Talk:Cancer treatment/Archive 1

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KungFuTerminator, Paulbaker1992.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ksande15.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2019 and 27 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mossmh.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 January 2021 and 29 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Weepyposse.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Rename article "Cancer treatment"
First, kudos to Doc James for splitting this article off of cancer, something I recommended doing a while back. However, I would prefer "Cancer treatment" to "Management of cancer" for the article title, since "management" seems too broad for a page that is concerned with treatment strategies. Management can refer to both treatment options as well as palliative and supportive care (see). I think "Cancer treatment" would be more appropriate for this article, especially considering that the word 'treatment' appears five times in the lead of that article, while 'management' is conspicuously absent. Any objections to renaming that article "Cancer treatment"? SteveChervitzTrutane (talk) 09:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Reconsidering, since the article does have a Symptom control section. Perhaps what is needed is to rework the lead to incorporate "management," expanding beyond a description of treatments. SteveChervitzTrutane (talk) 09:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I feel that this article should be renamed Cancer treatment as well, both because I feel the sources in this article probably refer to "cancer treatment" rather than "cancer management", and because the term "Management of cancer" encourages the idea of cancer being a chronic illness, which I do not feelit is, based on both the fact that some malignancies (like testicular or thyroid cancer) are very curable, and because some malignancies (such as Brain stem glioma) have a rapidly progressive course that could not be considered chronic. Immunize (talk) 20:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I named it management to keep the scope large. Most malignant tumors are not curable and thus palliative care is often required.  This is done even if it kill you in 3-9 months.  The curable ones are the minoraty rather than the majority.  Cancer does end up killing about 30% of people in the first world.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

So, do you support or oppose renaming the article. From your comment above it sounds like you oppose it. Immunize (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I oppose renaming it. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 05:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Changed my position in the last 6 years. Happy with either. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 12:07, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you formaking that clear. I feel tha this is article is poor, particulary for an article on such an important topic, and would like to see overall expansion, cleanup, and more references. Immunize (talk) 00:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

In fact, there are no references in the surgery, radition, or symptom control sections of the article, so I will insert a refimprove tag. Immunize (talk) 00:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that 'management' is such a poor word choice for this topic. Google search with quotes shows cancer treatment is order of the magnitude more common phrase. Why introduce economic term into medical topic? 178.223.31.74 (talk) 00:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Symptom Control
How come there is no mention of the use of cannabinoids. There is massive amounts of anecdotal evidence that supports the positive effects on people experiencing negative symptoms like nausea, lack of appetite, and pain. However because its a schedule 1 substance there are very few trials testing its efficiency. Iscream22 (talk) 16:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Nanoshells?
I'm not qualified to add the section, but I think there should be mention of Nanoshells and how they can be used to treat cancer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanoshells#Cancer_Treatment

JohnCarterWarlordOfMars (talk) 03:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Editorializing
The following consists of grammatical errors, express an opinion, and is not sourced:

Clarification, safe cancer surgery should ONLY be attempted with the use of a laser scalpel. Using conventional metal blade scapels is a serious risk to the spread of cancer through the blood. Sadly, in the USA the risk of lawsuits against surgeons has resulted in resistance to adopt newer, and lifesaving technologies. Therefore anybody contemplating surgery should consider going outside the USA, to locations like Japan, and Germany for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.96.7 (talk) 01:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Differentiation Therapy
Differentiation therapy might also be added to the list, mentioned in many papers in PubMed -- Bouncingball2 talk 01:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Oncolytic Viruses
I think as long as this page has cancer immunotherapy on it then Oncolytic viruses also deserves a mention. They are fields at similar stages of development. I tried to add it already but it came across as too promotional and was removed. Any thoughts? Viraltonic (talk) 02:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * We are limited by policies and guidelines in what we can say in health-related articles. Most importantly, any claims with safety or efficacy implications must be supported by a certain class of reliable source. We call these "secondary sources", and they include independent expert scholarly reviews published in highly regarded peer reviewed journals, graduate-level textbooks from publishers with a reputation for good scholarship, and position statements from national and international specialist associations. The relevant guideline is Identifying reliable sources (medicine). --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * So with appropriate referencing it would be a suitable addition to this page? There are several textbooks and plenty of academic reviews available as described in the main oncolytic virus page Viraltonic (talk) 17:00, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * This for example:
 * An oncolytic virus is a virus that infects and kills cancer cells without damaging healthy tissue. As the cancer cells are destroyed by lysis, they release new infectious virus particles to help destroy the remaining tumour. Oncolytic viruses have great potential for cancer therapy, not only by direct destruction of the tumour cells, but also to deliver other genes, for example genes expressing anticancer proteins and as immunotherapy. Reported side effects are rare, with clinical responses seen in very advanced and rapidly growing cancers.


 * Viraltonic (talk) 17:26, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * First (book) ref needs a page number. I would be wary of making an assertion that the class of therapeutics does not damage healthy tissue. that may be the intent, but that is a factual claim that should be supported or not on a per-therapeutic-entity basis.
 * The language generally needs some work, i think. It still has too promotional a tone in my opinion; it seems to be presenting speculation as fact. Saying something to the effect of "they seem to have few side effects" when the research is still quite new, and there are few therapeutics that are approved for use in humans, seems to be to be overreaching. Looking at a few of the papers, this seems to be a general problem with the proposed paragraph. My suggestion would be to tighten up the language a bit more. I do appreciate your focus on using PMC references, I think that is important for our readership. -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ] # _  17:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Viraltonic, I don't have time at the moment to look at the case for inclusion, I just want you to be equipped with the relevant policies, so you and the editors you deal with here are on the same page. The other essential policy to grasp is Neutral point of view. Per that policy, editors have to assess the appropriate amount of weight to give each element of a topic, and sometimes even well-sourced facts are not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Highly-speculative ideas, therapies that haven't made it into clinical practice, etc., if they are supported by excellent sources, are sometimes more suitable for "daughter" or "sister" articles. Again, this is not a comment on the merits of your proposed addition, just some background on the norms here. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input, I think that it is probably not worth inclusion at the moment, I will instead look at describing it in experimental cancer treatment as that is more suited to this article at this point in time. I may return when the results of the current phase III trials are announced Viraltonic (talk) 19:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Reverted edits
If I correctly understand, the intervention being discussed in the recent edits and reversions might fall better under chimeric antigen receptor. I've suggested an update source there (from a recent review), but I'm not sufficiently confident that I'd interpret it correctly. Someone care to take a look?LeadSongDog come howl!  02:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Peer review of related article
A request has been made for peer review of List of ineffective cancer treatments (in some ways the "opposite" of this article). All and any feedback most welcome. Alexbrn talk 08:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits: Burzynski
User:Bonojo is insiting on adding Burzynski Antineoplaston_therapy to this article, copied from Burzynski Clinic. The American Cancer Society says that there is no convincing evidence showing that antineoplastons actually work(1). It therefore should not be included in the article. Ochiwar (talk) 16:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC) Besides, the therapy in question already exists under Alternative cancer treatments. Ochiwar (talk) 18:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Oxygen Therapy
Biochemist Otto Heinrich Warburg, one of the twentieth century's leading cell biologists, discovered that the root cause of cancer is too much acidity in the body, meaning that the pH, potential hydrogen, in the body is below the normal level of 7.365, due to lactic acid production and elevated CO2 and therefore lower concentrations of oxygen in the body cells. Dr. Warburg made it clear that the root cause of cancer is oxygen deficiency in body cells (lack of oxygen results in acidic state in the human body). "All normal cells have an absolute requirement for oxygen, but cancer cells can live without oxygen - a rule without exception. Deprive a cell 35% of its oxygen for 48 hours and it may become cancerous." According to his research findings, applying methods that can increase oxygen levels in the body cells and also in the blood, can limit growth of cancer cells, and increase the rate of normal cells production in the body, which controls/cures cancer as a result. If there is lack of good level of oxygen in body cells (the main root cause of cancer), other cancer treatment methods will not work long-term, and although tumors can be removed, but they would grow again.

Diet plays an important role in controlling the oxygen level in the body cells: - Cancer can by controlled by increase in intake of some of the healthy foods that increase oxygen levels in the blood (natural fruits and vegetables, olive, almond, etc) can reduce body acidity and limit cancer cells growth - Cancer can become more serious and go out of control when intake of some unhealthy foods are increased: such as cheese, factory farmed meat (in particular pork/ham), Liquor, Beer, Soft Drinks (pressurized with CO2), Chocolate and Sweetened drinks.

I've removed this paragraph, because it was unsourced and I have some serious doubts about whether it's factually accurate too. The Warburg hypothesis is a legit concept but this here is fringey. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 5 August 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) — Andy W. ( talk  · ctb) 20:33, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Management of cancer → Treatment of cancer – As others suggested above, "treatment" clearly constitutes WP:COMMONNAME for what is done to possibly cure cancer patients or at least improve their remaining life quality. "Treatment", particular in its singular form, doesn't imply the cancer could be cured, while "management" tends to imply it be cured. I'm pinging all participants from that earlier discussion: -- PanchoS (talk) 08:42, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  ''. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * I use the two terms as synonyms. Happy with either. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 12:06, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support: I agree that there's a PoV or confusion problem with the current title. Management is what is done with cancers that cannot be cured, but this article isn't about management of incurable cancer only.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:44, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support: Treatment is clearly the more common term. Also, treatment does not imply "100% effective treatment" or "curing." Management is unusual and possibly misleading; it sounds to me even bizarre. Wolfdog (talk) 23:09, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Scientists find Australian berry to cure cancer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YJSfsCD3LY

Is this an experimental treatment, alternative treatment or a real treatment? Why cant I find any mentioned of this anywhere within wikipedia?

Seb-Gibbs (talk) 23:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Please post much more reliable links than only YOUTUBE videos. It is much easier to verify claims from text than video. 91.155.24.127 (talk) 10:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

A Legitimate Claim for a "Cure" to Cancer
A company out of Israel has claimed to have found a "cure" to all forums of cancer. When should we start to consider adding this to the Management section? The claims have been proven to be legitimate though the drug have not gone through test trials yet. This could be a major development in cancer care. I believe in good faith that we should start to discuss when this should be added.BMO4744 (talk) 14:16, 30 January 2019 (UTC)–
 * Where have the claims been proven legitimate? Natureium (talk) 14:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

"Racial and Social Disparities in the Treatment of Cancer" section
I'm not convinced this section is appropriate for this article, though I'm not sure I can necessarily articulate why in policy terms. However, it is certainly completely US centric at the moment, and it seems to fail WP:MEDRS by exclusively citing original research, and formulating conclusions/synthesis in the article. I may well be misinterpreting things, so happy to be corrected, but am interested in others' thoughts. Beevil (talk) 11:50, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Addition of Gene Therapy (p53 + PTEN gene targets), Immunotherapy (Chimeric Antigen Receptor T), and Epigenetics Sections
As a contributor to this page for a college writing class, I intend to add a few new sections on more molecular-based cancer therapies based on research of scholarly literature reviews in the field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imm19 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Good, so long as the sources meet WP:MEDRS and the material can be made understandable to a non-expert reader. Alexbrn (talk) 17:14, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I've realized that the research I've gathered for my writing class is better suited to the Molecular Oncology page so I'll be working on that page from now on. Imm19 (talk) 17:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC)User:Imm19Imm19 (talk) 17:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Typology
The category Cancer treatments includes the following types:


 * Alternative cancer treatments‎
 * Antineoplastic drugs‎
 * Cancer hormone therapy‎
 * Cancer immunotherapy‎
 * Chemotherapy‎
 * Experimental cancer treatments‎
 * Oncothermia‎
 * Radiation therapy‎
 * Surgical oncology‎
 * Targeted therapy‎
 * Cancer vaccines‎

Shouldn't the article and the category match? Lfstevens (talk) 01:05, 13 February 2020 (UTC)