Talk:Pelvic exenteration

Medicine: Hematology-oncology / Reproductive Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Hematology-oncology task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Reproductive medicine task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Women's Health Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's Health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HealthTemplate:WikiProject Women's Healthwomen's health articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

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 Pelvic exenteration.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Female biased POV[edit]

This procedure may be applied to men as well as women, yet the article pertains only to this procedure in women. --Una Smith (talk) 20:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the POV but details re the procedure in men are scant and probably misleading. --Una Smith (talk) 20:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A controversial procedure?[edit]

With regard to this edit:
IMHO, it is a mischaracterization to say that pelvic exenterations are controversial -- in well-selected patients. The surgery is done in locally advanced cancers or recurrent ones without widely metastatic disease, as a sort of hail mary. In other words, in selected individuals it is chance for a cure and does result in a cure in a subset of individuals.

The observational studies show some modest benefit. A controlled trial would probably be hard to justify given the observational data.

This is the best paper I've found on the topic: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7502599

Other papers: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17406945 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12022371 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17406945 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22107085 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21939606

Nephron T|C 20:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. The Hagmueller abstract doesn't give P values for the comparisons. Are those differences in 5-year survival statistically significant? What does "curative" mean for T4 colorectal cancer? Are there any quality of life measures?

But that's not the issue. I don't want to do WP:OR. Barron Lerner is a highly-published academic, The NYT is a WP:RS (although not a formal medical source). This procedure is justified on the basis of current opinion, not high-quality evidence, and Lerner's opinion is legitimate. This is something that medical ethicists talk about.

This isn't a cause for me. I'm not ready to do a lot of research to defend it. I just added it because it seems to be a classic example that doctors give of overly aggressive surgery. I'd like to have more than one source to support Lerner, and I'd like to see a more detailed discussion of the controversy. But I think a short mention is better than nothing.

It might be appropriate to say that it's controversial, but several recent studies report a survival benefit.

Anyway, thanks for the courtesy of alerting me to the edit. --Nbauman (talk) 04:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]