmful?" is inconsistent with the content. Reassuringly but incorrectly, that title's question is answered negatively in the Abstract's Conclusions: "The concern that incomplete excision of primary melanomas may result in an increased incidence of SLN (Sentinel Lymph Node) micrometastases, artifactual or real, is unfounded." Where is the misleading?
This misleads to read that it is a general conclusion, while in reality the harm of the incisional biopsy was discussed only comparing to excisional biopsy and punch biopsy; see the Abstract's Background: "The aim of this study was to evaluate the difference (...) for patients who undergo excisional versus incisional versus shave biopsy."
The idea of comparing the harm of biopsies to non-biopsying diagnostic methods did not seem to cross the Authors' minds; possibly because of the wrong "obviousness" that cancers and suspected cancers have to be biopsied.
The Authors of the original article are guilty of the lethal harm: When meaning to say that incisional biopsies are not more harmful than excisional and shave- types, their inconsistent wording misleading readers to think that incisional biopsies are harmless - which is inconsistent with the data of their own article, showing 20% of that increase. Biopsies do increase the incidence of metastasis (see Fig. 3 in Reference 56 in this Wikipedia's article on melanoma). For melanoma, metastasis is lethal in 90%, and this is what this misrepresentation is leading the Wikipedia's reading melanoma sufferers, and their doctors, into.
Let us "nail this down": In the Abstract's "Results" section, we read:
"The concern that incomplete excision of primary melanomas may result in an increased incidence of SLN (sentinel lymph node) micrometastases, artifactual or real, is unfounded." Does this conclusion match the two foregoing facts? All those 1760 patients were biopsied. This lack of the non-biopsy reference made Authors think that the metastasis of those 345 patients had nothing to do with the biopsies.
HOW DEADLY MISLEADING!
The Authors mean: Don't worry which kind of biopsy we will apply to you, they all are harmful to the same (20%) degree.
The readers read: All biopsies of melanoma are harmless.
This misleading is not intentional. But this does not help those who have died because they trusted such assurances.
The other Wikipedia's Reference [56] is very misleading too, albeit in a different way; I can expand on that.
Jerry Czarnecki, [email redacted: we post in public here and this page will be copied to many other websites and there is no reason to expose account to spam] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.93.71.22 ( talk) 03:06, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
biopsy with a small side margin."
Hi guys, I read this week in the news about this study and since I havent found a quality secondary source I wanted to ask for help in either finding this kind of reference or your opinions towards maybe including this in another part of the melanoma article.
My initial added content which was correctly and kindly reverted for lacking secondary reference reads: In July 2018, a study revealed an experimental blood test that could detect melanoma skin cancer early. The study, published in the journal Oncotarget, was able to identify people with melanoma with 79% accuracy and people without a melanoma with 84% accuracy. Further research will be made in order to achieve a 90% accuracy in detection, which will allow to be valued by clinicians. [1]
This inclusion, altough still in development, have a huge potential toward earlier detection. As I live in a caribbean island where many specialist such as dermatologist are in shortage, it gave me hope to see a study that gave new possibilities to a blood test that can help screen potential cases. I hope this development results in success so that it can be used in clinical settings and thus save countless lives. Thanks once again for your support.
Greetings from Puerto Rico. --Edwin. Efeliciano_ms ( talk) 01:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC) Efeliciano ms ( talk) 01:37, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
References
doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31559-9 JFW | T@lk 12:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello, we are a group of medical student's from Queen's University. We are working to improve this article over the next month and will be posting our planned changes on this talk page. We look forward to working with the existing Wikipedia medical editing community to improve this article and share evidence. We welcome feedback and suggestions as we learn to edit. Thank you. TheGrumpyGerman ( talk) 18:11, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
"Hello, we are a group of medical students editing this page as part of our class assignment. We have compiled a list of suggestions to improve this article and would appreciate community feedback before we proceed with these edits. Here is a list of our suggestions:
1. We propose to insert the following content into the Melanoma #Diagnosis section regarding updating the laboratory tests to include SOX10 and updating S100B information and can be found in the following sandbox: /info/en/?search=User:TheOccasionalHiker/sandbox
2. We propose to add the following content into the Melanoma#Prevention section regarding the risk of UV nail lamps and further promoting sunscreen application. The proposed change can be found at /info/en/?search=User:Metrobooomin/sandbox
3. We propose to make changes to the Melanoma #Treatment section, mainly pertaining to the subheading immunotherapy/chemotherapy and creating a subheading of Small-Molecule Targeted Therapies. The changes can be found in the following user sandboxes. Immunotherapy: /info/en/?search=User:Vincentso94/sandbox Chemotherapy: /info/en/?search=User:Kookaburra123/sandbox Small Molecule Targeted Therapies: /info/en/?search=User:TheGrumpyGerman/sandbox
4. We propose to make changes to the Melanoma#Staging section where we integrate the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging guidelines. The proposed changes can be found at /info/en/?search=User:Dawnarmstrong4/sandbox — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheOccasionalHiker ( talk • contribs) 17:25, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
5. We propose to make changes to the Melanoma #Cause section. -We would like to add the following sentences to the “Cause” section:
1)Melanoma can also occur in skin areas with little sun exposure (ie. inside the mouth). [1] -2)People with Atypical mole syndrome (also known as dysplastic nevus syndrome or familial atypical multiple mole melanoma (FAMMM))are at increased risk for the development of melanoma. [2]
We propose making the following changes to the #Genetics section: -I would like to add the acronym commonly used to describe familial melanoma. Where familial melanoma was first mentioned in the genetics section I added the acronym FAMMM in brackets. I defined this acronym earlier in the article under the cause section. -FAMMM is typically characterized by having 50 or more combined moles in addition to a family history of melanoma. [2] It is transmitted autosomal dominantly and associated with the CDKN2A mutation. Those with FAMMM do have an increased life-time risk of melanoma. [2]
Thank you for taking the time to read and critique our suggestions. We would appreciate and welcome any feedback or suggestions that you may have regarding our proposed changes. TheOccasionalHiker ( talk) 03:38, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
References
The 2nd sentence currently reads: Melanomas typically occur in the skin, but may rarely occur in the mouth, intestines, or eye. It is too long to be this early in the article. I suggest abbreviating it to Melanomas typically occur in the skin. The caveat word typically signals sufficiently that there are also other possibilities, so noone is fooled by this omission. Readers typically spend very little time on each article and typically start at the top. Therefore, we exert ourselves to be very compact in the intro, and especially in the beginning of the intro. The info that I suggest is removed here in the intro should of course be present in some other part of the article. (Which I also trust it is.) -- Ettrig ( talk) 08:14, 2 February 2019 (UTC) Oops, I checked for handling this info in the rest of the article, and it is not sufficiently treated there. I am trusting that this is true and important, since it is mentioned in the 2nd sentence. In that case it should be fully spelled out in the article. But it is not. The word intestine does not occur anywhere else in the article. The first sentence in Signs and symptoms seems to presume that melanoma occurs only in the skin. I think this would be an OK place to describe where in the body melanoma occurs. (Maybe it would be even better to add an earlier paragraph that describes what the illness is constituted of, for example its mechanisms.) -- Ettrig ( talk) 08:25, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
I would complement the nicely-written section on Pathophysiology with results from TCGA studies on recurrent genomic alterations in melanoma. For example, the notion that BRAF V600 is the most common mutation in melanoma would give context to BRAF inhibitors mentioned later Tave15 ( talk) 09:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC)