This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Prostate cancer article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 180 days |
Prostate cancer is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 29, 2006. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This
level-4 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Prostate cancer.
|
There is a request, submitted by Catfurball, for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia. The rationale behind the request is: "Important". |
Men suspected of having prostate cancer may undergo several tests to help assess the prostate. One common procedure is the digital rectal examination, in which a doctor inserts a lubricated finger into the rectum to feel the nearby prostate.If DRE shows enlarged prostate, could explain elevated PSA ... routine part of screening ... SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:58, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
A diagnosis of prostate cancer requires a biopsy of the prostate be taken and examined under a microscope by a pathologist.Can we just say it requires a biopsy of the prostate? The rest is obvious? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:00, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Various risk-calculating algorithms have been designed that attempt to predict a person with prostate cancer's risk of disease progression based on their clinical characteristics and test results. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Radiotherapy is typically given in several treatments over the course of eight to nine weeks.A shorter therapy might be recommended depending on life expectancy tables. And more generally, life expectancy is a factor in the decision between prostatectomy and radiation, as well as how much radiation. No reason to overkill if you have lowered life expectancy for other reasons. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Successful radiotherapy causes a drop in PSA levels due to destruction of the tumor, while prostatectomy causes PSA to drop to undetectable levels.After radiation, drop in PSA occurs gradually over time (may be several years), while prostatectomy should be more immediate, and if it's not, some tumor was missed. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Up to half of those treated will eventually have a rise in PSA levels ...We were told in 2018 a rise in PSA is considered a recurrence of the cancer it it goes by up 2.0 or more after reaching low point ... SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
For those with metastatic disease, the standard of care is androgen deprivation therapy, drugs that reduce levels of androgens (male sex hormones) that prostate cells require in order to ...Androgen deprivation therapy is mentioned in previous section, should be defined first there ... SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Despite reduced testosterone levels, eventually nearly all prostate cancers continue to grow ...Is there a missing word here ? Despite reduced testosterone levels, eventually nearly all metastatic prostate cancers continue to grow ???? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:46, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
2] This is the most advanced stage of the disease, called castration-resistant prostate cancerSandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:47, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
interventions such as psychoeducation and cognitive behavioural therapy. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:54, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Australia, Europe, North America, New Zealand, and parts of South America have the highest incidence.I frequently saw one in six for US in 2018 (rather than the one in eight now stated here); can we get some ranges on regions to show the variance? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:00, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Increased risk also runs in some ethnic groups, with African-American men at particularly high risk – having prostate cancer at higher rates, and having more-aggressive prostate cancers.[88]I thought that, because of this, screening recommendations were different for African-American men ?? That's not in the article, perhaps it has changed? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
but prostate cancer nonprofits have lower revenue than would be expected for the number of lung cancer cases, deaths, and potential years of life lost.SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Most prostate cancers are slow growing and will never cause illness or death.SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Most national health bodies recommend regular prostate cancer screening for older men who are well-informed of the risks of screening.. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
The lead is a bit rough and perhaps too long, and there is some underlinking in the article, but these can be revisited after others have been through. That's enough for me for now. After Colin or Spicy have been through, you might want to also ping Johnbod. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Sorry I haven't done much. Sat down to look at it yesterday and then got dragged away. I realise the prostate cancer screening stuff is controversial. When I read the lead "Most cases of prostate cancer are detected by prostate cancer screening programs" I thought, well that's not true in the UK. We don't have a prostate cancer screening program. So none of our prostate cancer is diagnosed through a screening program. You have to actually visit your GP, be aged over 50, have read and discussed the pros and cons and decided it is still for you, and then the GP can request/do it. They don't advertise it or encourage it. I don't know what portion wait for symptoms before going.
Also, if screening is about checking people with no symptoms, otherwise healthy, how does that fit in with the symptoms overlapping with enlarged prostate. If you go to your GP with urination problems age 60, say, you might end up going down the path of these tests. But then isn't it just plain old "diagnosis" rather than screening? And an enlarged prostate is common. So how do we separate screening from diagnosis?
Another UK difference I spotted was that the article referred to "African-American men". But the UK NHS talks about increased risk to "black" men (and lower risk for "Asian" men). Bear in mind "black" and "Asian" in the NHS page might be reflecting the black and Asian populations that live in the UK rather than globally (but might not, it doesn't give a source). Anyway, few black people in the UK are "African-American", nor are they in Europe, or .... in Africa. So I think that needs sorted to be a bit more globally-minded wrt point-of-view.
In the body section on screening, it leads with "Many national health bodies recommend prostate cancer screening in men aged at least 40..." But then when you look at the specifics, 40 is a really really low level, typically for exceptional sub-groups rather than everyone, and so that doesn't fit with "many". That sentence doesn't have its own source citation so not sure if it comes from the same place as the following sentence, or is unsourced. I think to be honest, the general statement would be that there is no agreement on what age, if any, to start a screening program. Since we have our own article on this, I think the reader isn't served by having a random selection of organisations and ages, at least not in prose format. I think for here we need a summary and from a source that does summarise the global (or at least Western) approaches. That summary might be to say there is a wide variation of opinion. -- Colin° Talk 08:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
The staging text says "Prostate cancer is typically staged using the American Joint Committee on Cancer's (AJCC) three-component TNM system," But when I read TNM staging system it says it is maintained by the Union for International Cancer Control and describes a relationship with AJCC (different publications and slight difference in naming). So is our text a bit US focused and the TNM system is really an international one, and when the UK paragraph compares to "AJCC stage I" should it really by "UICC stage I"? -- Colin° Talk 17:01, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
The "Radical prostatectomy" paragraph describes four approaches. But the first two identify the location (above penis, below scrotum) and the latter two identify the instruments (Laparoscopy / Robots). Presumably the first two locations are big standard surgical approaches, though I can't see how you'd get a big hole in the area below the scrotum! It isn't clearly to me why the instrument methods shouldn't have the location of the incision mentioned or why either of the previous two locations wouldn't be used for them. I'm no surgeon. -- Colin° Talk 17:09, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
I have a few comments which I'll list here.
I have made few small edits regarding missing articles and fused participles That's all for now. Graham Beards ( talk) 13:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
... monitored regularly by), (3) Reducing repetition with some intervention between #1 and #2 in scope, (4) leave it as-is.active surveillance –repeat testing for a worsening of their disease
Hi Colin and Graham Beards, I believe I've made it through your last round of comments. If you've got time, I'd be happy to hear any other comments/concerns you may have. Thank you for your feedback so far. I hope you both had restful holidays. Ajpolino ( talk) 16:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi FULBERT, I'm sorry to revert your recent addition to Prostate_cancer#Supportive_care. I understand it's tempting to add everything new and useful to its relevant article, but here I don't think the text from that review really added any information for the reader to this article.
A 2017 systematic review of the literature found that while most studies focus on treatment options oriented toward survival, there was little evidence that assessed patient-centered outcomes concerned with
comparative effectiveness of treatment.
First, I suppose this is more a conclusion about "Prostate cancer research" than "Prostate cancer supportive care" (i.e. the authors are concluding that prostate cancer researchers have understudied patient-centered outcomes beyond survival). But more importantly I think the authors' conclusion doesn't really merit a full sentence in our summary of prostate cancer care (codified at WP:PROPORTION). If you disagree, I'm happy to discuss further and we can reach out for more folks' opinions. Happy to hear any other thoughts/concerns you may have about the article as well. Cheers. Ajpolino ( talk) 02:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Femke ( talk · contribs) 09:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Will be taking this on this week. I did a first read-through of the article, and in most places the prose is excellent. Are you planning to take the article to FAC? Happy to nit-pick a bit more if that's the plan. Initial thoughts:
—Femke 🐦 ( talk) 09:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
I check sources when I'm surprised by the facts or when I don't understand the text fully, and supplement this with a few random searches if the text is clear.
As a tumor grows beyond the prostate ..Works out, but source indicates some people may already have trouble urinating in the early stages. Might be good to mention for comprehensiveness (optional)
Advanced prostate tumors often metastasize to nearby bones of the pelvis and back--> the first bit of the sentence does not seem covered by this sentence.
particularly in the pelvis, hips, spine, ribs, head, and neck. My question for you: is the list now long enough that it's uninteresting? I could just leave it at "lymph nodes and bones". I'm trying to get across something curious about prostate cancer, which is that it metastasizes to bones a lot, and prefers some bones over others (basically it prefers bones of your torso and head rather than the limbs). Contrast with lung cancer, which metastasizes to many organs. Happy to hear your thoughts on what's clear and interesting.
This is done through blood tests..I don't have access to the Nature paper, but the CDC seems to put the digital rectal exam and the PSA test on equal footing for screening. THe other source is higher-quality, so good to defer to that one.
Those with PSA levels below average are very unlikely to develop dangerous prostate cancer over the next 8 to 10 yearsCorrect
The average man's blood has around 1 nanogram (ng) of PSA per milliliter (mL) of blood testedThe text says median, and given the numbers in the paper, I think this distribution is heavy-tailed. That is, the median is likely lower than the average/mean. If you want to avoid the word median, typical may be a good translation.
Those at higher risk may receive treatmentcheck
In their last few days..check
Particularly large PINs can eventually grow into tumors. I can't find it in the source; however, the source has a lot of technobabble I do not understand.
Some PINs can eventually grow into tumorsand added a source that notes "high-grade PIN is considered a pre-cancer of the prostate, because it can turn into prostate cancer over time" (I decided not to make the low-grade vs. high-grade distinction in this article because I don't think it's important enough to merit inclusion. The section is already pretty jargon rich.)
and mutations that hyperactivate FOXA1 (up to 5% of tumors). check
Analyses of internet searches..--> the source says it doesn't increase much, but a small increase was observed.
Prostate cancer is a major topic of ongoing research – the U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI, the world's largest funder of cancer research) spent $209 million on prostate cancer research in 2020 – the sixth highest among cancer types. Check, but 2021 data is out now; it's now the 4th-highest :). The weird doubling in brain&CNS research funding for 2020 seems to have been a blib.
—Femke 🐦 ( talk) 17:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
the pathologist assigns a number from 1 (most similar to healthy prostate tissue) to 5 (least similar) for the most common pattern observed under the microscope, then does the same for the second-most common pattern. The sum of these two numbers is the Gleason score.to the pathologist assigns scores of 1 (most similar to healthy prostate tissue) to 5 (least similar) to different regions of the biopsied tissue. The sum of the most common two scores is the "Gleason score", ranging from 2 to 10.? Some tweaking would still be required for the grade group explanation below.
—Femke 🐦 ( talk) 20:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
A recent study of the funding of 18 different types of cancers [found women-specific cancers rank poorly] in funding normalized to years of life lost, whereas prostate cancer ranked 1st.cites Spencer, et al. (2019). There the authors use NIH data up to 2014 to track funding vs. lethality trends. They say
From 2007 to 2011, prostate cancer had the highest Funding to Lethality scores of all the cancers evaluated, while from 2012 to 2014, breast cancer had the highest scores.and have a neat graph (Fig. 1) showing this trend. So Mirin seems to be (accidentally?) only referring to Spencer, et al.'s data for 2007-2011. Perhaps prostate cancer's funding vs. lethality continued to fall after 2014. I have no intuition for why that would be, and I was probably too hasty writing the summary here (I had just been at lung cancer and probably adapted this without sufficient thought). The 2023 Lancet Oncology paper you linked above is great! I hadn't seen that before. I think that's the most solid basis for the section going forward. I've rewritten that paragraph to highlight a couple of numbers from the 2023 paper. Happy to hear thoughts/criticism. Ajpolino ( talk) 19:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Overall, I think the article is very close to meeting the FA criteria, and I will support a nomination there after the comments above are addressed :). —Femke 🐦 ( talk) 16:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
AirshipJungleman29
talk 19:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.
Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.Mugtheboss ( talk) 12:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC).
General eligibility:
Policy compliance:
Hook eligibility:
QPQ: None required. |
Overall: No images, QPQ also unnecessary. Claim is properly cited, and mentioned multiple times throughout the article. No copy-vio issues upon spotchecks and the source is reliable. Article was recently promoted to GA after a lengthy review, so congratulation are in order for that.
In addition, more than 1.2 million new cases are diagnosed and global prostate cancer-related deaths exceed 350,000 annually, making it one of the leading causes of cancer-associated death in men
I could maybe see a close paraphrasing issue here but I'll chalk it up to WP:LIMITED since these are simple facts that are hard to reword. I made a few minor tweaks to the lead and to the article to massage out an inconsistency, please review here: [4]. Passing DYK, congrats!! 🏵️ Etrius ( Us) 00:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Prostate cancer article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 180 days |
Prostate cancer is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 29, 2006. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This
level-4 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Prostate cancer.
|
There is a request, submitted by Catfurball, for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia. The rationale behind the request is: "Important". |
Men suspected of having prostate cancer may undergo several tests to help assess the prostate. One common procedure is the digital rectal examination, in which a doctor inserts a lubricated finger into the rectum to feel the nearby prostate.If DRE shows enlarged prostate, could explain elevated PSA ... routine part of screening ... SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:58, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
A diagnosis of prostate cancer requires a biopsy of the prostate be taken and examined under a microscope by a pathologist.Can we just say it requires a biopsy of the prostate? The rest is obvious? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:00, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Various risk-calculating algorithms have been designed that attempt to predict a person with prostate cancer's risk of disease progression based on their clinical characteristics and test results. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Radiotherapy is typically given in several treatments over the course of eight to nine weeks.A shorter therapy might be recommended depending on life expectancy tables. And more generally, life expectancy is a factor in the decision between prostatectomy and radiation, as well as how much radiation. No reason to overkill if you have lowered life expectancy for other reasons. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Successful radiotherapy causes a drop in PSA levels due to destruction of the tumor, while prostatectomy causes PSA to drop to undetectable levels.After radiation, drop in PSA occurs gradually over time (may be several years), while prostatectomy should be more immediate, and if it's not, some tumor was missed. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Up to half of those treated will eventually have a rise in PSA levels ...We were told in 2018 a rise in PSA is considered a recurrence of the cancer it it goes by up 2.0 or more after reaching low point ... SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
For those with metastatic disease, the standard of care is androgen deprivation therapy, drugs that reduce levels of androgens (male sex hormones) that prostate cells require in order to ...Androgen deprivation therapy is mentioned in previous section, should be defined first there ... SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Despite reduced testosterone levels, eventually nearly all prostate cancers continue to grow ...Is there a missing word here ? Despite reduced testosterone levels, eventually nearly all metastatic prostate cancers continue to grow ???? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:46, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
2] This is the most advanced stage of the disease, called castration-resistant prostate cancerSandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:47, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
interventions such as psychoeducation and cognitive behavioural therapy. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:54, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Australia, Europe, North America, New Zealand, and parts of South America have the highest incidence.I frequently saw one in six for US in 2018 (rather than the one in eight now stated here); can we get some ranges on regions to show the variance? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:00, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Increased risk also runs in some ethnic groups, with African-American men at particularly high risk – having prostate cancer at higher rates, and having more-aggressive prostate cancers.[88]I thought that, because of this, screening recommendations were different for African-American men ?? That's not in the article, perhaps it has changed? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:02, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
but prostate cancer nonprofits have lower revenue than would be expected for the number of lung cancer cases, deaths, and potential years of life lost.SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Most prostate cancers are slow growing and will never cause illness or death.SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Most national health bodies recommend regular prostate cancer screening for older men who are well-informed of the risks of screening.. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
The lead is a bit rough and perhaps too long, and there is some underlinking in the article, but these can be revisited after others have been through. That's enough for me for now. After Colin or Spicy have been through, you might want to also ping Johnbod. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Sorry I haven't done much. Sat down to look at it yesterday and then got dragged away. I realise the prostate cancer screening stuff is controversial. When I read the lead "Most cases of prostate cancer are detected by prostate cancer screening programs" I thought, well that's not true in the UK. We don't have a prostate cancer screening program. So none of our prostate cancer is diagnosed through a screening program. You have to actually visit your GP, be aged over 50, have read and discussed the pros and cons and decided it is still for you, and then the GP can request/do it. They don't advertise it or encourage it. I don't know what portion wait for symptoms before going.
Also, if screening is about checking people with no symptoms, otherwise healthy, how does that fit in with the symptoms overlapping with enlarged prostate. If you go to your GP with urination problems age 60, say, you might end up going down the path of these tests. But then isn't it just plain old "diagnosis" rather than screening? And an enlarged prostate is common. So how do we separate screening from diagnosis?
Another UK difference I spotted was that the article referred to "African-American men". But the UK NHS talks about increased risk to "black" men (and lower risk for "Asian" men). Bear in mind "black" and "Asian" in the NHS page might be reflecting the black and Asian populations that live in the UK rather than globally (but might not, it doesn't give a source). Anyway, few black people in the UK are "African-American", nor are they in Europe, or .... in Africa. So I think that needs sorted to be a bit more globally-minded wrt point-of-view.
In the body section on screening, it leads with "Many national health bodies recommend prostate cancer screening in men aged at least 40..." But then when you look at the specifics, 40 is a really really low level, typically for exceptional sub-groups rather than everyone, and so that doesn't fit with "many". That sentence doesn't have its own source citation so not sure if it comes from the same place as the following sentence, or is unsourced. I think to be honest, the general statement would be that there is no agreement on what age, if any, to start a screening program. Since we have our own article on this, I think the reader isn't served by having a random selection of organisations and ages, at least not in prose format. I think for here we need a summary and from a source that does summarise the global (or at least Western) approaches. That summary might be to say there is a wide variation of opinion. -- Colin° Talk 08:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
The staging text says "Prostate cancer is typically staged using the American Joint Committee on Cancer's (AJCC) three-component TNM system," But when I read TNM staging system it says it is maintained by the Union for International Cancer Control and describes a relationship with AJCC (different publications and slight difference in naming). So is our text a bit US focused and the TNM system is really an international one, and when the UK paragraph compares to "AJCC stage I" should it really by "UICC stage I"? -- Colin° Talk 17:01, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
The "Radical prostatectomy" paragraph describes four approaches. But the first two identify the location (above penis, below scrotum) and the latter two identify the instruments (Laparoscopy / Robots). Presumably the first two locations are big standard surgical approaches, though I can't see how you'd get a big hole in the area below the scrotum! It isn't clearly to me why the instrument methods shouldn't have the location of the incision mentioned or why either of the previous two locations wouldn't be used for them. I'm no surgeon. -- Colin° Talk 17:09, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
I have a few comments which I'll list here.
I have made few small edits regarding missing articles and fused participles That's all for now. Graham Beards ( talk) 13:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
... monitored regularly by), (3) Reducing repetition with some intervention between #1 and #2 in scope, (4) leave it as-is.active surveillance –repeat testing for a worsening of their disease
Hi Colin and Graham Beards, I believe I've made it through your last round of comments. If you've got time, I'd be happy to hear any other comments/concerns you may have. Thank you for your feedback so far. I hope you both had restful holidays. Ajpolino ( talk) 16:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi FULBERT, I'm sorry to revert your recent addition to Prostate_cancer#Supportive_care. I understand it's tempting to add everything new and useful to its relevant article, but here I don't think the text from that review really added any information for the reader to this article.
A 2017 systematic review of the literature found that while most studies focus on treatment options oriented toward survival, there was little evidence that assessed patient-centered outcomes concerned with
comparative effectiveness of treatment.
First, I suppose this is more a conclusion about "Prostate cancer research" than "Prostate cancer supportive care" (i.e. the authors are concluding that prostate cancer researchers have understudied patient-centered outcomes beyond survival). But more importantly I think the authors' conclusion doesn't really merit a full sentence in our summary of prostate cancer care (codified at WP:PROPORTION). If you disagree, I'm happy to discuss further and we can reach out for more folks' opinions. Happy to hear any other thoughts/concerns you may have about the article as well. Cheers. Ajpolino ( talk) 02:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Femke ( talk · contribs) 09:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Will be taking this on this week. I did a first read-through of the article, and in most places the prose is excellent. Are you planning to take the article to FAC? Happy to nit-pick a bit more if that's the plan. Initial thoughts:
—Femke 🐦 ( talk) 09:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
I check sources when I'm surprised by the facts or when I don't understand the text fully, and supplement this with a few random searches if the text is clear.
As a tumor grows beyond the prostate ..Works out, but source indicates some people may already have trouble urinating in the early stages. Might be good to mention for comprehensiveness (optional)
Advanced prostate tumors often metastasize to nearby bones of the pelvis and back--> the first bit of the sentence does not seem covered by this sentence.
particularly in the pelvis, hips, spine, ribs, head, and neck. My question for you: is the list now long enough that it's uninteresting? I could just leave it at "lymph nodes and bones". I'm trying to get across something curious about prostate cancer, which is that it metastasizes to bones a lot, and prefers some bones over others (basically it prefers bones of your torso and head rather than the limbs). Contrast with lung cancer, which metastasizes to many organs. Happy to hear your thoughts on what's clear and interesting.
This is done through blood tests..I don't have access to the Nature paper, but the CDC seems to put the digital rectal exam and the PSA test on equal footing for screening. THe other source is higher-quality, so good to defer to that one.
Those with PSA levels below average are very unlikely to develop dangerous prostate cancer over the next 8 to 10 yearsCorrect
The average man's blood has around 1 nanogram (ng) of PSA per milliliter (mL) of blood testedThe text says median, and given the numbers in the paper, I think this distribution is heavy-tailed. That is, the median is likely lower than the average/mean. If you want to avoid the word median, typical may be a good translation.
Those at higher risk may receive treatmentcheck
In their last few days..check
Particularly large PINs can eventually grow into tumors. I can't find it in the source; however, the source has a lot of technobabble I do not understand.
Some PINs can eventually grow into tumorsand added a source that notes "high-grade PIN is considered a pre-cancer of the prostate, because it can turn into prostate cancer over time" (I decided not to make the low-grade vs. high-grade distinction in this article because I don't think it's important enough to merit inclusion. The section is already pretty jargon rich.)
and mutations that hyperactivate FOXA1 (up to 5% of tumors). check
Analyses of internet searches..--> the source says it doesn't increase much, but a small increase was observed.
Prostate cancer is a major topic of ongoing research – the U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI, the world's largest funder of cancer research) spent $209 million on prostate cancer research in 2020 – the sixth highest among cancer types. Check, but 2021 data is out now; it's now the 4th-highest :). The weird doubling in brain&CNS research funding for 2020 seems to have been a blib.
—Femke 🐦 ( talk) 17:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
the pathologist assigns a number from 1 (most similar to healthy prostate tissue) to 5 (least similar) for the most common pattern observed under the microscope, then does the same for the second-most common pattern. The sum of these two numbers is the Gleason score.to the pathologist assigns scores of 1 (most similar to healthy prostate tissue) to 5 (least similar) to different regions of the biopsied tissue. The sum of the most common two scores is the "Gleason score", ranging from 2 to 10.? Some tweaking would still be required for the grade group explanation below.
—Femke 🐦 ( talk) 20:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
A recent study of the funding of 18 different types of cancers [found women-specific cancers rank poorly] in funding normalized to years of life lost, whereas prostate cancer ranked 1st.cites Spencer, et al. (2019). There the authors use NIH data up to 2014 to track funding vs. lethality trends. They say
From 2007 to 2011, prostate cancer had the highest Funding to Lethality scores of all the cancers evaluated, while from 2012 to 2014, breast cancer had the highest scores.and have a neat graph (Fig. 1) showing this trend. So Mirin seems to be (accidentally?) only referring to Spencer, et al.'s data for 2007-2011. Perhaps prostate cancer's funding vs. lethality continued to fall after 2014. I have no intuition for why that would be, and I was probably too hasty writing the summary here (I had just been at lung cancer and probably adapted this without sufficient thought). The 2023 Lancet Oncology paper you linked above is great! I hadn't seen that before. I think that's the most solid basis for the section going forward. I've rewritten that paragraph to highlight a couple of numbers from the 2023 paper. Happy to hear thoughts/criticism. Ajpolino ( talk) 19:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Overall, I think the article is very close to meeting the FA criteria, and I will support a nomination there after the comments above are addressed :). —Femke 🐦 ( talk) 16:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
AirshipJungleman29
talk 19:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.
Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.Mugtheboss ( talk) 12:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC).
General eligibility:
Policy compliance:
Hook eligibility:
QPQ: None required. |
Overall: No images, QPQ also unnecessary. Claim is properly cited, and mentioned multiple times throughout the article. No copy-vio issues upon spotchecks and the source is reliable. Article was recently promoted to GA after a lengthy review, so congratulation are in order for that.
In addition, more than 1.2 million new cases are diagnosed and global prostate cancer-related deaths exceed 350,000 annually, making it one of the leading causes of cancer-associated death in men
I could maybe see a close paraphrasing issue here but I'll chalk it up to WP:LIMITED since these are simple facts that are hard to reword. I made a few minor tweaks to the lead and to the article to massage out an inconsistency, please review here: [4]. Passing DYK, congrats!! 🏵️ Etrius ( Us) 00:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)