numerous investigative drugs are described at usto.gov (or any patent search engine) some of the patents may describe pateint outcome pct. is this appropriate to describe at the article so those seeking new cures or treatments are more fully aware of the possibilities
There is a photo of breat cancer instead of brain cancer...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spydercanopus ( talk • contribs) .
Would this be a better caption? CT scan of brain showing a breast cancer metastatized to the left parietal lobe in the peri-ventricular area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimtpat ( talk • contribs) 20:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Brain Tumors are serious.
Fantastic expansion! Could you provide PMID numbers for the references? JFW | T@lk 14:04, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
thank you, and also thanks for adding the PMIDs! There's still work to be done on this article and especially the references - I'll tackle this as soon as I get a chance. I'm also thinking about adding a few images. I don't mind joining Wikiproject "clinical medicine", thanks for the invite. DrFlo1 19:15, May 23, 2005 (EDT)
Do brain tumors always result in death?:P 64.136.27.226 23:40, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
- No. In fact, a benign tumor is very unlikely to cause death. Many times they can be surgically removed.
Most "benign" (low-grade) gliomas tend to transform into malignant ones (anaplastic degeneration), and their complete surgical removal is extremely difficult, to say the least, due to their infiltrative nature. Whether surgery has any beneficial efect in slowing down anaplastic degeneration and extending survival time is far from being proven. On the other side, many extra-axial tumors, such as meningeomas, can be surgically cured.
- I believe that the user above was asking if malignant brain tumors always result in death. I was wondering the same thing, because I knew of two people who had brain tumors, and they both died as a result. Is this always the case? Scorpionman 00:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm getting a really mixed set of messages from this. I've got the one side that says that many brain tumors are treatable and yet theres another, well represented in the article, that seem to have a very pessimistic view. I'm not really sure how serious a brain tumor inherantly is. Can anybody reconcile this, I'd really appreciate a solid answer. Blademaster 02:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Any brain tumor is inherantly serious and life threatening. However brain tumors (even malignant ones) do not automatically mean death. It depends on the type - I am a medulloblastoma survivor and there are many others. Glioblastoma Multiforme however almost always results in death. I am aware that there are a very small subgroup of glioblastoma multiforme patients who survive for longer than 5 years.But this is in general the exception,as the 5 year survival rate for GBM is only 5-15%,depending on age,karnofsky performance score,and treatment applied. Immunize ( talk) 20:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
if Blademaster is getting confused I am beyond that, because I had a non-cancerous brain tumor which the one I had normally is found in a post-mortem examination, which mathematically the Colloid Cyst brain tumor (which was left out of this stub btw) I had effects 3 in 1 million per year and most of those "three" per Million per year there are the few like me that are alive to talk about them (533 of us world wide). There something about a statement that Non-Cancerous (benign) brain tumors can transform into being a cancerous (malignant)tumor strikes me as being questionable and I would need a reference (ref/ref) showing that statement as being factual, and then I would still need to have a sit down with Kieth Black to see if the reference was also true. The only insight I can add to this is when a Brain Tumor is first discovered in a CT or an MRI the patient is treated as if the brain tumor is cancerous until the tumor can be biopsied and it is tested to prove other wise. I understand this page lacks a CT scan of a Brain Tumor, I uploaded one to the Wiki Commons of a <Colloid Cyst 1cm brain tumor> GIF that shows all 30 slides progressively revealing and the Tumor I had which is highlighted on it. Timeholder ( talk) 04:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Brain cancer develops from overexposure to watermelons, as well as taxis. One who spends over 1 hour near any of those substances will automatically develop this condition. A troll?
Update: The first symptom of brain cancer is the development of excessively sweaty armpits. Followed by chronic lying. The person becomes unable to tell the truth about anything. Constipation is the third major sign. Should anyone begin to notice theses symptoms they are advised to see their closest drug dealer immediately. There is no hope for you so you may as well not remember any of it.
Okay, someone who knows a LOT about Brain tumors, please clean up this article from the troll.
- Someone said that watermelons and taxis cause brain cancer? LOL! Scorpionman 00:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
From someone who just lost their father to a GBM on the 4th of July, this article gave of some great info or leads to look into. But I see now someone had to deface the article or make jokes. Some of these comments are just plain stupid, and hurtful. Brain tumors are not a joke, some are life threating or a death sentence. July 16th, 2007 <vickster>
Durova ( talk · contribs) inserted a paragraph that distinguished "brain cancer" from "brain tumor". Both terms refer to tumors in the brain, although "brain cancer" would refer to malignancy, while "tumor" can refer to both. It is not true that "brain cancer" is used exclusively for cerebral metastasis.
I also removed the assertion that brain tumors now kill more children than leukaemia [1]. Without a source, this cannot be sustained. JFW | T@lk 03:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- It takes a somewhat careful reading and wording to state this correctly: The United States diagnoses more total cases of childhood leukemia each year. Due to higher mortality rates, brain tumors are responsible for a greater number of deaths.
- Durova 01:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
But those URLs mix cerebral metastasis and primary brain tumors. Confusing. JFW | T@lk 02:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
- It's been a couple of years since this was an issue in my family and I was unable to relocate the original article. Keep an eye open for the subject, please? Common sense suggests that metastatic brain tumors are a minimal cause of pediatric diagnoses. Durova 15:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
http://www.cbtrus.org/reports//2005-2006/2006report.pdf has new data CBTRUS: An estimated 43,800 new cases of primary non-malignant and malignant brain and central nervous system tumors are expected to be diagnosed in the United States in 2005.
The problem is that this includes some other types of BRAIN cancers...CBTRUS (Central Brain Tumor Registry of the United States) incidence rates and estimated new cases include all primary malignant and non-malignant tumors of the brain, central nervous system, pituitary and pineal glands, and olfactory tumors of the nasal cavity. Chrispounds 23:49, 30 January 2006
We have vandals for the brain tumors, by the name of Tomlillis.
- Ban him/her from Wikipedia immediately! Scorpionman 00:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
It has too many links, also why isn't there any photos or picture illustrating what a brain tumor looks like?-- 80.227.100.62 07:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I like having a separate small article with particulars. The big articles are pretty intimidating somtimes. Frankly, I'm reading this because a friends child has one, and I don't want to have to deal with the big picture. I want to know what it is, how it progresses and so forth and the Medulloblastoma article did a good job of this for me. If I want more of an overview I can always easily get to the brain tumor article. In some ways it's easier to get a small article right, and if it ever gets big with details (as opposed to overmuch repetition of the brain tumor article) then it does deserve it's own article. I guess that's the question, how much duplication is there? I'm poorly equipped to answer this question because I've not taken time with the brain tumor article. None the less, at this moment I vote to keep them separate articles. -- kop 23:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree that medulloblastoma merits a separate article from brain tumors. There is significant detail that is unique to medulloblastoma. Also, brain tumors are an extremely broad category of medicine, and subcategorization is essential. -Michael Miller, Dartmouth Medical School
Hi I would like to request that you add a link to my website: Clinical Trials and Noteworthy Treatments For Brain Tumors at virtualtrials.com
We are a 501(c)(3) non-profit public charity, and our website is the most complete resource for brain tumor information. We have about 40 hours of video of brain tumor subjects, many original articles as well as a database of treatent options. Check out the site! Amusella 12:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Overall, pretty good job on the article... but the section on treatment and prognosis is now incorrect and badly needs updating. For example, for glioblastomas, there IS now a standard treatment protocol that is surgery with maximal amount of tumor removal and insertion of gliadel wafer (if possible... as there are a few situations where surgery and/or Gliadel shouldn't be used), followed by a combination of Radiation and chemotherapy using Temodar, followed by chemotherapy with Temodar. You menioned a prognosis of months. With the above protocol, it is actually over a year. http://virtualtrials.com/news3.cfm?item=2555&showtext=y However, there are many clinical trials going on now where average survival is over 2 years and some patients have been going for many years with no sign of recurrence. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2764420022542063525 So there is finally some hope at beating this. And finally - I am new to Wikipedia, but whenever I read something as important as this article, I like to know who wrote it and what affiliations (and possible conflicts of interest) they have. Why aren't Wikipedia articles signed by who wrote them? And who wrote this one?
Al Musella, DPM President Musella Foundation For Brain Tumor Research & Information, Inc virtualtrials.com 888-295-4740 Amusella 12:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
"It is alleged that mobile phones (AE: cell phones) might be a cause of brain tumors, according to one report.[4]"
A newer study with much bigger sample size disputes this claim. [2]
Call me an idiot, but I cannot find anything in this article that says anything about the effects of brain tumors/cancer(s). It talks about the symptoms (sudden epilectic seizures in people without a history of epilepsy, etc.), but not about the effects. For example, could it, I dunno, spread to certain parts of the brain and disrupt certain functions?
I'm sorry. My own mother had cancer when I was in fourth grade, but I was seven years old, and it was cervical cancer. I don't know very much about cancer or the actual science of the human brain (I know a few things about synapses and such, but not very much), and even the symptoms paragraph may as well be in Latin.
I'm trying to dissect the paragraph about symptoms. Apparently, intercranial hypertension is something that its Wikipedia article does not actually explain, but instead gives the symptoms and effects of. It can cause obesity, etc., but does it last, and how does it pertain to the effects of a malignant brain tumor? (I'm writing something where the protagonist's mother is dying of brain cancer. I am not going to write something as serious as that without correct, in-depth information.) Clearly brain swelling would be bad, but.... What would that cause? A brain tumor can cause intracranial hemorrhage, which can crush delicate brain tissue.
What I really need to know is what lasting effects a brain tumor could have. Could it make my character's mother incapable of speech and other functions that may make her incapable to take care of her daughter (she's a single parent, and my character is a minor. You can see why I need this information.)? Stars in the Night Sky 02:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- A brain tumor can make the patient incapable of pretty much everything dependent on its location as far as I know. if it's on the left side of the brain, the patient may lose the ability to speak. There may also be weakness or paralysis of one side of the body (hemiparesis/hemiplegia), incontinence, gradually lowering intelligence and so on. I'm not a doctor nor somebody else who really knows anything about brain tumours, but my father died of a glioblastoma, so I do know a little bit.-- 84.144.102.137 15:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Can Brain Damage Be located in the lobe part o the brain? if so does it mess up the emotions and the reactions of the person ? If u know the answer plz email me at kingdomhearts2k5@hotmail.com THx a bunch
Could someone please rough out a section on which brain tumors are more common in babies and children, than in adults? -- Una Smith 03:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
The article currently includes this: In 2000 approximately 2.76 children per 100,000 were affected by a CNS tumor in the United States. This rate has been increasing and by 2005 was 3.0 children per 100,000. This needs a source. Crucially important here is the question: does "rate" refer to incidence or to prevalence? Prevalence reflects incidence plus survival, hence an increase may be good news, reflecting increased survival. Also, does the data reflect earlier and/or more frequent diagnosis of brain tumors that previously would have been undetected? -- Una Smith ( talk) 22:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
[[i am dr. balraj my email id sameerverma2009@gmail.com my cell no.9911739308 i am from india http://www.sun-sentinel.com/features/health/sfl-rxcell01feb01,0,7105692.story]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.18.202.245 ( talk) 10:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
The correct spelling is "tumour". "Tumor" is the american spelling. — NRen2k5( TALK), 11:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling) -- Ysangkok ( talk) 11:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not good with this whole wikipedia thing, so my apologies for 'doing it wrong.' But I noticed this, and believe it is not good practice for wikipedia. "I commonly hear that the eye doctor is the first one to make the diagnosis - because when they look in your eyes, they can sometimes see signs of increased intracranial pressure. This must be investigated." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.206.155.100 ( talk) 12:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC) The optic signs of increased intracranial pressure are papilledema and unequal pupils.While they may indicate a brain tumor,other causes of intracranial pressure,may cause these symptoms as well. Immunize ( talk) 20:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Answer: please write one. -- Una Smith ( talk) 22:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- For another answer, cf. Talk:Brain tumor#Causes infra. JoergenB ( talk) 19:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
The list in the "signs and symptoms" section is copied from [3]. Originally added by anonymous user: [4]. Since the owner of the source page ( Amusella) has used his username in previous edits, it seems unlikely the information was added by him. Sho Uemura ( talk) 15:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Removed. Sho Uemura ( talk) 16:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I am the copyright owner, and I give permission to use anything on my website, virtualtrials.com on wikipedia. The article mentioned is probably the best one on symptoms and is the backed up by a large survey (3,800+) brain tumor patients. BTW: I did not add that link, but there is a lot of useful information on my website that should replace most of the stuff that is on Wikipedia. For example, Wikipedia doesn't even list the approved treatments for brain tumors. Amusella ( talk) 14:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- I'm afraid your site won't meet WP:MEDRS. The article certainly needs a lot of changes, and you are very welcome to join in the process. You would need to follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Donating_copyrighted_materials to allow use of material from your site, but it would need to be fully backed up by MEDRS. Johnbod ( talk) 18:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
WHO 2007 classification - discussed doi: 10.1097/WCO.0b013e328312c3a7 JFW | T@lk 23:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
The section Brain_Tumor#Signs_and_symptoms has a broken stray ref in the introduction para, can some editor look into it? Bluptr ( talk) 17:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I find it odd that an entire paragraph should be devoted to an entirely experimental treatment option. If anything, I think we should have a paragraph on the different areas of current research, and VSV could be one of them. Until them, I would suggest to delete or drastically shorten this paragraph. Anybody with me? Audionaut ( talk) 13:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
You are right. Either list all - or the more important ones, or list none.. don't just pick one.
Wikipedia has become a trusted source and visitors looking for brain tumor information may fixate on this one treatment thinking wikipedia must think it is the most important treatment.. but it is not.
I am thinking of treatments like neuradiab, novocure device, vaccines and targeted therapies.
If you can't add them to this article, at least link to the most important websites. You missed virtualtrials.com and included relatively trivial websites. Musella ( talk) 02:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not related in anyway to the medicine. I can't understand how the left hemisphere of the brain (L) is located at the right of the posterior of the head (P)... Is the picture incorrect or am I very wrong somehow? KenyaSong ( talk) 19:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- We may well be looking at the image from the "wrong" side of the film. The possibility that you're looking at a mirror image is why these films contain the "L" and "P" marks. The person reading the film has a 50-50 chance of putting a film on the light box back-to-front on the first try. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 23:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
You guys have NFI do you? All CT and MRI slices in the axial plane are oriented that way, because you look at them as though looking upwards from the patient's feet. Thus the patient's left is always on the right of the screen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.170.35 ( talk) 09:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Aren't there brain tumours in other countries? Who's got some data? Tony (talk) 12:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- U.S. cancer data tend to be more accurate and consistent than numbers from other countries. I don't think anyone has data as broad and carefully validated as Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results, which covers a representative sample of the U.S. The WHO data simply reports what the individual countries supply, which is sometimes better quality (for some purposes) than the US data but sometimes worse, and they're not always compatible. Some countries just report totals for all brain cancers, or all leukemias. After reading about the Russian health system in Science, and talking to people who have been to Russia, I'm skeptical of Russian data. You can't combine incidence from the developed world with incidence from the undeveloped world. Even in the U.S., doctors admit that they indiscriminately fill in "heart failure" in death certificates of anyone over 70. When the prostate cancer awareness campaigns are going on, doctors fill in "prostate cancer." That's why estimates have to be validated.
- If you know of international data as good as SEER, please give me the link. --
Nbauman (
talk) 17:05, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- [
Cancer Research UK], summarising the UK official stats, which avoid many of the problems that the US stats rather famously suffer from.
Johnbod (
talk) 19:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- What problems do the US stats famously suffer from? I never saw anything about that in the BMJ or Lancet. --
Nbauman (
talk)
- Inconsistent collection by states is the worst, but there are others. Ask any cancer epidemiologist.
Johnbod (
talk) 12:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- Has any of those cancer epidemiologists put his or her criticisms in writing?
- I was reading the Lancet article by Ricard, and they got their epidemiology numbers from the Central Brain Tumor Registry of the United States
http://www.cbtrus.org/. --
Nbauman (
talk) 03:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- I'm sure they have, but this is old news. Textbooks or specialized journals may be better than recent general medical journals, especially as the whole subject is something epidemiologists spend a lot of time fretting about, but most medics aren't greatly interested in, any more than me.
Here's one. Your CBTR of course says "This database has been developed by compiling data from state cancer registries ...." That's usually where the problems start.
Johnbod (
talk) 13:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- I have read articles and written about the Singapore data registry, and it's a good state-of-the-art database. The main limitation as I see it is that it doesn't go back for 20 or 30 years, as the Scandinavian databases do, and as SEER does. Different databases are useful for different purposes. With the SEER database, you could plot 20- and 30-year survival curves, to see how many patients with brain cancer survive 20 years (which is essentially a cure). You could plot 20- and 30-year survival curves over time, to compare the survival cures diagnosed in 1980, 1990, 2000, etc. It's very gratifying to plot the survival curves of childhood leukemia, and watch the curves go up over the years from no survival to 95% survival. You could see whether we were really making progress with the major cancers. The Veterans Health Affairs database is designed to measure outcomes of different treatments for purposes of quality improvement, although it's limited to an older military population. One of the benefits of the CBTRUS is that they track the individual brain cancers. Cancer Research UK just gives you a number for all the brain cancers together, as far as I could tell. The US health statistics are uncoordinated and inconsistent. The quality of state statistics varies greatly. In some states, the medical examiner is an MD, in other states it can be a county sheriff (and they fill out death certificates). The SEER database only uses certain states which agree to use stricter reporting standards. It's more accurate to extrapolate national statistics from an accurate selective database than it is to count entries in the "cause of death" fields from death certificates for the Social Security death register.
- I think it's silly to make an unsupported claim that US cancer statistics "famously suffer from" problems, when you can't explain what they are. I do medical science, not football. I'm not rooting against the other team. UK and US (and European and Asian) doctors work together, and publish in each other's journals. When UK or US doctors get better outcomes, they go to conferences and tell everybody how to do it. There is (perhaps) a very small role for nationalism in science. --
Nbauman (
talk) 15:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- You're a fine one to talk! The CRUK figures are just a summary for a popular audience - you can get into the raw figures starting from here, or other places. Good luck! I can assure you that law enforcement people play no part in compiling UK statistics. You ask the question, but don't seem very interested in the answer. Johnbod ( talk) 16:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- I'm sure they have, but this is old news. Textbooks or specialized journals may be better than recent general medical journals, especially as the whole subject is something epidemiologists spend a lot of time fretting about, but most medics aren't greatly interested in, any more than me.
Here's one. Your CBTR of course says "This database has been developed by compiling data from state cancer registries ...." That's usually where the problems start.
Johnbod (
talk) 13:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Inconsistent collection by states is the worst, but there are others. Ask any cancer epidemiologist.
Johnbod (
talk) 12:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- What problems do the US stats famously suffer from? I never saw anything about that in the BMJ or Lancet. --
Nbauman (
talk)
- [
Cancer Research UK], summarising the UK official stats, which avoid many of the problems that the US stats rather famously suffer from.
Johnbod (
talk) 19:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
The article lacks any discussion on the causes. 98.14.223.69 ( talk) 13:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Nobody knows. There may be different causes for different types of tumors. Ionizing radiation is thought to be one cause of some (perhaps only a very small proportion) brain tumors, but basically the cause is unknown. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 23:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- For another answer, cf. Talk:Brain tumor#Causes infra. JoergenB ( talk) 19:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I was surprised at not finding any discussion of causes (alleged or confirmed) in the article. I was more surprised when I found a quotation with criticism of alleged cause findings on this talk page, namely, as the section name [[Talk:Brain tumor#"It is alleged that mobile phones (AE: cell phones) might be a cause of brain tumors, according to one report.[4]"]]. Continuing, I found two talk page sections, Talk:Brain tumor#Why isn't there a cause/risk factors section？ and Talk:Brain tumor#Any idea about the causes of these tumors? asking for a causes section, with short answers amounting to "Write one yourself" and "Because no causes are known", respectively.
I investigated the history - using the first two quoted sections for time bounds - and soon found the truth. This actually should be somewhat embarrasing for the serious editors of the page: The section Causes was removed by blatant vandalism almost three years ago, and never was restored.
Actually, what happened was two successive acts of vandalism, replacing sections with similar nonsense. However, only the latter vandalism was reverted. Later, the nonsense replacing the Causes section was removed by another editor.
This is completely explicable bona fide editing mistakes. What I do not understand is why no-one missed the section!
I'm going to restore the old Causes section. I don't think it is ideal. I think that sources should be improved, or claims withdrawn; but this should be done by ordinary editing. Due to the mistake, we just missed three years of editing; so there's some work ahead... JoergenB ( talk) 18:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- I dug a little more into the history. The present Causes section was mainly contibuted here by DrFlo1 ( talk · contribs), who both here and elsewhere gave an impression of really knowing what (s)he was talking about. There were also a number of references added. Later, their format was changed to web accessiblility; but since I'm not affiliated to any subscriber, I can't read them. If someone with access could check them, in order to see if either one is a source for any of the claims in this section, that person might make a relevant reference in the section. Likewise, there might be references at the articles Vinyl chloride, Ionising radiation, Tumor suppressor gene, Von Hippel-Lindau syndrome, Multiple endocrine neoplasia, and Neurofibromatosis. (Personally, I don't doubt that DrFlo1 had reasons to mention all these factors; nevertheless, some general or specific references would be advantageous.)
- The two last sentences were added by other users later. The claim about aspartame really ought to be verified; it was added here, as one of only two contributions from an uninlogged IP. As for the connection with cell phones, there is both a reference and a link to a page about the controversy; but I think that there has come more material, both pro and contra, during the missed three years; there is some reference to this supra. It might be worth updating. JoergenB ( talk) 11:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Mergecsection moved here
Malignant brain tumor was recently created. I don't see anything in it that isn't appropriate for inclusion here, and having everything in one place is a service for our readers. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 23:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree. Wikipedia has been in need of a separate article devoted only to malignant brain tumors for some time. Immunize ( talk) 00:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with WhatamIdoing; it makes more sense to keep this stuff together in one article. Why send readers to multiple articles to read about highly related things? PDCook ( talk) 01:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Merge it -- no reason to have two separate articles. Jrtayloriv ( talk) 01:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- If the two were merged, there would be a solid basis for a very comprehensive article where readers do not have to navigate to separate pages in order to learn about brain tumors. Tyrol5 [Talk] 20:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Merge per Pdcook. Renaissancee (talk) 01:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Looks like the consensus is to merge the two. Could someone uninvolved close this and someone get the job done? Tyrol5 [Talk] 21:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I have taken both articles off-line into files and I will make a new merged article. and publish it shortly so that historic editors can make comments before publication. Would users please refrain from making changes so that there modifications don't get lost. Thank you-- DerekvG ( talk) 14:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I will take into account the remarks that have been made on this page. futhermore I invite some of the contributors here to help me wikifying and grammatical correction of my language, I'm not a primary native english speaker (it was a second language) please leave a comment on my talk page -- DerekvG ( talk) 13:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I've made a new content for braintumor : a merge of the malignant brain tumor and braintumor pages please read & revieuw the old page is archived here user:DerekvG/sandbox/old_braintumor-- DerekvG ( talk) 18:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- there might still be some typo's and problems with references but i tried to make a page that reflects 2 things a) the contributions or earlier editors, soem overview info for non-medical users like myslef to gather some comprehension of the brain tumor and references to further reading and basic concepts underneath. -- DerekvG ( talk) 19:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. An " is not automatically a tumor, an abnormal growht of cells for instance could be hyperplasia, which isn't neoplastic at all. Seriously most of the science in this article is downright poor, It needs some serious going over by somebody who has some basic pathology teaching. If it's not done when I go on holidays in December I'll have a crack at it, but seriously, sheeeesh, most of the info is so bad at the moment it would benefit from being taken down while it's worked on, so it doesn't misinform the people who read it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.170.35 ( talk) 09:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
| -plasia and -trophy |
|---|
|
|
I would like to know wether this is not a question of semantics : are the following statements both true
- If not all "abnormal growth of cells" are "tumors"
- while all "tumors" belong to the category "abnormal growht of cells"
then it may be fairly concluded that the statement "a tumor is an abnormal growth of cells" is correct, which is what I conclude from the tumor wiki-article, because according to tumor the meaning of "tumor" is equivalent to "neoplasm". In that case the statement here is correct in the -plasia articles there is a box which allows people to check out the other forms -- DerekvG ( talk) 11:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
what the **** is a "brain-lemma"? I've just come off a 9 week neurosurg rotation and am pretty sure somebody just made this term up since I've never heard it before. Unless it's another monged up americanism it looks like whoever wrote this article just pulled words out of their proverbial. I've been told never to use wiki as any kind of medical resource before, and now, I can see 100% why. Not impressive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.170.35 ( talk) 09:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'm only a casual reader of Wikipedia, but I've never seen lemma used in that context before. I'm familiar with its usual definition in terms of proofs, and "brain-lemma" had me completely flummoxed too. The sentence, as written, is just confusing. (For that matter, why the sudden shift to first person?) 67.220.7.43 ( talk) 22:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not going to pretend to be any Wikipedia editing pro, but this article has some of the poorest quality writing I've ever seen on such a serious topic. It's meandering, full of bad grammar, and composed like a high school book report. Can somebody PLEASE take the lead in shaping this up?
- Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).
- Wikipedia needs people like you, not just editing experts. If you do whatever you can to help (no matter how small that may seem), it will help the next person. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 17:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
This article was packed with incomprehensible sentences and sections, dubious uncited and garbled scientific statements, and grammatical errors. It needs massive cleanup. I went through it and did my best at tidying it up but I am not an expert and it would take me a long time to verify everything and make the scientific sections sound. Someone else will need to help with that. This article probably gets a fairly high number of views so it seems reasonable that time is put into making it better. ShesGotSauce ( talk) 15:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I fail to see what qualifies the external link to http://www.neuroinstitute.org/btc as spam. it's a valid site, it provides information about Brain tumors I would add not mind having many more of those added. So qualifying my revert as GF is not sufficient as a motivation . -- DerekvG ( talk) 11:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- Please see WP:ELNO -- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 11:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- I understand ELNO I fail to see the reasoning, so I still fail to see how this link qualifies as an avoidable link; but then again who am I to question other people's motives...--
DerekvG (
talk) 23:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
- You could ask for greater input at WT:MED... My concern is the link seems like advertising for a hospital in the USA. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 00:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- @DocJames I see your point, thank you for explaining what your motivation, This should have been the motivation "wp:elno seems like advertising, promotional", This means it's not "Spam" (like in pointless unrelated advertising, like in entering a link for a porn-site) ; I see why most of the site could indeed be considered advertising for the clinic, however its nothing more then "this is us, that is what we do and that is where we are located" - there is no promotional intention behind the site, and the patient information about braintumors is useful - as a reference - without being "promotional", I do think the link was within ELNO regulations as an acceptable site. but I will not question your appreciation of the advertising character of the site -- DerekvG ( talk) 10:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
The physician-author of [5] mentioned on the radio that brain cancers rarely involve neurons, since neurons can't divide. Apparently the only exception is young children. Further sourcing is necessary here. -- Beland ( talk) 23:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- I don't quite understand your objection. Even if they are uncommon, the assertion that brain tumours may arise from neuronal components is not dubious. Gangliomgliomas, central neurocytomas, etc have neuronal components. I'm going to remove your flag until you can provide a reference citing the dubious role of neurons in brain tumours. 142.158.254.202 ( talk) 19:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
brain cancer treatment can be done in brain treatment can we get 100% sucess in removing brain — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.207.27.196 ( talk) 04:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
numerous investigative drugs are described at usto.gov (or any patent search engine) some of the patents may describe pateint outcome pct. is this appropriate to describe at the article so those seeking new cures or treatments are more fully aware of the possibilities
There is a photo of breat cancer instead of brain cancer...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spydercanopus ( talk • contribs) .
Would this be a better caption? CT scan of brain showing a breast cancer metastatized to the left parietal lobe in the peri-ventricular area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimtpat ( talk • contribs) 20:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Brain Tumors are serious.
Fantastic expansion! Could you provide PMID numbers for the references? JFW | T@lk 14:04, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
thank you, and also thanks for adding the PMIDs! There's still work to be done on this article and especially the references - I'll tackle this as soon as I get a chance. I'm also thinking about adding a few images. I don't mind joining Wikiproject "clinical medicine", thanks for the invite. DrFlo1 19:15, May 23, 2005 (EDT)
Do brain tumors always result in death?:P 64.136.27.226 23:40, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
- No. In fact, a benign tumor is very unlikely to cause death. Many times they can be surgically removed.
Most "benign" (low-grade) gliomas tend to transform into malignant ones (anaplastic degeneration), and their complete surgical removal is extremely difficult, to say the least, due to their infiltrative nature. Whether surgery has any beneficial efect in slowing down anaplastic degeneration and extending survival time is far from being proven. On the other side, many extra-axial tumors, such as meningeomas, can be surgically cured.
- I believe that the user above was asking if malignant brain tumors always result in death. I was wondering the same thing, because I knew of two people who had brain tumors, and they both died as a result. Is this always the case? Scorpionman 00:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm getting a really mixed set of messages from this. I've got the one side that says that many brain tumors are treatable and yet theres another, well represented in the article, that seem to have a very pessimistic view. I'm not really sure how serious a brain tumor inherantly is. Can anybody reconcile this, I'd really appreciate a solid answer. Blademaster 02:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Any brain tumor is inherantly serious and life threatening. However brain tumors (even malignant ones) do not automatically mean death. It depends on the type - I am a medulloblastoma survivor and there are many others. Glioblastoma Multiforme however almost always results in death. I am aware that there are a very small subgroup of glioblastoma multiforme patients who survive for longer than 5 years.But this is in general the exception,as the 5 year survival rate for GBM is only 5-15%,depending on age,karnofsky performance score,and treatment applied. Immunize ( talk) 20:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
if Blademaster is getting confused I am beyond that, because I had a non-cancerous brain tumor which the one I had normally is found in a post-mortem examination, which mathematically the Colloid Cyst brain tumor (which was left out of this stub btw) I had effects 3 in 1 million per year and most of those "three" per Million per year there are the few like me that are alive to talk about them (533 of us world wide). There something about a statement that Non-Cancerous (benign) brain tumors can transform into being a cancerous (malignant)tumor strikes me as being questionable and I would need a reference (ref/ref) showing that statement as being factual, and then I would still need to have a sit down with Kieth Black to see if the reference was also true. The only insight I can add to this is when a Brain Tumor is first discovered in a CT or an MRI the patient is treated as if the brain tumor is cancerous until the tumor can be biopsied and it is tested to prove other wise. I understand this page lacks a CT scan of a Brain Tumor, I uploaded one to the Wiki Commons of a <Colloid Cyst 1cm brain tumor> GIF that shows all 30 slides progressively revealing and the Tumor I had which is highlighted on it. Timeholder ( talk) 04:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Brain cancer develops from overexposure to watermelons, as well as taxis. One who spends over 1 hour near any of those substances will automatically develop this condition. A troll?
Update: The first symptom of brain cancer is the development of excessively sweaty armpits. Followed by chronic lying. The person becomes unable to tell the truth about anything. Constipation is the third major sign. Should anyone begin to notice theses symptoms they are advised to see their closest drug dealer immediately. There is no hope for you so you may as well not remember any of it.
Okay, someone who knows a LOT about Brain tumors, please clean up this article from the troll.
- Someone said that watermelons and taxis cause brain cancer? LOL! Scorpionman 00:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
From someone who just lost their father to a GBM on the 4th of July, this article gave of some great info or leads to look into. But I see now someone had to deface the article or make jokes. Some of these comments are just plain stupid, and hurtful. Brain tumors are not a joke, some are life threating or a death sentence. July 16th, 2007 <vickster>
Durova ( talk · contribs) inserted a paragraph that distinguished "brain cancer" from "brain tumor". Both terms refer to tumors in the brain, although "brain cancer" would refer to malignancy, while "tumor" can refer to both. It is not true that "brain cancer" is used exclusively for cerebral metastasis.
I also removed the assertion that brain tumors now kill more children than leukaemia [1]. Without a source, this cannot be sustained. JFW | T@lk 03:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- It takes a somewhat careful reading and wording to state this correctly: The United States diagnoses more total cases of childhood leukemia each year. Due to higher mortality rates, brain tumors are responsible for a greater number of deaths.
- Durova 01:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
But those URLs mix cerebral metastasis and primary brain tumors. Confusing. JFW | T@lk 02:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
- It's been a couple of years since this was an issue in my family and I was unable to relocate the original article. Keep an eye open for the subject, please? Common sense suggests that metastatic brain tumors are a minimal cause of pediatric diagnoses. Durova 15:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
http://www.cbtrus.org/reports//2005-2006/2006report.pdf has new data CBTRUS: An estimated 43,800 new cases of primary non-malignant and malignant brain and central nervous system tumors are expected to be diagnosed in the United States in 2005.
The problem is that this includes some other types of BRAIN cancers...CBTRUS (Central Brain Tumor Registry of the United States) incidence rates and estimated new cases include all primary malignant and non-malignant tumors of the brain, central nervous system, pituitary and pineal glands, and olfactory tumors of the nasal cavity. Chrispounds 23:49, 30 January 2006
We have vandals for the brain tumors, by the name of Tomlillis.
- Ban him/her from Wikipedia immediately! Scorpionman 00:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
It has too many links, also why isn't there any photos or picture illustrating what a brain tumor looks like?-- 80.227.100.62 07:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I like having a separate small article with particulars. The big articles are pretty intimidating somtimes. Frankly, I'm reading this because a friends child has one, and I don't want to have to deal with the big picture. I want to know what it is, how it progresses and so forth and the Medulloblastoma article did a good job of this for me. If I want more of an overview I can always easily get to the brain tumor article. In some ways it's easier to get a small article right, and if it ever gets big with details (as opposed to overmuch repetition of the brain tumor article) then it does deserve it's own article. I guess that's the question, how much duplication is there? I'm poorly equipped to answer this question because I've not taken time with the brain tumor article. None the less, at this moment I vote to keep them separate articles. -- kop 23:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree that medulloblastoma merits a separate article from brain tumors. There is significant detail that is unique to medulloblastoma. Also, brain tumors are an extremely broad category of medicine, and subcategorization is essential. -Michael Miller, Dartmouth Medical School
Hi I would like to request that you add a link to my website: Clinical Trials and Noteworthy Treatments For Brain Tumors at virtualtrials.com
We are a 501(c)(3) non-profit public charity, and our website is the most complete resource for brain tumor information. We have about 40 hours of video of brain tumor subjects, many original articles as well as a database of treatent options. Check out the site! Amusella 12:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Overall, pretty good job on the article... but the section on treatment and prognosis is now incorrect and badly needs updating. For example, for glioblastomas, there IS now a standard treatment protocol that is surgery with maximal amount of tumor removal and insertion of gliadel wafer (if possible... as there are a few situations where surgery and/or Gliadel shouldn't be used), followed by a combination of Radiation and chemotherapy using Temodar, followed by chemotherapy with Temodar. You menioned a prognosis of months. With the above protocol, it is actually over a year. http://virtualtrials.com/news3.cfm?item=2555&showtext=y However, there are many clinical trials going on now where average survival is over 2 years and some patients have been going for many years with no sign of recurrence. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2764420022542063525 So there is finally some hope at beating this. And finally - I am new to Wikipedia, but whenever I read something as important as this article, I like to know who wrote it and what affiliations (and possible conflicts of interest) they have. Why aren't Wikipedia articles signed by who wrote them? And who wrote this one?
Al Musella, DPM President Musella Foundation For Brain Tumor Research & Information, Inc virtualtrials.com 888-295-4740 Amusella 12:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
"It is alleged that mobile phones (AE: cell phones) might be a cause of brain tumors, according to one report.[4]"
A newer study with much bigger sample size disputes this claim. [2]
Call me an idiot, but I cannot find anything in this article that says anything about the effects of brain tumors/cancer(s). It talks about the symptoms (sudden epilectic seizures in people without a history of epilepsy, etc.), but not about the effects. For example, could it, I dunno, spread to certain parts of the brain and disrupt certain functions?
I'm sorry. My own mother had cancer when I was in fourth grade, but I was seven years old, and it was cervical cancer. I don't know very much about cancer or the actual science of the human brain (I know a few things about synapses and such, but not very much), and even the symptoms paragraph may as well be in Latin.
I'm trying to dissect the paragraph about symptoms. Apparently, intercranial hypertension is something that its Wikipedia article does not actually explain, but instead gives the symptoms and effects of. It can cause obesity, etc., but does it last, and how does it pertain to the effects of a malignant brain tumor? (I'm writing something where the protagonist's mother is dying of brain cancer. I am not going to write something as serious as that without correct, in-depth information.) Clearly brain swelling would be bad, but.... What would that cause? A brain tumor can cause intracranial hemorrhage, which can crush delicate brain tissue.
What I really need to know is what lasting effects a brain tumor could have. Could it make my character's mother incapable of speech and other functions that may make her incapable to take care of her daughter (she's a single parent, and my character is a minor. You can see why I need this information.)? Stars in the Night Sky 02:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- A brain tumor can make the patient incapable of pretty much everything dependent on its location as far as I know. if it's on the left side of the brain, the patient may lose the ability to speak. There may also be weakness or paralysis of one side of the body (hemiparesis/hemiplegia), incontinence, gradually lowering intelligence and so on. I'm not a doctor nor somebody else who really knows anything about brain tumours, but my father died of a glioblastoma, so I do know a little bit.-- 84.144.102.137 15:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Can Brain Damage Be located in the lobe part o the brain? if so does it mess up the emotions and the reactions of the person ? If u know the answer plz email me at kingdomhearts2k5@hotmail.com THx a bunch
Could someone please rough out a section on which brain tumors are more common in babies and children, than in adults? -- Una Smith 03:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
The article currently includes this: In 2000 approximately 2.76 children per 100,000 were affected by a CNS tumor in the United States. This rate has been increasing and by 2005 was 3.0 children per 100,000. This needs a source. Crucially important here is the question: does "rate" refer to incidence or to prevalence? Prevalence reflects incidence plus survival, hence an increase may be good news, reflecting increased survival. Also, does the data reflect earlier and/or more frequent diagnosis of brain tumors that previously would have been undetected? -- Una Smith ( talk) 22:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
[[i am dr. balraj my email id sameerverma2009@gmail.com my cell no.9911739308 i am from india http://www.sun-sentinel.com/features/health/sfl-rxcell01feb01,0,7105692.story]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.18.202.245 ( talk) 10:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
The correct spelling is "tumour". "Tumor" is the american spelling. — NRen2k5( TALK), 11:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling) -- Ysangkok ( talk) 11:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not good with this whole wikipedia thing, so my apologies for 'doing it wrong.' But I noticed this, and believe it is not good practice for wikipedia. "I commonly hear that the eye doctor is the first one to make the diagnosis - because when they look in your eyes, they can sometimes see signs of increased intracranial pressure. This must be investigated." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.206.155.100 ( talk) 12:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC) The optic signs of increased intracranial pressure are papilledema and unequal pupils.While they may indicate a brain tumor,other causes of intracranial pressure,may cause these symptoms as well. Immunize ( talk) 20:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Answer: please write one. -- Una Smith ( talk) 22:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- For another answer, cf. Talk:Brain tumor#Causes infra. JoergenB ( talk) 19:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
The list in the "signs and symptoms" section is copied from [3]. Originally added by anonymous user: [4]. Since the owner of the source page ( Amusella) has used his username in previous edits, it seems unlikely the information was added by him. Sho Uemura ( talk) 15:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Removed. Sho Uemura ( talk) 16:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I am the copyright owner, and I give permission to use anything on my website, virtualtrials.com on wikipedia. The article mentioned is probably the best one on symptoms and is the backed up by a large survey (3,800+) brain tumor patients. BTW: I did not add that link, but there is a lot of useful information on my website that should replace most of the stuff that is on Wikipedia. For example, Wikipedia doesn't even list the approved treatments for brain tumors. Amusella ( talk) 14:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- I'm afraid your site won't meet WP:MEDRS. The article certainly needs a lot of changes, and you are very welcome to join in the process. You would need to follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Donating_copyrighted_materials to allow use of material from your site, but it would need to be fully backed up by MEDRS. Johnbod ( talk) 18:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
WHO 2007 classification - discussed doi: 10.1097/WCO.0b013e328312c3a7 JFW | T@lk 23:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
The section Brain_Tumor#Signs_and_symptoms has a broken stray ref in the introduction para, can some editor look into it? Bluptr ( talk) 17:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I find it odd that an entire paragraph should be devoted to an entirely experimental treatment option. If anything, I think we should have a paragraph on the different areas of current research, and VSV could be one of them. Until them, I would suggest to delete or drastically shorten this paragraph. Anybody with me? Audionaut ( talk) 13:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
You are right. Either list all - or the more important ones, or list none.. don't just pick one.
Wikipedia has become a trusted source and visitors looking for brain tumor information may fixate on this one treatment thinking wikipedia must think it is the most important treatment.. but it is not.
I am thinking of treatments like neuradiab, novocure device, vaccines and targeted therapies.
If you can't add them to this article, at least link to the most important websites. You missed virtualtrials.com and included relatively trivial websites. Musella ( talk) 02:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not related in anyway to the medicine. I can't understand how the left hemisphere of the brain (L) is located at the right of the posterior of the head (P)... Is the picture incorrect or am I very wrong somehow? KenyaSong ( talk) 19:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
- We may well be looking at the image from the "wrong" side of the film. The possibility that you're looking at a mirror image is why these films contain the "L" and "P" marks. The person reading the film has a 50-50 chance of putting a film on the light box back-to-front on the first try. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 23:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
You guys have NFI do you? All CT and MRI slices in the axial plane are oriented that way, because you look at them as though looking upwards from the patient's feet. Thus the patient's left is always on the right of the screen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.170.35 ( talk) 09:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Aren't there brain tumours in other countries? Who's got some data? Tony (talk) 12:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- U.S. cancer data tend to be more accurate and consistent than numbers from other countries. I don't think anyone has data as broad and carefully validated as Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results, which covers a representative sample of the U.S. The WHO data simply reports what the individual countries supply, which is sometimes better quality (for some purposes) than the US data but sometimes worse, and they're not always compatible. Some countries just report totals for all brain cancers, or all leukemias. After reading about the Russian health system in Science, and talking to people who have been to Russia, I'm skeptical of Russian data. You can't combine incidence from the developed world with incidence from the undeveloped world. Even in the U.S., doctors admit that they indiscriminately fill in "heart failure" in death certificates of anyone over 70. When the prostate cancer awareness campaigns are going on, doctors fill in "prostate cancer." That's why estimates have to be validated.
- If you know of international data as good as SEER, please give me the link. --
Nbauman (
talk) 17:05, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- [
Cancer Research UK], summarising the UK official stats, which avoid many of the problems that the US stats rather famously suffer from.
Johnbod (
talk) 19:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
- What problems do the US stats famously suffer from? I never saw anything about that in the BMJ or Lancet. --
Nbauman (
talk)
- Inconsistent collection by states is the worst, but there are others. Ask any cancer epidemiologist.
Johnbod (
talk) 12:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- Has any of those cancer epidemiologists put his or her criticisms in writing?
- I was reading the Lancet article by Ricard, and they got their epidemiology numbers from the Central Brain Tumor Registry of the United States
http://www.cbtrus.org/. --
Nbauman (
talk) 03:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- I'm sure they have, but this is old news. Textbooks or specialized journals may be better than recent general medical journals, especially as the whole subject is something epidemiologists spend a lot of time fretting about, but most medics aren't greatly interested in, any more than me.
Here's one. Your CBTR of course says "This database has been developed by compiling data from state cancer registries ...." That's usually where the problems start.
Johnbod (
talk) 13:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- I have read articles and written about the Singapore data registry, and it's a good state-of-the-art database. The main limitation as I see it is that it doesn't go back for 20 or 30 years, as the Scandinavian databases do, and as SEER does. Different databases are useful for different purposes. With the SEER database, you could plot 20- and 30-year survival curves, to see how many patients with brain cancer survive 20 years (which is essentially a cure). You could plot 20- and 30-year survival curves over time, to compare the survival cures diagnosed in 1980, 1990, 2000, etc. It's very gratifying to plot the survival curves of childhood leukemia, and watch the curves go up over the years from no survival to 95% survival. You could see whether we were really making progress with the major cancers. The Veterans Health Affairs database is designed to measure outcomes of different treatments for purposes of quality improvement, although it's limited to an older military population. One of the benefits of the CBTRUS is that they track the individual brain cancers. Cancer Research UK just gives you a number for all the brain cancers together, as far as I could tell. The US health statistics are uncoordinated and inconsistent. The quality of state statistics varies greatly. In some states, the medical examiner is an MD, in other states it can be a county sheriff (and they fill out death certificates). The SEER database only uses certain states which agree to use stricter reporting standards. It's more accurate to extrapolate national statistics from an accurate selective database than it is to count entries in the "cause of death" fields from death certificates for the Social Security death register.
- I think it's silly to make an unsupported claim that US cancer statistics "famously suffer from" problems, when you can't explain what they are. I do medical science, not football. I'm not rooting against the other team. UK and US (and European and Asian) doctors work together, and publish in each other's journals. When UK or US doctors get better outcomes, they go to conferences and tell everybody how to do it. There is (perhaps) a very small role for nationalism in science. --
Nbauman (
talk) 15:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- You're a fine one to talk! The CRUK figures are just a summary for a popular audience - you can get into the raw figures starting from here, or other places. Good luck! I can assure you that law enforcement people play no part in compiling UK statistics. You ask the question, but don't seem very interested in the answer. Johnbod ( talk) 16:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- I'm sure they have, but this is old news. Textbooks or specialized journals may be better than recent general medical journals, especially as the whole subject is something epidemiologists spend a lot of time fretting about, but most medics aren't greatly interested in, any more than me.
Here's one. Your CBTR of course says "This database has been developed by compiling data from state cancer registries ...." That's usually where the problems start.
Johnbod (
talk) 13:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Inconsistent collection by states is the worst, but there are others. Ask any cancer epidemiologist.
Johnbod (
talk) 12:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
- What problems do the US stats famously suffer from? I never saw anything about that in the BMJ or Lancet. --
Nbauman (
talk)
- [
Cancer Research UK], summarising the UK official stats, which avoid many of the problems that the US stats rather famously suffer from.
Johnbod (
talk) 19:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
The article lacks any discussion on the causes. 98.14.223.69 ( talk) 13:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Nobody knows. There may be different causes for different types of tumors. Ionizing radiation is thought to be one cause of some (perhaps only a very small proportion) brain tumors, but basically the cause is unknown. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 23:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- For another answer, cf. Talk:Brain tumor#Causes infra. JoergenB ( talk) 19:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I was surprised at not finding any discussion of causes (alleged or confirmed) in the article. I was more surprised when I found a quotation with criticism of alleged cause findings on this talk page, namely, as the section name [[Talk:Brain tumor#"It is alleged that mobile phones (AE: cell phones) might be a cause of brain tumors, according to one report.[4]"]]. Continuing, I found two talk page sections, Talk:Brain tumor#Why isn't there a cause/risk factors section？ and Talk:Brain tumor#Any idea about the causes of these tumors? asking for a causes section, with short answers amounting to "Write one yourself" and "Because no causes are known", respectively.
I investigated the history - using the first two quoted sections for time bounds - and soon found the truth. This actually should be somewhat embarrasing for the serious editors of the page: The section Causes was removed by blatant vandalism almost three years ago, and never was restored.
Actually, what happened was two successive acts of vandalism, replacing sections with similar nonsense. However, only the latter vandalism was reverted. Later, the nonsense replacing the Causes section was removed by another editor.
This is completely explicable bona fide editing mistakes. What I do not understand is why no-one missed the section!
I'm going to restore the old Causes section. I don't think it is ideal. I think that sources should be improved, or claims withdrawn; but this should be done by ordinary editing. Due to the mistake, we just missed three years of editing; so there's some work ahead... JoergenB ( talk) 18:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- I dug a little more into the history. The present Causes section was mainly contibuted here by DrFlo1 ( talk · contribs), who both here and elsewhere gave an impression of really knowing what (s)he was talking about. There were also a number of references added. Later, their format was changed to web accessiblility; but since I'm not affiliated to any subscriber, I can't read them. If someone with access could check them, in order to see if either one is a source for any of the claims in this section, that person might make a relevant reference in the section. Likewise, there might be references at the articles Vinyl chloride, Ionising radiation, Tumor suppressor gene, Von Hippel-Lindau syndrome, Multiple endocrine neoplasia, and Neurofibromatosis. (Personally, I don't doubt that DrFlo1 had reasons to mention all these factors; nevertheless, some general or specific references would be advantageous.)
- The two last sentences were added by other users later. The claim about aspartame really ought to be verified; it was added here, as one of only two contributions from an uninlogged IP. As for the connection with cell phones, there is both a reference and a link to a page about the controversy; but I think that there has come more material, both pro and contra, during the missed three years; there is some reference to this supra. It might be worth updating. JoergenB ( talk) 11:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Mergecsection moved here
Malignant brain tumor was recently created. I don't see anything in it that isn't appropriate for inclusion here, and having everything in one place is a service for our readers. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 23:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree. Wikipedia has been in need of a separate article devoted only to malignant brain tumors for some time. Immunize ( talk) 00:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with WhatamIdoing; it makes more sense to keep this stuff together in one article. Why send readers to multiple articles to read about highly related things? PDCook ( talk) 01:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- Merge it -- no reason to have two separate articles. Jrtayloriv ( talk) 01:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- If the two were merged, there would be a solid basis for a very comprehensive article where readers do not have to navigate to separate pages in order to learn about brain tumors. Tyrol5 [Talk] 20:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Merge per Pdcook. Renaissancee (talk) 01:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Looks like the consensus is to merge the two. Could someone uninvolved close this and someone get the job done? Tyrol5 [Talk] 21:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I have taken both articles off-line into files and I will make a new merged article. and publish it shortly so that historic editors can make comments before publication. Would users please refrain from making changes so that there modifications don't get lost. Thank you-- DerekvG ( talk) 14:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I will take into account the remarks that have been made on this page. futhermore I invite some of the contributors here to help me wikifying and grammatical correction of my language, I'm not a primary native english speaker (it was a second language) please leave a comment on my talk page -- DerekvG ( talk) 13:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I've made a new content for braintumor : a merge of the malignant brain tumor and braintumor pages please read & revieuw the old page is archived here user:DerekvG/sandbox/old_braintumor-- DerekvG ( talk) 18:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- there might still be some typo's and problems with references but i tried to make a page that reflects 2 things a) the contributions or earlier editors, soem overview info for non-medical users like myslef to gather some comprehension of the brain tumor and references to further reading and basic concepts underneath. -- DerekvG ( talk) 19:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. An " is not automatically a tumor, an abnormal growht of cells for instance could be hyperplasia, which isn't neoplastic at all. Seriously most of the science in this article is downright poor, It needs some serious going over by somebody who has some basic pathology teaching. If it's not done when I go on holidays in December I'll have a crack at it, but seriously, sheeeesh, most of the info is so bad at the moment it would benefit from being taken down while it's worked on, so it doesn't misinform the people who read it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.170.35 ( talk) 09:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
| -plasia and -trophy |
|---|
|
|
I would like to know wether this is not a question of semantics : are the following statements both true
- If not all "abnormal growth of cells" are "tumors"
- while all "tumors" belong to the category "abnormal growht of cells"
then it may be fairly concluded that the statement "a tumor is an abnormal growth of cells" is correct, which is what I conclude from the tumor wiki-article, because according to tumor the meaning of "tumor" is equivalent to "neoplasm". In that case the statement here is correct in the -plasia articles there is a box which allows people to check out the other forms -- DerekvG ( talk) 11:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
what the **** is a "brain-lemma"? I've just come off a 9 week neurosurg rotation and am pretty sure somebody just made this term up since I've never heard it before. Unless it's another monged up americanism it looks like whoever wrote this article just pulled words out of their proverbial. I've been told never to use wiki as any kind of medical resource before, and now, I can see 100% why. Not impressive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.170.35 ( talk) 09:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'm only a casual reader of Wikipedia, but I've never seen lemma used in that context before. I'm familiar with its usual definition in terms of proofs, and "brain-lemma" had me completely flummoxed too. The sentence, as written, is just confusing. (For that matter, why the sudden shift to first person?) 67.220.7.43 ( talk) 22:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not going to pretend to be any Wikipedia editing pro, but this article has some of the poorest quality writing I've ever seen on such a serious topic. It's meandering, full of bad grammar, and composed like a high school book report. Can somebody PLEASE take the lead in shaping this up?
- Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).
- Wikipedia needs people like you, not just editing experts. If you do whatever you can to help (no matter how small that may seem), it will help the next person. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 17:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
This article was packed with incomprehensible sentences and sections, dubious uncited and garbled scientific statements, and grammatical errors. It needs massive cleanup. I went through it and did my best at tidying it up but I am not an expert and it would take me a long time to verify everything and make the scientific sections sound. Someone else will need to help with that. This article probably gets a fairly high number of views so it seems reasonable that time is put into making it better. ShesGotSauce ( talk) 15:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I fail to see what qualifies the external link to http://www.neuroinstitute.org/btc as spam. it's a valid site, it provides information about Brain tumors I would add not mind having many more of those added. So qualifying my revert as GF is not sufficient as a motivation . -- DerekvG ( talk) 11:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- Please see WP:ELNO -- Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 11:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- I understand ELNO I fail to see the reasoning, so I still fail to see how this link qualifies as an avoidable link; but then again who am I to question other people's motives...--
DerekvG (
talk) 23:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
- You could ask for greater input at WT:MED... My concern is the link seems like advertising for a hospital in the USA. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 00:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- @DocJames I see your point, thank you for explaining what your motivation, This should have been the motivation "wp:elno seems like advertising, promotional", This means it's not "Spam" (like in pointless unrelated advertising, like in entering a link for a porn-site) ; I see why most of the site could indeed be considered advertising for the clinic, however its nothing more then "this is us, that is what we do and that is where we are located" - there is no promotional intention behind the site, and the patient information about braintumors is useful - as a reference - without being "promotional", I do think the link was within ELNO regulations as an acceptable site. but I will not question your appreciation of the advertising character of the site -- DerekvG ( talk) 10:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
The physician-author of [5] mentioned on the radio that brain cancers rarely involve neurons, since neurons can't divide. Apparently the only exception is young children. Further sourcing is necessary here. -- Beland ( talk) 23:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- I don't quite understand your objection. Even if they are uncommon, the assertion that brain tumours may arise from neuronal components is not dubious. Gangliomgliomas, central neurocytomas, etc have neuronal components. I'm going to remove your flag until you can provide a reference citing the dubious role of neurons in brain tumours. 142.158.254.202 ( talk) 19:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
brain cancer treatment can be done in brain treatment can we get 100% sucess in removing brain — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.207.27.196 ( talk) 04:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)