Talk:Carcinoma

Hi

Fasterfester 17:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC) Hi, can someone with some background try to make this page more readable to the unwashed masses?  :) I was trying to get a broad understanding of carcinoma (found it on Web MD), but the description here is chock full of medical terms, and is fairly undecipherable. Just a sinlge paragraph at the top would go a long way to making this a very useful article. Thanks!

Presuming it to be a typographic error, I have changed "adenocortical" to "adrenocortical". The original word had an internal hyperlink to another page which in turn redirected it back to this page. I do not know how to fix this broken link. In any case I feel it would be rude to the original author to change this link without my change being checked.

--Mfitchtoo 15:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC) I agree with the comments above completely. In the first short definition I had to look up two words. Cytological (having to do with cells, so why not just say cellular? or if that won't do, something similar) and histological. I think what was being said about the histological thing was "no evidence of the carcinoma spreading beyond the immediate tissue, or something like that. Would someone clean this up so we non-doctors can use it? Please.

Deletion

User:Nqn removed virtually all content of the page without a good reason. I have reverted this and asked what he was thinking. JFW | T@lk 17:10, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Illegible

Is it just me or is this page completely unreadable? I'm sure it doesn't need that many links. This page needs a complete do-over imho. Stealth Wilde (talk) 09:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Carcinoma External Link to Add

(Browneee (talk) 18:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)) Hello. We would like to add a link to the carinoma page to direct users to the carcinoma clinical study currently being conducted. This is not a promotion to buy or sell anything, just a link for carcinoma patients looking in the Wiki to find answers, current information and treatment.

You can access the site at Arqule Studies for more information. Maybe we could add a new "External Links" section to the page for the link? Would that be okay?

Tone / Viewpoint in the Last Section ("Differentiated carcinoma")

"Many people get frightened when they hear the word cancer. Cancer unfortunately is a common illness in our society. Cells in almost every part of the body can become cancerous. While cancer is a disease of old age, children can also develop certain cancers. [8] There are many types of cancers that affect different parts of our body. While we do know what causes some cancers, (e.g. sun causes skin cancers or that smoking can cause lung cancers), for the vast majority of cancers the cause remains unknown. All we know is that cancers represent cells that have lost the ability to die and continue to proliferate."

This reads like it came out of a children's book. Not sure if it was taken from somewhere somewhere else, but the sources cited don't seem to have much of direct connection to the material. Punctum (talk) 23:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Organization

What do you think about putting all the staging/grading/types/variants/ICD codes under ==Classification of carcinomas==, and putting most of what's currently in that section under ==Classification of malignancies== (i.e., that there are things that aren't carcinomas)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Carcinoma == Cancer?

This article talks about Ductal Carcinoma in Situ not being considered "cancer". If this is true (mammary ductal carcinoma says otherwise) does it make sense to define "carcinoma" the way this article does?--Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 17:22, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

This is an important question for non-medical researchers trying to interpret results given by medical professionals. The current definition precludes a "non-cancerous" carcinoma. This artcicle needs to be reconciled with lobular carcinoma in situ. Macdust (talk) 17:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC) 17:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Have you read the Carcinoma#Carcinoma In situ section carefully? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that a competent reader would not have this problem? If so, let me assure you that I am as competent a reader as you could hope for, resourceful enough to research this subject without Wikipedia. My purpose in commenting here is to make Wikipedia more useful and more reliable.

The problem lies in the contradictory definitions of carcinoma between articles, not within this one article.

Now that you bring that passage into the conversation, however, consider this sentence: " CIS is a pre-invasive cancer, and not a pre-malignant entity." Does that mean it won't be malignant in the future? Click to the hyperlinked article "Cancer" and read "Cancer, known medically as a malignant neoplasm ..." Don't expect readers to decipher such sloppy exposition. Macdust (talk) 02:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Carcinoma in situ redux; ducks in rows

See the previous section - it's that time of year again clearly - and the discussion here at the Cervix PR. Currently we have the following (my bolds):

• Here at Carcinoma, the very short lead begins: "Carcinoma (from the Greek karkinos, or "crab", and -oma, "growth") is a type of cancer that develops from epithelial cells.[1] Put simply, a carcinoma is a cancer that begins in a tissue that lines the inner or outer surfaces of the body,....". Lower down the Carcinoma in situ sections reads, in its entirety: "The term carcinoma in situ (or CIS) is a term for cells that are significantly abnormal but not cancer.[6] They are thus not typically carcinomas.[7]" - should that be "not typical of carcinomas" btw? Wiki CRUK John (talk) 15:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

"Carcinoma in-situs" are not in fact carcinomas except maybe DCIS so "not typically carcinomas" is correct. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

but terminally unclear then; and this should be in the lead also. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 19:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• At Carcinoma in situ, the lead begins: "Carcinoma in situ (CIS) is a group of abnormal cells.[1] They are not cancer but can potentially become cancer.[1] They are a form of neoplasm.[2]"... "Some CIS, however, do form tumors, such as in the colon (polyps), in the bladder (pre-invasive papillary cancer)..."Wiki CRUK John (talk) 15:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• At Mammary ductal carcinoma Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS, also known as intraductal carcinoma) is the most common type of noninvasive breast cancer or pre-cancer in women. Ductal carcinoma refers to the development of cancer cells within the milk ducts of the breast.Wiki CRUK John (talk) 15:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Yup this is the controversial one. Some say cancer some say not cancer. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• At Intraductal carcinoma "Intraductal carcinoma, also called ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), is a noninvasive condition in which abnormal cells are found in the lining of a breast duct. The abnormal cells have not spread outside the duct to other tissues in the breast. In some cases, intraductal carcinoma may become invasive cancer and spread to other tissues,..."Wiki CRUK John (talk) 15:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The proper term is DCIS. I have fixed the situation. "intraductal carcinoma" is not a carcinoma or a cancer even though it has carcinoma in its name. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

• "Lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) is a condition caused by unusual cells in the lobules of the breast.[1] It is usually not considered cancer, but it can indicate an increased risk of future cancer.[2][3][4] Unlike ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), LCIS is not associated with calcification, and is typically an incidental finding in a biopsy performed for another reason. LCIS only accounts for about 15% of the in situ (ductal or lobular) breast cancers.[5]" - that's the whole lead. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 15:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Definitely not cancer Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• Then there are other articles on cancers, screening etc etc. It is somewhat confusing. Would it be practical/a good idea to work out a standard wording to cover the borderline aspect of this? Btw Pre-cancer redirects to CIS. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 15:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Exceeding complicated. One cannot use common sense. Words are not used consistently and often not in a technically correct manner in the literature. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

So we have to explain these inconsistencies in vocabulary more clearly, and not just leave up stuff that any lay reader will find contradictory. The insertion of "classified as" or similar can be useful in places where the standard terminology begins to tie itself in knots. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 19:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree. This would be a good source. [1] But simply put medicine is a huge feild. Our number of active editors are so small. We need more people who are can and are willing to address these issue. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

It's difficult because the sources don't agree, and there's no recognized "authority" that could make them use the same terms to mean the same thing. Does "cancer" specifically mean "malignant carcinoma", or could leukemia also be a type of cancer? It depends entirely on the definition chosen by the source. DCIS is disputed: it may be non-cancerous (perhaps as much as a third of cases?) or precancerous or already cancerous, depending one who you read and their exact definition (for example: if there are microinvasions, is it still "in situ"?). The accepted term for a condition does not necessarily map perfectly to the actual condition. Chronic Fatigue Syndrome does not just mean being tired for a long time, and some "cancers" aren't exactly "cancer". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:44, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The recognized authority is WHO. All carcinomas are cancers, but not all cancers are carcinomas. Carcinoma is a type of cancer. I will look at DCIS soon. It is one of the few grey zones. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

One consideration is the context in which the term is being used. At a cellular level (eg "cancerous cells" within DCIS), or at a clinical level (eg "breast cancer"). As noted above, there are borderline cases, such as -- and I'm only going from memory, rather than the best recent MEDRS on staging/classification (eg PMID 20956817 [2]?) -- microinvasive 'DCIS', where some cancer cells have escaped the capsule. 86.128.169.211 (talk) 13:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100505055603/http://www.rcsed.ac.uk:80/journal/vol46_4/4640008.htm to http://www.rcsed.ac.uk/journal/vol46_4/4640008.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:20, 15 November 2016 (UTC)