Talk:Esophageal cancer/Archive 1

Origins
Replaced deleted article with article taken from NIH public domain publication "Information about detection, symptoms, diagnosis, and treatment of esophageal cancer." (NIH Publication No. 00-1557) at http://www.nci.nih.gov/cancerinfo/wyntk/esophagus The Anome 17:42 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Prognosis
What is the prognosis for this disease?


 * In absolute terms, the prognosis is poor. It depends a lot on a stage of the disease at the time of its diagnosis (see TNM). If the tumor is removed in its entireity, and there are no local lymph nodes, the prognosis is significantly better than when there is distant metastasis. JFW | T@lk  19:20, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Expansion, Cites
I have also identified a useful article for the expansion of this article, and I have no business editing a site on cancer. The article concerns the increased risk of throat/esophageal cancer when tea, or presumably any beverage, is consumed at high temperature. Please see Yahoo! article.
 * Hot Tea Cancer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbapel (talk • contribs) 20:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I've identified some useful papers for the expansion of this article:
 * Targeted therapy
 * NEJM review 2003

As the article presently looks quite good these papers may improve its source base and make is suitable for featured status. JFW | T@lk  14:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I have no business editing an article like this, but one of it guardians should expand it to cover this article *, reported recently in the New York Times My only quibble with the scholarly paper is that, far from being "unrecognized," (as the title claims) the link between the "flushing response" of many East Asians and some other to drinking alcohol and esophageal cancer (and nasal and gastric cancers, too) has actually been in the medical literature for more than 10 years. The link has not been widely publicized, probably because there aren't enough East Asian in the West to be statistically significant. The genetic deficiency that caused the flushing response is well-understood, and results in a build up of acetaldehyde, a well-known carcinogen, that normal drinkers clear out of their bodies much more quickly. The tissues exposed to the breath when the acetaldehyde is exhaled are at risk.
 * 

It's important for people who have this trait to know about this risk, and particularly the fact that even after you've built up a tolerance, as far as the "flushing" or "red face" response is concerned, you're still exposing yourself to a serious carcinogen. Are there more general cancer prevention articles where this belongs as well? Sprucegrouse (talk) 15:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)sprucegrouse

Restored external link; added ref. link to n.3
A previous editor had already included the information about pizza in the article, with a reference given in n.3. A subsequent editor took out the links to the BBC News site (only one was an article about the possible effects of eating pizza [tomato sauce]; the other was a facts/resources page, with useful links to other resources). Please do not remove information without checking the links; the reason given for removal is inaccurate. Not only was the information in the body of the article; it was also sourced, with a citation to a reference (n.3). I moved the article link from external links to the note (3). I've added further qualifications to other items listed misleadingly in that section and citations for those who need to follow up the claims. All the information that I linked gives citations to scientific studies supporting the points made. (updated) NYScholar 23:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * BBC news reports are not automatically reliable sources of information in a scientific article. I have made more elaborate comments on your talkpage in a parallel discussion, which we can continue over here if you prefer. JFW | T@lk  23:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This section also needs re-thinking and rewriting: I've removed it for the meantime until it can be rewritten more appropriately and accurately. It makes claims that the citation does not support; if it cannot be made more accurate, it needs to stay deleted.
 * "*Statistically, it appears that Helicobacter pylori, known for increasing risk for gastric cancer, actually decreases the risk of esophageal cancer; the exact mechanism for this phenomenon is unclear."
 * Due to this problem and earlier problems already discussed, I've added a cleanup tag to this article.
 * I am sorry to say that I just don't have time to discuss this with you any further. The scientific studies are already cited in the sources that I've listed.  You need to read them more carefully.  The footnotes are in the citations.  They ARE scientific studies and quotations from scientists.  I prefer not to continue this discussion either on this talk page or on my own talk page.  I've been clear enough already.  I stand by the citations and quotations qualifying the reports previously cited. Please read the material linked, including the footnotes and the footnotes provided by the material that they link.  Anyone with an interest in this subject can do the same. NYScholar 00:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You cannot simply remove material without explaining. You can also not slap a cleanup tag on an otherwise well-written article. Please discuss here first. I'm putting the material back in until you can explain to me what is wrong with that. By the way, the interpretation is not my own but from other publications that cite the O'Connor reference in evidence. JFW | T@lk  07:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I've had a look at the O'Connor reference. I agree with you that it doesn't provide convincing data on oesophageal cancer, although the increased risk of GERD/Barrett's could be a surrogate marker for this. Please give adequate reasons for further removals of material - it would have made this discussion a lot easier if you did that. JFW | T@lk  07:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I DID already give reasons: Scroll up in this very discussion (talk) page; also review the accompanying explanation in the editing summary in "History" (it's there).
 * Again, it appears to me that you are responding too quickly without reading and re-reading the "History" carefully enough to notice the explanations already given. Quoting from already posted explanation above:
 * ''' "This section also needs re-thinking and rewriting: I've removed it for the meantime until it can be rewritten more appropriately and accurately. It makes claims that the citation does not support; if it cannot be made more accurate, it needs to stay deleted.
 * "'Statistically, it appears that Helicobacter pylori, known for increasing risk for gastric cancer, actually decreases the risk of esophageal cancer; the exact mechanism for this phenomenon is unclear.'[1]"
 * "Due to this problem and earlier problems already discussed, I've added a cleanup tag to this article.'"'''
 * How much clearer does one need to be?
 * After you looked at the source and read or reread it more carefully, you did agree with the very reason that I removed that piece of the section (as already stated above & in the editing summary; it was an "erroneous"--not an "accurate"--"interpretation" of the cited article).
 * Moreover, if you are actually silently using secondary or tertiary sources as your sources of information/interpretation of information, you need to cite them, not their sources (which were not your own primary sources). To do otherwise misleads and leads to the kind of problem that occurred in this section.
 * In how many other places in this article have you given citations from your sources as if they were your primary sources and not cited your actual (secondary) sources?
 * The clean up tag was justified and it may still justified given what you have just revealed about your method of citations.
 * Until this problem is rectified, the article may still need further cleaning up.
 * You did not originate the article, by the way, and some of the problems in it are from earlier editors and other editors who are not you. You are taking the comments personally as if they apply only to you.  You need to examine the History closely to see the changes and the reasons made for them by each editor involved.
 * This article is not the "property" of any single editor; it is a collaborative effort.
 * I am sure that everyone appreciates your hard work, but it is still important to be as accurate as possible in giving one's actual sources of information in citations and in re-stating what they say accurately as well. Giving others' interpretations without using quotation marks and/or giving reference citations to those sources misleads.  Please re-read ALL of the comments in this discussion/talk page.  Thanks.
 * Removing important qualifications by cited experts from the text of the article misleads. Restored and expanded the citation of the qualifications provided in interviews with experts conducted by BBC News and other news organizations cited by the BBC. [updated July 24]
 * This is all I have time for. I will not have time to reply again. NYScholar 19:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

If you have no time, then don't generate work for others by casting nonspecific doubt over an article. Despite your characterisations, I wrote most of the material on this page, working from the good work of other, earlier editors. When I started, not a single reference was present. I take responsibility for the content I wrote, like a good editor should. That's not WP:OWN, that is common sense.

It is not cleanup you should be asking for. You are suggesting there are factual inaccuracies, yet you choose not to reveal any more than what you have already corrected. That doesn't get anyone any further. Please state clearly what your concerns are, without slapping tags on articles, and I will address them or involve others. JFW | T@lk  21:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The "doubt" cast is not "non-specific" ("nonspecific doubt"); it is "specific" enough to warrant being cited. This attempt to suppress or render less obvious qualifications of a much-publicized study by a bonafide news organization is very peculiar, in my view.  I expanded the references to the qualifications, giving direct quotations from the source(s).  (Part of why this article needed "cleaning up" in the first place--see the history more carefully.)  There is no justifiable reason to suppress or make less obvious the important qualifications.  Doing so is misleading.  It was misleading before I saw this article and it continues to be misleading each time the qualifications are removed from the text. I have felt strongly enough about this problem to continue to attempt to rectify it, even though I am very concerned about loss of my own time in doing so.  Please allow the qualifications, which are important, to remain. Thanks.  (Not everyone who reads Wikipedia is a doctor; in fact, most people probably are not.  Such general Wikipedia readers would appreciate the more-easily understandable information from sources that do not use medical terminology when none is needed to make the point clearly and convincingly.) NYScholar 19:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the qualifications may be notable, but not to the extent that a 15-line footnote is necessary to fisk the study. This does not happen in any medical Wikipedia article (compare the very high-quality featured medical articles asthma and multiple sclerosis, neither of which use this format). JFW | T@lk  22:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Here are the "notable" (noteworthy, i.e.) qualifications (see the note) continually being removed from this article: for the record. [See Editing policy on not removing important information from articles and for putting the information being disputed in the talk page of articles for discussion; not just deleting it.]

I still find that these qualifications are important and that they call into doubt the claims for pizza in the "decreased risks" section; for some reason, which appears to me quite odd, the other editors continually remove this important "notable" qualification and refuse to cite the source (which quotes "experts" calling into question the credibility of the claims of this one Italian study): "But 'some experts cast doubt on the idea that pizza consumption was the explanation for why some people did not develop cancer. They said other foods or dietary habits could play a part.'"
 * Note another discussion, which gives the number of the "population" of "Italians" studied; it too observes that all those people making up the sample in that Italian study were Italians and that the "Mediterranean diet" factor needs to be considered, also calling into question the claims of the study for "pizza" per se. The BBC News article also observes the importance of the chemical makeup of tomato sauce and tomatoes that may be related to the decreased risk involving (some kinds of, not all kinds of) pizza.  Clearly, the kinds of pizza that one consumes in restaurants or at home in Italy are not the necessarily and most likely not the same as mass-produced pizza that one consumes in the U.S. and the UK. NYScholar 22:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

One problem. The Italian study is peer-reviewed science linking (not determining causality) pizza consumption and decreased cancer risk. The debate in the BBC article is pure speculation. Citing some cancer charity PR spokesperson is not the same as peer-reviewed science. She attributes qualities to the study that it doesn't have. I prefer the way Samir has handled it. JFW | T@lk  22:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I've added a caveat in a phrase between dashes, giving citations to the two published references citing the cancer researchers questioning the interpretation/presentation/claims of the Italian study. I see no rationale for suppressing the qualifications made now by more than one bonafide source, giving similar explanations for the qualifications. I still prefer the way I handled it before (in two separate sentences).  There is no Wikipedia policy preventing articles on a medical subject, or any subject, from including NPOV; in fact, NPOV is Wikipedia policy.  Removal of the qualifications removes the neutrality of the presentation of this "decreased risk" item and does a disservice by misleading Wikipedia readers, in my view (still). Also, that "some cancer charity PR spokesperson" cited by BBC News represents an organization listed for some time in this very article's external links section as a provider of resources of information about cancer. User:NYScholar 23:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please avoid stating the obvious (about NPOV being Wikipedia policy). The whole situation can be avoided by stating that one isolated Italian study linked pizza with decreased cancer risk. That is not "suppressing information" or "violating NPOV", that is simply phrasing details in such a way that there is no remaining need to quote speculative sources. I state again that the BBC article generates discussion points that the Italian study doesn't address, and we're really wasting a lot of time on something utterly trivial. JFW | T@lk  23:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I've also just re-read the abstract (which is the only source given in this Wikipedia article that one can read to verify); it does not claim that eating pizza "halves" the risk factor for esophageal cancer; rather (quoting from the WebMD account): "'We found that regular pizza eaters had 34% less risk of oral cavity and pharyngeal cancer, 59% less risk of esophageal cancer, and 25% less risk of colon cancer,' says Gallus. In this group of patients, pizza also reduced risk of rectal cancer and laryngeal cancer, although not significantly." It is not clear from the abstract cited that the article claims this as a certainty; the Wikipedia rendition is to say that it "appears" to "halve" esophageal cancer risk.  The full article is not given to check to verify the interpretation presented in this section.
 * Has anyone who is interpreting the Italian study actually read the full article and can he or she quote the passage being paraphrased in it directly for purposes of verification? [That is not an "utterly trivial matter" as claimed below.] Note well: The authors of the single Italian study used as evidence for this claim ask a question "Is eating pizza. . . ? Their title presents their findings as the appearance of a link, not a confirmed link.  The article about the Italian study as conducted itself suggests a speculation (not a conclusion)  about a possible "link" based on the findings given, and the reportage about the study discuss the nature of that speculation; it's all speculation about a possible or not possible link or connection between a particular kind of food and dietary factors relating to that food; none of its conclusions is presented by the Italian study itself as confirmed "fact."  The way the Wikipedia article previously presented this information was misleading (I still think).  [Not a "trivial" thing.]
 * I have tried to make the presentation of information about that study in this Wikipedia article more consistent with the actual nature of the Italian study as the full article (not simply the abstract) is discussed in considerable detail in more than one news report and more than one kind of news report. According to WebMD's interpretation/presentation of the full article (not just the abstract): "Researchers claim eating pizza regularly reduced the risk of developing oesophageal cancer by 59%.  The risk of developing colon cancer also fell by 26% and mouth cancer by 34%, they claimed" (italics added).  What is the direct source of the study of the various Wikipedia editors who have cited it? Both the full article and the abstract or the abstract as extended by the news reports or precisedly what? What is it that they are interpreting? And are they repeating only the claims of the study itself (not neutral) or providing a neutral point of view on the study (having surveyed several povs on it)?


 * The news reports now and previously cited (WebMD, BBC News) give more details about the study than the abstract that is still what is currently cited and linked to in the references section of this Wikipedia article. (Those news reports are thus a source of more information about what the Italian study discusses [as cited in those reports] than the abstract may be, which is very brief.)  [Note Wikipedia's own editing policy caveats about not engaging in "original research" and presenting material that can be verified by Wikipedia's readers from the sources cited in the Wikipedia article.  Unfortunately, the full article is not accessible to non-subscribers of the website/journal (most Wikipedia readers); therefore, the news reports are especially helpful means of contextualizing it and gauging its significance and relative credibility.] NYScholar 00:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Most Wikipedia editors have no access to the fulltext of articles when this is not free. I have no access, and admit deriving most of the information from secondary reports (such as BBC and WebMD) and from the abstract. I don't care enough about the article to fork out for a reprint.
 * A brief comment about threading. You added more comments to your message above, creating the impression that I was responding to those newly added comments. I've fixed this now.
 * I generally support your approach of providing adequate context even for peer-reviewed science. But the "context" should not overwhelm the actual report. News reports can be highly inaccurate, and I can name many instances where peer-reviewed science has been completely misrepresented even by outlets aimed at professionals! There may be instances where the "contextualizing" news reports may not need to be quoted directly in the article but can be left on the talk page. JFW | T@lk  07:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Quoting from above reply by JFW, who now

"'admit[s] deriving most of the information from secondary reports (such as BBC and WebMD)'"
 * but has previously opposed identifying those sources as "references" in notes or otherwise:
 * Please see my own earlier comments regarding sourcing of primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. Citations are supposed to be to the sources one actually uses for verification purposes (verifiability).  I think that I was initially correct in listing first the BBC News report (which another editor had provided earlier) and more recently the WebMD report, because they are the sources that you are using for paraphrases earlier.  Not to identify one's actual sources of information is a form of plagiarism from those sources (even if/when the plagiarism is unintentional).  As someone whose specialty is research and research writing, which I teach and practice, it is from this point of view that I am making these and earlier observations.  Identifying one's actual sources is not merely a matter of "contextualizing"; it is a matter of what is called intellectual honesty in how one uses and presents sources of one's information in an article (any article, including those on Wikipedia, whether a medical article or not).  I'll be back later to check this article's citations further.  I can't do it now. [Re: threading: I made it clear where I was "updating" a point and used my Wikipedia signature and UTC.  I added colons throughout your and other replies to indicate threading where you and others did not at times so that people could follow the threading.] NYScholar 17:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This is not necessary at all. In fact, it causes clutter. There is no reason to believe that the BBC/WebMD articles make up the content of the pizza report. They are secondary sources. You seem to be bent on representing this research adequately. How about you pay the $25.00 for a 55 KB PDF file?
 * I'm actually on the verge of requesting community opinion on this article. You were correct about the H. pylori reference, which was replaced by better sources by Samir, but your constant insistence on secondary sources is - in my view - unwarranted and leads to a cluttered article. It doesn't look like we're going to agree on this one. Please review WP:RFC and see if you can agree to this move. JFW | T@lk  17:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I've sent Dr Gallus an email. JFW | T@lk  17:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * By your own recent admission, it is you (not I) who relied on the secondary sources (the news reports) and you have not read the entire article that you attempted to present. It is not intellectually honest to suppress the identity of the source(s) that you are using to interpret articles that you have not read.  You need to give the actual citations of the sources that you are using.  (I did not originate the references to pizza; I simply found errors in their presentation, that it appears now I was justified to question.)  I don't think that you understand the importance of acknowledging one's actual sources used when one is relying on information that one has found in such sources.  The BBC News report is actually a source that you used (I learned of it only through an earlier version of this article).  I attempted to make its identification more accurate, and yesterday I added the WebMD article after looking for corroboration of the BBC News report.  I think actually the problem is yours, not mine. (My last reply to you: I've said all I have to say: see above.) --NYScholar 17:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC) [Note added for clarification of use of term.] --NYScholar 20:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)]

I fully understand the need for accurate sources, but I also understand that it is not always possible to read an article's fulltext (especially when there are access issues) while it is completely possible to use the reference to support a statement. This is common practice on Wikipedia. What precedent are you basing your comments on? Why should websites be used as references when the "final common pathway" is the academic source under discussion? The BBC article was inserted by someone else. I was the author who bothered to trace down the academic reference and cite it properly.

Your comments about intellectual honesty and your insistence on not commenting anymore are both pretty incivil. Please stick to the issues. JFW | T@lk  20:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Helicobacter pylori
[context repeated from July 21, 2006 NYScholar 00:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)] This section also needs re-thinking and rewriting: I've removed it for the meantime until it can be rewritten more appropriately and accurately. It makes claims that the citation does not support; if it cannot be made more accurate, it needs to stay deleted. "*Statistically, it appears that Helicobacter pylori, known for increasing risk for gastric cancer, actually decreases the risk of esophageal cancer; the exact mechanism for this phenomenon is unclear."


 * Deserves mention in the article due to the amount of study on whether it is indeed protective for esophageal adenoca. Right now the evidence is still speculative, but I think it should be stated as such.  Will add. -- Samir    धर्म  13:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That fact was removed because NYScholar and me agreed that the study cited did not cover the points made. I'm glad you've found a good source now. JFW | Talk  22:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I've only read the abstract, but the sense I get is that the protective (or not) nature of H. pylori isn't what's being investigated. The study looks at the eradication of infection by H. pylori, which is not the same thing.--Badger151 21:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The article (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15298606) doesn't say that H.pylori prevents esophageal cancer or gastritis.It says exactly the opposite.In this study the bacteria increased the risk, both in squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArminHP (talk • contribs) 09:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Esophageal tumor graphic
Have an EUS/endo pic of an esophageal tumour (path still pending) that would look good here. Have to get patient consent this week -- Samir   धर्म  13:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * EUS is used very commonly now to assess operability. The pictures look a bit esoteric but are certainly worth including! JFW | T@lk  22:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I wish we could use it commonly here! I've gotten the consent on the radial EUS pic -- Samir    धर्म  08:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Heh, we usually refer to St Thomas' hospital, although UCL also runs an EUS service. Need for CT-guided pancreatic biopsies will decrease with EUS. JFW | T@lk  13:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Berries in decreased risks section
Doctors: Please check out the additions and decide whether you want to make changes that will keep the useful information in a format consistent with this article's method of citing references. It seems important. (I followed up some anecdotal information to locate some sources citing scientific studies relating to the claim.) These claims are parallel to those relating to other dietary factors, like drinking tea and eating pizza, etc. All may need updating, however. NYScholar 20:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I read the berry article when it came out. It's a reasonable addition (in one line). The BBC quote on pizza is superfluous and contains some weasel words "experts believe...". If experts believe it, please find a relevant peer reviewed citation. -- Samir धर्म  22:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * See above; an important "notable" qualification of a single study calling into question its claims is hardly "superfluous." The experts are named, sourced, and quoted in the article by the BBC News division; it is hardly using "weasel words."  It is reporting interviews with other cancer "experts" who call the interpretation of the results of the single Italian study into doubt and give other possible explanations for what it claims.  People need to know that the study has critics. NPOV NYScholar 22:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Judging from the information you've provided, the pizza link is stronger than the berry link. It is also important that laboratory studies may not equate clinical benefit (a mistake made commonly by alternative practicioners). When Gary Stoner has conducted his clinical trial the whole thing will be a lot firmer. Still, the fact that the NCI supports this research makes it a reasonable candidate for inclusion with the usual caveats. JFW | T@lk  22:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Tea
I removed:

"*There have been studies claiming that drinking tea daily (Camellia sinensis, generally green or white tea) also seems to decrease the risk of developing esophageal cancer. The National Cancer Institute has been investigating such claims and calls some of them into question."

This NCI fact sheet does not cover esophageal cancer specifically, and it states quite clearly that most of the evidence is not from clinical studies but from the laboratory. This is much too tentative to present in this article as relevant for the general reader. JFW | T@lk  07:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed -- Samir   धर्म  08:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not agree with the removal of this item from the list (it has been there long before I saw this article; I just tried to qualify it accurately by adding the ref. to the NCI work on it.) This NCI fact sheet does "cover esophageal cancer specifically": Please see the scientific study on that listed among its references (see ref. 3:  Sun CL, Yuan JM, Lee MJ, Yang CS, Gao YT, Ross RK, Yu MC. Urinary tea polyphenols in relation to gastric and esophageal cancers: a prospective study of men in shanghai, china. Carcin 2002; 23 (9): 1497-1503.
 * That is a study involving humans [not a laboratory study?]. Of course, the same caveats apply to this Chinese study of Chinese men (other dietary factors, etc.) that have been raised by the cancer researchers quoted in news reports pertaining to the pizza "decreased risk" claim (or "link").
 * I've added the NCI Fact Sheets links to external links, and perhaps you or another editor can figure out a better way to indicate what was already indicated if the way I have already qualified it is not obvious enough. (Otherwise, please restore the item as it is.)
 * The NCI has a fact sheet on it because it is a claim that it considers worth "investigating" (another way of looking at its relative relevant enough to do so.
 * Given the equal tentativeness of the other items listed in this section on "decreased risks," this tea item is at least on a par with the others (berries, pizza, etc.). The berries item is also based on "laboratory studies" with animals (rodents).
 * There is no reason that the "general reader" (which applies to me when it comes to technical medical information) cannot handle this information, espec. since its presentation (as qtd. above) was not in any way misleading. It was originally in that list because green tea and anti-oxidants in such tea are commonly believed to have protective effects against cancers (incl. esophageal cancer), and it is important to address that belief and indicate that it is not based on a "proven" medical "certainty" (such as it might be; e.g., corroborated by several scientific blind studies using control groups and universally accepted as "scientific fact"). --NYScholar 17:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The tea stuff is more tentative than the other stuff (although the berries also qualify). Not everything needs to be listed (even if it is mentioned on some NCI page), especially the tentative stuff. People demand different levels of scientific proof; for some people even meta-analyses are not adequate. But I think the tea stuff is just below the relevance horizon. JFW | T@lk  17:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I just came back to post the relevant passage from the NCI Tea and Cancer Prevention Fact Sheet (whose link I added to external links earlier today): I took time to post the passage in this talk page in case others have not noticed it and would like to read it: 4. What are the results of human studies?

Although tea has long been identified as an antioxidant in the laboratory, study results involving humans have been contradictory. Some epidemiological studies comparing tea drinkers to non-tea drinkers support the claim that drinking tea prevents cancer; others do not. Dietary, environmental, and population differences may account for these inconsistencies.

Two studies in China, where green tea is a mainstay of the diet, resulted in promising findings. One study involving over 18,000 men found tea drinkers were about half as likely to develop stomach or esophageal cancer as men who drank little tea, even after adjusting for smoking and other health and diet factors (3). A second study at the Beijing Dental Hospital found consuming 3 grams of tea a day, or about 2 cups, along with the application of a tea extract reduced the size and proliferation of leukoplakia, a precancerous oral plaque (1).

However, a study in the Netherlands did not support these findings. It investigated the link between black tea consumption and the subsequent risk of stomach, colorectal, lung, and breast cancers among 58,279 men and 62,573 women ages 55 to 69. The study took into account such factors as smoking and overall diet. It found no link between tea consumption and protection against cancer (4). [Italics added throughout.] --NYScholar 18:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Link with PPI use
Maybe worth including. JFW | T@lk  06:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

This page doesn't really talk about what esophageal cancer causes (other than the fact that it makes it hard to swallow and you might die)64.53.239.82 01:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * shows that 18,000 people taking omeprazole did not have more oesophageal carcinoma. JFW | T@lk  20:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Funny
This was used in the 2007 ASGE postgraduate course as the illustration of progression of metaplasia to adenoca in the debate of reflux surgery vs. intraluminal Barrett's ablation -- Samir 23:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Move?
Is it unreasonable to wish to move this page to "oesophageal cancer", seeing as that is the original latin spelling? Kennethlaw 11:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, because once an article is committed to a US versus commonwealth English title, Wikipedia policy (WP:MOS, introduction) clearly states that styles should not be changed unless there is a compelling reason to do so. On Google, esophageal cancer outgoogles oesophageal cancer by a ratio of over 8:1. JFW | T@lk  08:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Capecitabine and oxaliplatin
The UK study is finally ready. EOX (epirubicin, oxaliplatin and capecitabine) is better than the standard regimen involving 5FU and cisplatin: NEJM. JFW | T@lk  08:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Why no link to the main cancer article?
As I read through this article, I expected to see a prominent wikilink to the main cancer article. It is conspicuously missing. // Internet Esquire (talk) 05:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

pizza/? why?
Eating pizza helps ? Why? Because of tomato? If so why not increase tomato options. -- Tomato juice, spaghetti sauce? (99.56.174.59 (talk) 03:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)).

Sarcomas/rarer types
is keen to mention sarcoma in the "classification" section. I have searched for a high-quality review that can tell us how common this might be, but none mention sarcomas or GISTs or lymphomas. 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605246 unfortunately does not break down the histology beyond squamous/adeno. I don't think this should be mentioned without a secondary source, and should mention all rare subtypes and not just sarcoma. JFW &#124; T@lk  21:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I've found, but it only lists different types and doesn't give exact numbers about their frequency. Also, it's from 1992. --Eleassar my talk 21:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The source you have added now is really not WP:MEDRS compatible, as it is a case report. Please find a better source that also covers the rare tumor types I mentioned above. I have never encountered an oesophageal sarcoma but I have seen small-cell carcinoma of the oesophagus. What I don't want is to create the impression that sarcoma is the only rare oesophageal malignancy after squamous and adenocardinoma. JFW &#124; T@lk  22:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Also from 2005, and  from 2008, which even contain some information about their incidence. I'll replace the case report with information from these two sources, if that's ok. What I find is in contrast with the article is that according to the second source, "adenocarcinoma is now the predominant histologic type of esophageal cancer". --Eleassar my talk 22:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Great work, thank you. I've taken the liberty of stripping down the Google Books URL a bit. I think the incidence of adenocarcinoma is probably dependent on the location. The more potbellied people, the more Barretts/GORD and hyperinsulinism! JFW &#124; T@lk  20:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Clarifications
My name is Marjorie Hawthorne and I am interested in making health information, particularly cancer, more accessible to the general public. I will look through this page and will add any clarifications that, I hope, will make the information clearer to anyone who is not professional in the health field. Thanks Marjoriehawthorne (talk) 12:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I have temporarily removed your changes, because most of the time they made the sentences very convoluted. Putting clarifications in brackets often makes text more difficult to read. The new section on drugs in palliative care was also very unclear (especially the references to asthma and Parkinson's). JFW &#124; T@lk  22:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Picture
I came across this page as I was swallowing an orange slice. Perhaps it would be prudent to put a warning on the page so readers can brace themselves before seeing the decaying throat? Or at least make the pic a thumbnail that users can choose to enlarge? I am not sure how to do this. — W i ki ca li 00    36:0 23:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Research
Needs a section on research directions specific for esophageal cancer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.192.12 (talk) 18:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

punctuation
I just did numerous punctuation corrections required by WP:MOS. Things like These things were done so consistently that it looks as if someone who worked on this did this not through careless oversight, but out of a belief that that is correct punctuation. See WP:MOS. 174.53.163.119 (talk) 13:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 60-90%, where it should have said 60–90%
 * Plummer-Vinson syndrome, where it should have said Plummer–Vinson syndrome
 * blah blah blah - blah blah blah, where it should have said blah blah blah – blah blah blah
 * pages 705-720, where it should have said 705–720
 * 6-9 per 100,000, where it should have said 6–9 per 100,000