Talk:Bone metastasis

Untitled
Hello,

This is my first project so any help is appreciated. This is my Work plan going forward:

1. Mechanism/Pathogenesis

Batson Venous Plexus

Tumor-associated Osteolysis - Osteoclast-mediated - added diagram

State of Dormancy

2. Signs/Symptoms

SREs - Skeletal Related Events

Major Complications

3. Diagnosis:

Plain X-ray

Bone Scintigraphy

PET scan

MRI

4. Treatment:

Reduce Pain -

Prevent Tumor-associated Osteolysis

Bone-targeting agents are used to prevent skeletal morbidity.

BTAs reduce the incidence of SREs

Surgery - internal fixation

Assessing treatment response

5. Prognosis:

6. Epidemiology:

Frequency of Bone Mets in different cancers

7. Prevention

Could bisphosphonates be used to prevent metastasis to bone

8. Numerous missing citations

Thank you for your consideration! -alin538 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alin538 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Hey alin538, this is Alex, the assigned peer reviewer for your page. Comparing the article to your workplan, everything looks good and you've done everything you set out to accomplish. The only minor detail is the 'vicious cycle' which is italicized under 'Bone-Targeted agents'; I am not sure the italicization is necessary. Otherwise everything looks good! Good job. Alex Nhan (talk) 15:00, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 October 2021 and 19 November 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alin538. Peer reviewers: Alex Nhan.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

HIFU citation
There's a long passage on the use of HIFU to treat bone metastases. It concedes that it's experimental but, even so, it lacks any citations of peer reviewed findings of clinical trials to support the assertions made. I don't know anything about HIFU, but the absence of verifiable evidence makes it seem like bunkum being pushed by a fringe of the medical spectrum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.171.160.61 (talk) 23:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: UCSF SOM Inquiry In Action-- Wikipedia Editing 2022
— Assignment last updated by Pixie9881 (talk) 17:23, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Review from Slimytheelder: The "lead" is well edited for clarity. The language is relatively high level, but is well defined in the following sections so shouldn't be an issue.

The edits throughout made the article easier to read and clarified information well. I appreciated the added definition to the pain management section.

The section on prognosis is also a great addition and formatted well.

Some of the language in the Mechanism section could also be simplified by further edits to make it easier to read/comprehend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slimytheelder (talk • contribs) 22:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Proposed edits 9/13/22
Hey all, we (alej.chavez and I) are planning to edit this page over the coming days. Here is our work plan:

Clarify unclear or persuasive language in:

- Epidemiology

- MRI

- PET scan

- Tumor cell-bone interactions

Add information about:

- Prognosis

Please let us know if you have feedback. Raguramm7 (talk) 00:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Edits
The lead is concise and provides a clear overview of bone metastasis and introduction to forthcoming information. However, I wonder if contrasting to hematologic malignancies (which is a large topic all on its own) so early in the introduction/article may detract from the topic at hand.

As for the content, I can try appreciate the changes to minimize emotionally charged or persuasive language in the MRI and PET scan sections. These sections are now purely factual and provide clear descriptions of evidence and the mechanisms of how the imaging works. The prognosis section is also very helpful as many people who come to this page are most likely curious about these numbers/data.

The content added/change is very neutral and unbiased, and this group did a great job keeping the sections factual. There was no overrepresentation of certain opinions or viewpoints.

The citations are placed throughout the article content, allowing an easy transition to peer reviewed articles from the page. The sources are current and the links do work.

Lastly, I am impressed with the quality and organization of the content. Beginning with the type of lesions and signs/symptoms in a high level and then moving to more detailed, clinical explanations of mechanism, diagnosis, and treatment is a very clear and organized pathway. I also appreciate the prognosis section near the end of the article.

... SahitheeB (talk) 05:00, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Editing Assignment for UCSF SOM Inquiry in Action
The lead opening is concise and clear, and is well written and provides a relevant overview that outlines the structure of the article. The language used throughout the article is clear with a non-suggestive tone, and the links included throughout the article are placed well and provide relevant additional context. However, there are a few terms with duplicate links to the same Wikipedia articles present (ie. osteoblastic/osteoblast, osteoclast, hypercalcemia, anemia), which can be removed for simplicity and clarity. Under the MRI section, it would be helpful to include a brief summary detailing the imaging procedure. Added information under the prognosis section is done well and provides additional information framing the effect of bone metastases in common cancers. Nbear93 (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2022 (UTC)