Talk:Leukemia/Archive 1

General comments
Not quite sure about the extent red blood cells play in leukemia, I may have misinterpreted it in this article. -- sodium.

Hey "cancer of bone marrow" there are other types of leukemia that derive from other tissues. I'd rather say "cancer of blood forming tissues" or something.

Thanks - corrected. -- sodium

This article is wanting a major rewrite. Some things are questionable and other are simply wrong. Some things would surely make a haematologist's hair stand on end. Let's put our forces together to make it better.--Kpjas

I took the liberty of taking the nonsense out (the three paragraphs of "I personally know...", etc.) that had been placed in the treatment section. It's ridiculous enough that someone would put a snake oil treatment in here and treat it as fact, but to write it in the first person displays a thorough misunderstanding of the Wikipedia project.


 * Thank you. JFW | T@lk  06:14, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Radiation in Japan
Something to add to the Causes: Radiation section: wasn't leukemia the most common form of radiation poisoning to afflict the victims of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings? That's what I thought, and that's what this report seems to describe. —RadRafe 03:21, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rename please
To leukaemia, thanks --62.251.90.73 16:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * No, Wikipedia uses both US and UK spelling. Unless the title is actually incorrect, there is no need to move it. JFW | T@lk  07:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh you lazy jerks, that "a" was knocked off out of sheer obsession of laziness. Leukaemia or Leukæmia is the correct spelling. Do you have to work so hard at being so lazy as to get so upset that the classical (and still used) spelling is retained? Instead the spelling that was created because spelling reformers thought it was too difficult to use a "u" or "a"? I have never seen anyone work so hard at being so lazy. That is like spending hours looking for a TV remote when you can just changed the channel on the set? Okay lets make everyone happy. Lets have a vote. Put one in for me for "leukaemia".


 * I don't see how it's lazy, American English is just a knock off basically of British English. It is just a variant so calm down. Phillip Shaw 07:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I would suggest that so long as the spelling can be found in a medical dictionary (US or UK), then that is acceptable. Kbdguy 12:47, 5 March 2009 (GMT)

Google suggests that the leukemia spelling is 6 times more prevalent than the leukaemia spelling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.217.49.209 (talk) 03:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Paleness
Isn't paleness also a symptom of leukemia? I don't think so. I think the ppl who get just are naturally white.


 * Depends on the degree of anemia. With the bone marrow overrun by malignant cells, it is less capable of producing red blood cells (and the ones that develop may not function too well). Some leukemia patients are diagnosed and treated before they get a chance to become severe anemic. Pallor is not just a sign of leukemia; it may reflect sepsis, other anemias, and seeing a ghost. JFW | T@lk  20:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

So it's more likely to be anemia. It's good because I've already seen two cases of leukemia in people I know (one fatal) in my life and if there's a third one I'd like to spot it early.


 * Goodness, that's dreadful. If someone looks unhealthily pale and doesn't feel well, a complete blood count (a very simple blood test) is the first step. It will give a lot of information on whether there is anemia, what the cause could be, and whether other tests are necesssary. The doctor who arranges the blood test will know what to do with the result. JFW | T@lk  21:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I've been pale and gotten paler. I've lost wieght due to working on the night shift. My menstruation was really painful the last time and I've had a lot less blood than I usually have the last three times I had it. But I'm a little nervous to go for a blood count due to needles...


 * You could be pale for any number of reasons, like the fact that nighshift workers are sleeping when the sun's out and therefore not stimulating any melanin production. That's what makes "looks kinda pale" such a useless symptom:  it can be caused by any number of circumstances, including the fact that most people's summer tans fade during the winter.  Sometimes people are pale when they're tired or stressed.  Sometimes people are pale when they are frightened.  I've had people tell me one day, when I wear a red shirt, that I have such a "healthy, rosy glow," and the very next day, when I wear a black shirt (which is not an ideal color for me), I'm told that I'm looking really pale and worn out these days.  Paleness is really a uselessly imprecise symptom.  At best, it can corroborate more significant symptoms or anemia, such as unexplained fatigue or unexpected changes in an ability to climb stairs.  The bottomline is that paleness isn't a useful symptom for leukemia.  (BTW, anemia can be checked with a tiny fingerstick, much like diabetics use to check their blood sugar levels.) WhatamIdoing 18:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

71.65.17.59
On 10 Dec 71.65.17.59 (talk · contribs) made numerous edits, generally not bad but poorly sourced and wrong in some important ways. 12.13.143.2 (talk · contribs) reverted, and I tend to support the reversion. One leukemia is not the other. ALL and CLL are almost diametrical opposites. To generalise here and put all risk factors for acute leukemias on this page is a mistake. Also, lymphocytes are leukocytes, a fact consistently ignored by 71.65.17.59. JFW | T@lk  08:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Has any cure yet...
For CML, see this NY Times Article re effective treatment: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/science/03conv.html Onejenu (talk) 04:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there any cure for blood cancer or leukemia yet.. many people need that cure...nope nope nope shlop

I think that nowadays, you can donate your healthy bone marrow at Red Cross or something. Then doctors can inject your bone marrow into someone who needs healthy bone marrow. --Starry.dreams 15:38, 17 July 2006

Isn't donating bonemarrow incredibly painful? (Not if you're under amnesia, ya idiot.) hah true

They put give you a shot to ease the pain. My teacher does it once every month I think. Basically they do surgery on your thigh to get the bonemarrow. --Starry.dreams 21:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know about your theachers thigh but in mine the bone is completely surrounded by muscle. How do they get to the marrow without damaging the muscles?
 * Standard bone marrow extraction place is the back of the hip. They tend o give you a local anaesthetic and a warning. Its not a very fun procedure like giving blood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TomaKrain (talk • contribs) 11:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Small clarification: The back of the hip is the most common site for adults.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it is much like getting a Bone Marrow Biopsy, which can be done in more than one spot. All of mine have been done on the backside of my hip. I can say for certain that Bone marrow biopsies are not enjoyable. I always had a numbing shot (or two) and muscle relaxant, and would still cringe in pain a good bit, but I may have a low tolerance for pain. You are also sore for about a week afterwords. I imagine donating Bone marrow is a bit more painful, since a larger sample is required. More than one site on the body might be required as well. I think you can opt for sedation during the procedure; I know they do this often at the local childrens hospital.--Loplin 08:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I have Leukemia and so I've had to have bone marrow drawn to run tests on, as well as to find a potential bone marrow donor. It's definitely not a fun experience, but it can very easily save someone elses life, so I think it easily makes up for your week or discomfort. DavimusK 20:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

There is supposidly another cure, as reported by a clinic that was named something similiar to "hahnemann" clinic. The head doctor of the clinic (Dr. Clyde Reynolds) was doing research with Liquid Deprenyl Citrate and Silvicidal (a Colloidal Silver made by a company infused into a protein). The Liquid Deprenyl leveled the bodies serotonin, Epinephrine, and the norepinephrine while the Silvicidal killed the Leukemia. Although many people would think it's crazy and a lie, the doctor did use this as a treatment for his patients and he said they all got cured.

The doctor also believed Leukemia was a virus, which I've heard about from quite a few people in that field of research. It should be noted, the Liquid Deprenyl can no longer be purchased or obtained. If people start looking into natural treatments, they will no doubt find a bunch of frauds and fakes. so anyone looking into natural treatments PLEASE make sure you see scientific tests and trials. Some company even tried to copy the Liquid Deprenyl by calling it "Deprenyl Liquid" AND using the trials done on the Liquid Deprenyl for their fake product. I do believe there are a few natural products that work, but I think most are nothing but fakes.- Jason1170 19:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * There are lots of "supposed" cures. The problem is that they don't work like they're "supposed" to, and while the sales people claim that everyone's cured, you'd be hard pressed to find a currently living patient who (a) was diagnosed by a regular doctor instead of by the sales staff AND (b) no longer has cancer according to an independent doctor (again, instead of the sales staff) -- although there are lots and lots of people (including me) whose relatives died while pursuing herbal treatments for cancer.


 * And yes, some forms of leukemia can be caused by viral infections. See HTLV for an example.  However, most forms of leukemia are not caused by a virus -- and just because it was originally triggered by a virus does not mean that it will behave like a common cold and go away after a little while. WhatamIdoing 04:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, viruses cause the minority of leukemia cases. Also, HLTV causes a specific type of leukemia, Adult T cell leukemia.

How common is leukemia?
About 1 in every 8,831 people get leukemia


 * Per what? 1 in every 8,831 people per day?  per year?  per lifetime?  And is that for one kind of leukemia, or all types lumped together?  70.137.157.20 22:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * without any specific frequency, it obviously refers to "per lifetime". IF you want to turn that into a yearly rate - grab a calculator - it won't be too hard to figure out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbdguy (talk • contribs) 12:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Hairy cell leukemia
I have removed this statement: "Unfortunately, some younger patients develop HCL that is unresponsive to treatment." on the grounds that I have been unable to find anything to support it, and I have found studies to contradict it (e.g., the Deardon/Else article in Current Oncology Reports 2006, 8:337–342). 70.137.157.20 22:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * and a lot of kids have it
 * Please sign your comments with four tildes. Actually, hairy cell leukemia is exceedingly rare in children and adolescents. WhatamIdoing 02:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Aleukemia
I have tagged the assertion that 30% of all leukemia patients develop aleukemia. And I'd like to state in advance that I consider the "oncoterm dictionary" at U. Granada to be an insufficient source for this particular claim. It strikes me as being much too high, and I want to see a original source.

Also, it's my opinion that this condition does not really belong in the "Four characteristics of leukemia" section. However, it doesn't really belong anywhere else, either. Should we make a section called "Complications"? Should we let it have its own section? What do you think? WhatamIdoing 04:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree with pretty much all of your points. "Aleukemic" leukemia is not a separate type of leukemia; it just means that people with acute leukemias can present with a low (rather than high) peripheral white blood cell count. It might be best under "symptoms" or "diagnosis" or such. As far as its prevalence, 30% may be about right, but I agree we need a better source. Generally, the classification scheme should be acute vs. chronic, lymphoid vs. myeloid, with a few outliers (e.g. hairy cell leukemia) thrown in. This article needs a lot of work; much of the information in it is duplicated (in much better and more well-referenced form) at the subdisease articles (acute myeloid leukemia, chronic myeloid leukemia, etc). I haven't gotten around to working on it yet. MastCell Talk 16:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I moved 'aleukemia' to the Symptoms section. I decided to axe the unsupported statistic in the process; I though "less common" might be adequate for now. I'd be happy to have you adjust what I've written. WhatamIdoing 04:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

So much activity, so little progress
Is it just me, or does this page attract more than its fair share of vandalism? Leukemia seems to get ten edits for every net change. Almost everything ends up getting reverted. Is this normal for Wikipedia? 70.137.135.192 03:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Some pages are vandalized more than others. Not sure why this one is such a target. Fortunately, it's pretty easy to deal with. If you're interested in contributing to the page, don't let the vandalism deter you; it can always be dealt with. MastCell Talk 04:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Redirect pages
Would it be useful to create redirects for the disease's two major forms, "Acute Leukemia" and "Chronic Leukemia"? When I first searched for the article, it was by the first name which I'd heard somewhere, since I didn't know there wasn't a separate article for it. (which is why I'm asking for the redirect, but going to this article was easy enough too...) --70.143.57.160 05:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * These pages now redirect to Acute leukemia and Chronic leukemia respectively which are themselves disambiguation pages. CheekyMonkey 22:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

About that Research section
Any thoughts on the "Research" section that just mentions a single item of relatively unimportant (and extremely early stage) research? I'm inclined to kill the whole section, as I think it would be much too difficult to maintain. WhatamIdoing 01:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Could we list some organizations that are researching into it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.7.183.132 (talk) 09:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Garbage
I have reverted the inclusion of this outdated information twice now: "Regarding Zalmanov's research(1955) leukemia is caused by capillary circulation and metabolism problems and can be cured by using yellow and white bath turpentine emulsion, which open the closed capillary vessels, restore a feeding by blood elements of dried cell islands, restore normal, healthy life of cells('Secrets and wisdom of the human body', France, 1958)."

The first insertion was the first-ever edit of a new user. The second one was an anon editor (possibly the same person). Since turpentine is a known cause of cancer, its inclusion as a "treatment" is particularly inappropriate. If someone other than the original editor believes it's really notable, then I'm willing to include it on the unproven cancer therapy page, or on a new Failed cancer treatments from Medieval Europe page (because that treatment was proposed at least five hundred years ago and hasn't ever worked), but not in this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Four Major Types before Symptoms?
I suggest that the Four Major Types section be moved to be before Symptoms, just as in the lung cancer article. Also, I think the Four Major Types section should be renamed "Classification". Marcus J. McLean (talk) 04:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. I just made the change.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This entire section had recently been removed by what appeared to be vandalism so I've just put it back as it was. McPat (talk) 05:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Comparison of leukemia types
I have some concerns about the new table in the Classification subsection. I think it may tend to grow infinitely, as one editor after another decides to add "just one more" detail. Can we get some agreement on what specific need this table fills, and how to prevent its endless expansion? I'm starting to wonder whether this information is better presented as a series of short paragraphs or bullet points, like this:
 * Chronic lymphocytic leukemia most often affects adults over the age of 55. It sometimes occurs in younger adults, but it almost never affects children. Two-thirds of affected people are male.  The disease is treatable, but considered Incurable.  The five-year survival rate is 75%.

This kind of information could perhaps be put in the (very short) introduction to the article instead of in the classification section. What do (several of you) think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

New treatment for CML
There is a new treatment for CML being used (at least in Australia) going by the name Sprycel or Dasatinib. I think it should be mentioned in the CML section. --TomaKrain (talk) 11:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ages and stuff
It says in the article that mostly adults get leukemia. But I know this one kid who actually got it when he was, around 11. He survived, though. Is it normal for people under the normal age to get it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.79.100.159 (talk) 23:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, you can get some kind of leukemia at any age. "Mostly adults" leaves a lot of room for "and sometimes kids."  The different kinds of leukemia have different age distributions, too.  ALL has a lot of kids; HCL has no kids and only one reported teenager.  If you'll let me use a lymphoma, Waldenström's macroglobulinemia seems to affect teens and older people -- but not so much the adults in between.

Linking?
Hello. I was reading this article, and I am not very familiar with all of these medical terms. I would like to link the "science words" to go to their wikipedia pages. I was simply wondering if anyone has any opposition to this (since it's not really on the page too often). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Believr4god (talk • contribs) 01:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I probably don't link enough words, so let me say that linking some words is great, and I'd be happy to have you do it. Linking every single instance of a word is bad, of course.  I'm sure you can find a reasonable balance.  I believe that the official guidelines suggest a maximum of one internal link for a word in each section.  So if you open up, say, the subsection "Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia (CML)", then you could usefully wikilink one instance of each unfamiliar word (usually the first, unless you've got a whole string of words in a row.  In that case, it's best to spread them out a bit).
 * Thanks for offering to help. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Treatment
I'm not feeling the love with the treatment section any longer. It's too long, it's too detailed, and it doesn't do a good enough job of getting people off to the sub-articles. Frankly, if someone in your family has one of these diseases, you are really not going to hang out at the "all the possible kinds of leukemia" article: you are going to head to ALL/CLL/AML/CML/HCL/whatever article, and from there possibly to further sub-articles, with the ideal goal of getting to the "Exactly My Personal Situation" article. From the editing perspective, the duplication of information between articles only adds to the maintenance challenge.

I'm thinking about halving the level of information in these sections, so that they're summaries of the "real" articles. Does anyone else have any opinions about this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * In the absence of objections, I've (just barely) started doing this. I also turned one of the tables in the classification section into text because I think it will be easier to read that way.  I left out all details of treatment, however, because we already have plenty of that in the treatment section.  Short summaries are welcome, if anyone can think of a way to reduce the overall treatment idea for ALL, AML, and CML to a short, big-picture sentence (like "Treatment usually involves chemotherapy and radiation").  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I've just finished. Parts of it could probably be tightened up a bit, and other parts expanded slightly, but I think the treatment section is finally under control. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Causes of childhood leukemia
I thought that this news story was interesting and might deserve about two sentences in the ==Causes== section. Specifically, I'd like to include a statement about a genetic change occurring before birth, followed by a trigger later in life. (The hygiene hypothesis aspect doesn't interest me as much, because it's much less well-established.) However, we should probably ref the original paper, and I'm out of time for today. Anyone want to find it at pubmed.gov? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Lymphocytic or Lymphoblastic?
I think that this page should use either lymphocytic or lymphoblastic consistently. I somewhat prefer lymphocytic, but I see that an anon changed two instances to lymphoblastic recently. Does anyone have a preference? My primary goal is that they all match. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Consolidation therapy
In the UK, consolidation therapy or 'maintenance' as it's caled in the UK lasts between 3 months (for a girl under 7) and three years to a boy of 15 years old to eliminate any remaining leukemia cells. I doubt, therefore, if the treatment for adults is only "one to three months"! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 22:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 'Consolidation' is not the same as 'maintenance'. I'll see whether I can improve things.  The three phases of treatment are induction, consolidation, and maintenance.  Like induction, consolidation is a high-intensity chemotherapy regimen.  In contrast, maintenance is a low-dose program.
 * In adults, there seem to be some consolidation approaches that last for just four weeks, although most seem to be a couple of months. The maintenance phase then typically continues until the patient has been in treatment for a total of 24 to 30 months.  (It's also not clear whether the maintenance program is really useful for adults.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit summary
I accidentally bumped the return key before typing my edit summary: The point of undoing the previous edit isn't that we need two sections, it's that we should delete the one with no references instead of the one that makes an unsupported assertion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Causes
I've added non-ionising radiation into this as there is now a strong (but not yet conclusively causal) relationship between residential proximity to high voltage overhead transmission lines which should be mentioned.

I'm also rather surprised there's no mention of the Kinlen population mixing hypothesis in here? topazg (talk) 08:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've removed it. You must provide a reliable source for controversial assertions like that.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Considering the infections and genetic predisposition is also speculative and unsourced, this seems somewhat inconsistent? Working in the field of science and causes of leukaemia I am fully aware there are no non-controversial sources other than ionising radiation. topazg (talk) 11:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * EDIT: I'm going to add a few sources, but then the section will look a bit odd, as the only of the 5 claimed causes to have any form of reliable backing. Are we going to now have to hunt down the citations for the others? topazg (talk) 12:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Possibly so, if there is sufficient legitimate controversy. I recall a recent edit where someone put a tag on this sentence: The United States has a capitalist mixed economy, which is fueled by abundant natural resources, a well-developed infrastructure, and high productivity. The result was some grumbling, but citations were found and added, even if it seems like an obvious statement. There's a limit, of course, and it's different in different places, but if there's doubt, we need to put citations in to verify. And, just because one item needs to be cited does not mean that others do as well. With all of that in mind, I'm removing the non-ionizing radiation bit from the article, waiting for a citation that supports it.  Frank  |  talk  13:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I would add that of the sources that were in the section, one was a link to Wikipedia itself, which is not a valid source, one did not mention leukemia at all, and one concluded directly the opposite of what was written: "Thus, on balance, the evidence related to childhood leukaemia is not strong enough to be considered causal." Frank  |  talk  13:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, with regards to the sources: The wiki link contained a large number of citations showing the association between the 50/60 Hz magnetic fields from HVOTLs and childhood leukaemia, and it seems foolish to recreate that entire section on this article when it is adequately covered somewhere else. The WHO link comments that the association is not causal, but recognised. This is not unusual, the only cause on the Wiki article considered causal as far as I understand is ionizing radiation - presumably we should remove all the others to be consistent? Finally the other link _does_ mention childhood leukaemia. The SAGE first interim report was a stakeholder advice group report to the UK government, advising (amongst other things) what cost benefit measures can be taken to reduce the risk to human health from living proximity to powerlines ("The first interim assessment of this group was released in April 2007, and found that the link between proximity to power lines and Childhood Leukemia was sufficient to involve a precautionary recommendation, including an option to lay new power lines underground where possible and to prevent the building of new residential buildings within 60 m (197 ft) of existing power lines."). I will updated the paragraph accordingly.topazg (talk) 08:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Further edit ... The paragraph in the article starts "There is no single known cause for all of the different types of leukemia. The different leukemias likely have different causes, and very little is certain about what causes them." This already shows that the causes should not need sufficient evidence for causality, merely suspected causality. IARC have classified ELF EMFs as 2B (possibly carcinogenic) based on the evidence of ELF magnetic fields and childhood leukaemia incidence alone. There are a number of issues with causality (for example, unknown mechanism - hardly unusual in carcinogenesis - and no current effective animal model) but it is hard to get more reliable than IARC as a classification of a carcinogen surely ? topazg (talk) 09:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I would also add that I am fully in favour of citing and supporting such things well with external sources (I wrote a large amount of the Wikipedia EMF transmission health concerns section, including the vast majority of the citations), but I also think consistency is very important. As the majority of causes of childhood leukaemia are speculative, it would be useful to start putting in similar efforts to the other suspected causes so that it is seen that each have sufficient evidence to warrant inclusion in the article - hence adding fact tags to the others. Does this seem reasonable? topazg (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Part of me can't really believe we're even having this conversation, but here goes:
 * Leukemia is not just a disease of childhood. In fact, about 90% (yes, ninety percent) of leukemia diagnoses each year are in adults.  Please do not confuse "causes of leukemia" with "causes of leukemia in children".
 * Ionizing radiation is the most widely accepted cause of leukemia. You get too many CAT scans, or you work in a uranium mine, or whatever, and you have a much higher risk of leukemia.  There's no controversy here.  I have no idea why this information was entirely deleted.
 * Viruses cause leukemia. Specifically, HTLV-1 causes leukemia.  This doesn't represent a particularly large proportion of cases in the United States and Europe, but it's certainly not a trivial cause in other parts of the world.
 * Certain chemicals cause leukemia. Specifically, the case for benzene is proved beyond reasonable doubt, and alkylating chemotherapy drugs (e.g., cyclophosphamide; they kill cancer cells by damaging DNA) are important examples.  Other examples that the average person has heard about include old-fashioned hair dyes and tobacco, but a complete list would be pretty long.
 * Hematological malignancies run in families. Several specific heritable genes and combinations of genes have been identified.

I've added strong sources for all of these things. Now that we're all on the same page (I hope) with what's widely accepted, let's talk about "non-ionizing radiation", otherwise known as electricity. The sources in this article were weak. For example:
 * , which is about melanoma and only mentions leukemia in passing
 * , which is a 'letter to the editor' instead of a proper scientific paper
 * another letter to the editor
 * the website of a lobbying group (Environmental Health Investigations Branch)
 * , by another lobbying group (International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection)

To be candid, this looks rather cherry-picked to me, and it significantly misrepresents the scientific consensus. Even in the "worst case scenario", ELFs don't cause more than 1 case of leukemia out of 200 (because nobody thinks it's more than 5% of childhood leukemia, and childhood leukemia is only 10% of all leukemia).

I've re-written the text based entirely on the IARC report, and taken the incidence from the WHO fact page that you listed. You might wish to read Wikipedia's guide to picking better medical sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I'll hope you notice that I didn't delete any of the content on ionizing-radiation, and I greatly appreciate the work you've done on the section - it is much better like this, and I have learned something in the material you have written, many thanks! I hope you also take this constructive criticism in the way it is intended: Your understanding of electromagnetic fields appears to be very poor. To claim non-ionizing radiation is otherwise known as electricity is quite absurd. Microwave ovens heat food with non-ionizing radiation, and visible light is non-ionizing radiation. Moreover, whilst electricity generates ELF EMFs, electricity is _not_ radiation. You comment on the California EMF program a lobby group, even though it was the publication generated from an investigation started by the California Department of Health and consists of a number of senior scientists in relevant fields. You also quite bizarrely reference ICNIRP as a lobbying group, despite the fact that most European countries that have set restrictive legislation have done so entirely on the advice of the ICNIRP group. Aside from this, the paper you said was an ICNIRP paper is a generally accepted meta-analysis showing that the association "This is unlikely to be due to chance but, may be, in part, due to bias. This is difficult to interpret in the absence of a known mechanism or reproducible experimental support." It feels therefore that your edits, whilst constructive in aim, are coming from a personal belief that non-ionizing radiation is not a cause of leukaemia (childhood or otherwise) instead of from a background understanding of the science in the area. I have changed the first sentence which is just scientifically incorrect, and will address some of the other issues in due course. I am aware that to do so now will likely result in an edit war as you seem to feel so strongly against the issue, and that's not a productive use of my time nor the space on Wikipedia, and its presence (or lack) will not affect the scientific debate so its presence only serves little use. I don't particularly think that your comments about cherry-picking and lobby groups are appropriate, correct, nor do they serve the spirit of assuming good faith in attempting to improve Wikipedia's content.


 * Having attended two leukaemia conference last year, Childhood Leukaemia Causes and Prevention (hosted by CHILDREN with LEUKAEMIA) and Molecular Basis of Childhood Leukaemia (hosted by the UCL Institute of Child Health), a number of risk different factors were addressed. The output of the first conference in particular identified a number of risk factors that scientific consensus (at the conference at least) accepted as likely candidates. These included infection, genetic predisposition, certain chemicals, ionization radiation and non-ionizing magnetic fields at 50 and 60 Hz (depending on the country's mains transmission voltage frequency). The issue of confounding and other factors raised in your IARC reference were refuted by Joachim Schuz, as they have been by Sanders Greenland in a separate analysis. The IARC analysis is now relatively old, and the consensus has shifted towards a general acceptance that the association is real, but mechanisms for direct causation are not understood and have little non-epidemiological support. The original Wikipedia comment was talking about "strongly suspected" causes, of which non-ionizing radiation most definitely is, amongst researchers involved in the fields of both leukaemia and electromagnetic fields.


 * Having been a part of the UK government stakeholder process SAGE, the output of the report (Available in full) took the association between residential proximity to HVOTL within 60m as a suitable exposure metric to represent sufficient magnetic fields of around 0.4 microTesla or above, which the advice to government was that this was likely to constitute a doubling of risk in the development of childhood leukaemia, based on comparing the majority of seminal reviews in this area. topazg (talk) 11:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You're right: I was sloppy when I equated electricity with the EMF emissions that it generates.  I was aiming for something that the average reader would understand (that is, "This is the part that's in the media all the time").
 * My personal belief lines up very neatly with the WHO analysis: EMF may cause (indeed, very probably causes) a small number of cases of childhood leukemia -- a number that, especially if you take it with an appropriate grain of salt because of the study design bias, is small enough to make EMF the least important of suspected causes.
 * And while it was apparently not your intention, if you click the link I provided, you'll see that you did change 'ionizing radiation' to 'non-ionizing radiation'. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh dear, I do apologise, you are quite right, that change was entirely unintentional - some form of Freudian slip I assume ;) I'm quite happy leaving the article as it is for now, but I _do_ feel it is appropriate to at least mention non-ionizing radiation in the causes section of the article topazg (talk) 12:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That sort of "edito" is easy to enough to do. I have no objection to mentioning EMF; even if it were categorically proven to be false (which it isn't, and I fully expect it to be proven the other way), I'd want to mention it, because it has captured the public attention in ways that other causes haven't.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm still quite undecided on the EMF issue. Jukka Juutilainen has done a lot of work demonstrating the possibility that ELF EMFs are not likely to be causal, but act as some form of further catalyst on the effects of other causes - this work has been primarily on cytogenetic research from memory, though I think it may be broader ranging than that. Anyway, this is all slightly off topic really, but it's another aside that makes the picture (whatever that is!) rather complicated to analyse. If anything, I'm probably of the opinion that EMFs are more likely to affect existing mechanisms and interactions than to instigate the changes themselves, as there is no obvious plausible mechanistic support for any of the alleged effects of EMFs (ELF or RF) aside from the better understood tissue heating/electrocution mechanisms. topazg (talk) 12:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Famous sufferers
In my mind this suggestion is as valid as the section on famous victims. Famous people who have suffered or are suffering from this illness are more likely to actively contribute towards publicity for this terrible condition.

I post this to guage if there is any concensus for this - if so I will add the section and research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbdguy (talk • contribs) 16:42, 4 March 2009


 * I have removed it because the list is entirely unsourced, and we really do have to have solid sources for information like that.
 * Additionally, and more importantly, nobody has "just" leukemia: each patient has a specific kind of leukemia.  It would be much more appropriate to put information like that on the specific pages -- assuming, of course, that the person was famous for having the disease (from doing charity work, for example), instead of just being a random famous person who happened to get sick.  The mere fact that a celebrity happened to get sick is really not encyclopedic information.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with what the changes you have made. The celebrity and campaigner I would like to add can be linked to here Geoff Thomas. On reading your feedback, I reappraised my thoughts of including this, and decided that the insertion should be based on campaigning activity and not celebrity. My thoughts about this are not completely crystallised about this and am still thinking.
 * Anyhow, post feedback if you feel you are able to and have time, I'll go about making this change in 5 or 6 days. Kbdguy (talk) 00:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Why not put that information on the CML page instead? Surely it's more relevant there.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Doubts
Is it autoimnune? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.16.147.160 (talk) 22:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No, but some people who have autoimmune diseases may develop leukemia, and some of the medications raise the risk of developing an autoimmune disease. Finally, GVHD can be understood as an autoimmune disease.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Insurance
We really need some discussion about how insurance companies treat leukemia patients. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.61.135.253 (talk) 23:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but we can't post personal stories from blogs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

leukemia and diet ....FYI...
--222.67.218.80 (talk) 05:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+leukemia+diet&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

--222.67.218.80 (talk) 05:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+leukemia+dietary&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0


 * Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Disclaimer If the contents in the above links are involved in Glycemic index, Glycemic load and Insulin index, please ignore them as the measures have been questioned--222.64.218.235 (talk) 10:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Misdiagnoses?
There is a (relatively) harmless disease that is often misdiagnosed as leukemia. I know it exists because I had it, but I was five years old at the time and I barely remember even having the disease--I certainly don't remember its name, much less anything about the disease itself (I only know of the misdiagnosis because my parents happened to mention it in passing much later). If anyone knows what I'm talking about, perhaps a mention of it in this article and a link to that disease's article would be appropriate. Kurt Weber 20:36, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I understand what you're saying, but "misdiagnosis" is not really the correct terminology. With certain symptoms doctors are taught to think of the worst, and to make every effort to ensure that a certain diagnosis is not present. You may have received many investigations to ascertain that your symptoms were not attributable to ALL. I doubt it is necessary to mention this specificially on this page, because this "problem" is present, mutatis mutandis, on many other disease-related pages. JFW | T@lk  21:31, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

You may have had Infectious mononucleosis, which can mimic ALL and other forms of leukemia, as it shares many symptoms, such as splenomegaly and lymphadenopathy. It may also cause labratory abnormalities concerning for leukemia. Immunize (talk) 23:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Radiation & leukaemia
What forms/types of leukaemia are caused by radiation? I heard that there was NO KNOWN CAUSE of leukaemia. Any one know?--aceslead 22:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Parts of the article sound like they're saying that radiation causes all leukaemia. THIS NEEDS CLARIFING, any claim of a known cause should be cited.--aceslead 22:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It would be much more accurate to say that there is no SINGLE known cause of leukemia. Some cases are easily attributed to radiation.  A few are easily attributed to a handful of specific chemicals (e.g., benzene, some chemo drugs that are used for solid tumors).  Most individuals will never know what caused their disease, because there was always a chance that you would have gotten leukemia even if you didn't have this or that suspicious exposure. 66.124.70.108 18:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

If you eat peanut butter a lot, it could prevent leukemia. Sorry to the ones allergic to peanuts.

I have never seen any evidence that consumption of peanut butter has any effect in either preventing or treating leukemia. Immunize (talk) 23:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Information on 'cure' rates for AML
As someone who has recently (18 months ago) been diagnosed with AML and (so far) been succesfully treated using the chemotherapy drugs described here, it would be interesting to make mention of the current and previous success rates in terms of treatment using these drugs.

As part of my treatment I took part in a medical trial which was looking at the effect a fifth course of chemotherapy has on prolonging remission/preventing relapse. Perhaps some comparisons between older success rates and the effects these new trials have had would be beneficial? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.208.10 (talk) 11:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Common forms
I removed the new 'common forms' section because it duplicates information already presented in the last half of Leukemia. Having multiple sections that repeat the same information makes the article disorganized and confusing for readers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining your reasoning behind the removal. Best wishes. Immunize (talk) 20:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Merge proposal
The Leukemia article already has most of the information on most types of lymphocytic leukemia, it seems only natural that these new article be merged in here as well. Do people agree? User: (talk • contribs • count) - Review me! 06:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm unclear on what the proposed merge is -- the description above is distinct from the proposal on the article page. Could you clarify? --Arcadian 12:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The proposed merge is as stated on the article page. I.e. dealing with merging the prolymphocytic leukemias into the Leukemia article, just like the lymphocytic leukimias. User: (talk • contribs • count) - Review me! 13:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I strongly oppose this proposed merge. Just because we could put everything into a single "All forms of blood neoplasms" page doesn't make it sensible -- and, on a slightly smaller scale, that's pretty much what you've proposed doing.  Prolymphocytic leukemias are very specific subtypes.  The stubs need expanding, but they deserve their own space.  Furthermore, there are several pages that already link those articles -- making some red links go away is why I started two of those three pages -- and having them drop directly to "all leukemias in general" will not be as useful.
 * BTW, it would be helpful if you could identify your level of expertise. My assumption is that you've proposed merging them primarily because you've never heard of these fairly rare (but scientifically interesting) diseases.  WhatamIdoing 17:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I oppose the proposed merge. --Arcadian 19:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

This merge proposal has been active for a month. There is no support. Shall we kill the proposal? WhatamIdoing 17:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose I feel that the lymphocytic leukemias deserve there own pages(s). 15:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Prognosis
There is only one sentence here for prognosis. Could someone please beef this up? I am seeing differing rates of survival for different types on different websites. For the typical person newly diagnosed who comes to this page, it is going to be prognosis that is important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skysong263 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 1 May 2010


 * A newly diagnosed person should be talking to his or her hematologist about that issue, not relying on the sorts of generalizations that Wikipedia can provide.
 * I'd like to see the section expanded (and please feel free to WP:BOLDly expand it, if you've got any decent sources), but the fact is that the prognosis of "leukemias" is the same as prognosis for "genetic disorders" or for "gastrointestinal disorders" -- which is to say, it depends on which specific form you have. Leukemias run the full range, from 'rapidly fatal' to 'normal lifespan'.  There is (or should be!) more specific information at each of the articles dedicated the different types of leukemia.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The lead needs to be expanded per WP:LEAD
 * There are still a number of unreferenced sections.

Research section needs work
The Research section needs work - as it stands it has no information specific to leukemia. Information on current hypotheses, and drugs in late stage clinical trials might be appropriate ? Rod57 (talk) 19:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd be happy to have this section improved, but leukemia is a whole bunch of separate diseases, not a single entity. There are no hypotheses or investigational drug or other types of research that apply equally to all forms of leukemia.  The drugs being developed for B-CLL are typically worthless for T-PLL, etc.  Consequently, we're limited in what we can usefully say about (all forms of) leukemia.
 * If you want to know about research on a specific type of leukemia, then there may be information in the article for the specific leukemia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. I'll try to add something consistent with your points. Rod57 (talk) 12:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


 * BTW, I'm not convinced that a link to search results on a US government website is either an appropriate reliable source, or consonant with Wikipedia's nature as a worldwide encyclopedia. Presumably people in Africa and Asia don't much care which trials are being run in the US (and almost every trial listed has at least one site in the US).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree with that. Knowing that trials are ongoing elsewhere in the world seems useful generally (eg. to track progress and results). But if there are other sources for non US trials that would be useful too esp' if they are in advance of US trials. Rod57 (talk) 12:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

A way to get leukemia on purpose?!
I heard that there are some people who acually want to get leukemmia. Then someone told me that it was possible to get it on purpose. Is this true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.167.182.220 (talk) 20:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * There are no reliable methods of deliberately inducing leukemia in humans. Even the best-known causes have only a small chance of resulting in leukemia.  There are a small number of medications that can very temporarily produce high white blood counts, as can several types of infections, but the next step in the diagnostic investigation would prove that it wasn't leukemia.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Strontium-90
Is there a known link between Strontium-90 and Leukemia in light of the massive increases worldwide after the detonation of Hydrogen bombs? Also it seems I just answered the above persons question; http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,809404,00.html --Senor Freebie (talk) 06:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The recent addition of information appears to place undue weight on the possibility of nuclear weapons as a cause of leukemia (radiation from all sources already being discussed). I would like to see this relationship to nuclear weapon placed in context from a secondary source discussing leukemia with other causes before being placed back in the article, to assess proper weight. Yobol (talk) 16:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh so a primary source to show statistics from a peer reviewed study and a secondary source comparing the rate of leukemia from Strontium-90 to other known causes. What if there are no other studies of other known causes? Would a comparison between Strontium-90 and the total amount of cases be appropriate?--Senor Freebie (talk) 14:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

 [] The information below is from Caltech (not a minor university) and was gathered with the assistance of a Nobel Prize winning scientist. "A study of American radiologists published in 1950 had shown that they died of leukemia at a rate 10 times that of nonradiologist MDs." "the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission had discovered increased incidences of leukemia and cataracts among their study group of 30,000 bomb survivors" The Current "Safe" Threshold “would be expected to increase the present incidence of leukemia in the United States by about 5 to 10 percent.” Summary of section; After a British test in 1957 of a 4MT Hydrogen Bomb, a calculation by Lewis, the primary scientist behind the above findings was published showing that if the fallout was distributed evenly across the world, 1,000 would die from leukemia. The US President (Eisenhower) ordered a temporary halt to nuclear testing as a result of this. Pauling was another Nobel Prize winner "On January 13, 1958, Pauling presented the “Scientists’ Test Ban Petition,” signed by over 9,000 scientists internationally, to the United Nations" By this stage; "Soviet officials repeatedly called for a halt in testing" After the Limited Test Ban Treaty was brought into affect; "award the held-over 1962 Peace Prize to Linus Pauling for his continuous efforts, beginning in 1946, to end nuclear-weapons tests and “against all warfare as a means of solving international conflicts.” " Eventually Lewis, the principle person behind this research won the 1995 Nobel Prize in physiology and medicine.

[]

"When Strontium-90 lodges near the bone marrow ... there is an increased risk of leukemia"

'''Gould, J M et al. Strontium-90 in Deciduous teeth as a Factor Early Childhood Cancer. International Journal of Health Services, 30: 515-539, 2000'''

Summary; "This article describes findings of a high correlation between rising and declining Sr-90 concentrations in children and the number of newly reported leukemia and cancer rates in Suffolk County, Long Island"

'''Busby, C., Berets, R., Schmitz-Feuerhake, I., Cato, M. and Vablokov, A. 2003 Recommendations of the ECRR. The Health Effects of Ionising Radiation Exposure to Low Doses for Radiation Protection Purposes. Green Audit Press, Castle Cottage, Aberystwyth, 5V 23 IDZ UK.'''

Summary; "A 186 page report by a non-government group of independent scientists that documents the recent evidence that low dose internal exposures by radioactive chemicals released be nuclear detonations and nuclear reactors have been a major factor in the recent cancer epidemic."

[|title=Silent Storm] Summary; Silent Storm is a documentary funded by the Australian government and broadcast on its own TV company. It documents the history of Hedley Marston, one of Australian's most reknowned biologists who raised serious concerns about Leukemia and Strontium-90. He ran the British governments official checks of patterns of fall out (while working at the [[Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation]) from their nuclear tests in Australia and found that across the continent Strotium-90 had contaminated the bones of basically everyone. Similar studies performed in the US have shown that those with higher concentrations were twice as likely to die of cancer before the age of 50.

[] Time Magazine Article Summary as I explained; Shows that the knowledge of Strotium-90's direct connection with leukemia had been established as early as 1957 (eg. that there is no debate about it causing leukemia).

[] US Environmental Protection Agency "Large amounts of Sr-90 were produced during atmospheric nuclear weapons tests conducted in the 1950s and 1960s and dispersed worldwide." "Thus, strontium-90 is referred to as a "bone seeker." Internal exposure to Sr-90 is linked to bone cancer, cancer of the soft tissue near the bone, and leukemia."

[] For when you run out of reading

As a summary of these sources I would like to point out that I am citing Nobel Prize winners in their relevant fields, US Presidents, US EPA, The Australian Federal Government, Caltech, CSIRO, Various NGO's and the concerns of the USSR. Their conclusions are roughly that large amounts of leukemia were caused world wide by Strontium-90 during the period of increased atmospheric nuclear weapons and that this was a good enough reason to stop atmospheric testing altogether. The initial conservative estimates using calculations that were peer reviewed were that 1,000 people a year in the USA would get Leukemia because of the nuclear tests. Furthermore, since this is a by-product of fission this is an ongoing health concern since other countries continue nuclear testing (France, India, Pakistan, North Korea). Nuclear energy accidents like Chernobyl and Long Island have been directly linked to leukemia and indirectly linked to massive increases in cases across their primary paths of contamination. On top of that the cases of those 'professionally' killed by radiological isotopes are demonstratable and well researched.

I do not believe that thousands of deaths world wide, Nobel Prizes and major reversals of international policy constitute 'undue weight' in an article of the disease that causes these deaths. Or isn't it?
 * Let's take a step back here. We already note in our article that ionizing radiation (which in this case includes Sr-90) can cause leukemia. Why are we singling out this one particular source of radiation for an entire paragraph? This is why I asked for a secondary source that places Sr-90 in context of other causes of leukemia (including radiation sources) - that would allow us to see how much weight we should give in this article. None of the sources above are such a secondary source that places this particular cause of leukemia in context to others. Yobol (talk) 03:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thats a fair point. In medical articles though, if more detail is available such as a more detailed understanding of the mechanism by which disease occurs isn't that relevant? In the case of sr-90 we have the descriptions of how it is similar to Calcium and seeks bones. But the mentions of ionising radiation (if I recall correctly) only mention them as a general cause. That seems akin to stating just that a toaster is known as a cause of toasted bread but failing to describe the mechanism by which the bread arrives at its toasted state. I guess in the case of radiation (and other causes) the article on cancer probably mentions the role they play in damaging genetic material (to spawn cancer) so thats not relevant specifically to leukemia. Also are historically significant causes not relevant to a causes section? Perhaps a history section is more relevant as in the case of the Bubonic Plague's mention of rat borne fleas.
 * And back to detailed understanding; the mechanism by which Sr-90 causes Leukemia seems to my laymans understanding better understood then general ionising radiation and that it in fact is more likely (smaller measurements of radiation are more dangerous) since the radiation source is in the bones as opposed to external. Is it verging on wiki HowTo to comment on how to avoid disease? It seems this argument is not universally adhered to in medical articles, many of which mention basic precautions against disease through their causes sections. To me it seems strange when major goverments federal governments mention this specific isotype in relation to this disease but WP doesn't. Don't get me wrong though, I'm not trying to be combative, I just want to understand your and the other users justification for reverting my edit so that I can become a better WP editor.--Senor Freebie (talk) 04:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've always found that when in doubt, let the sources tell us what weight to use; if secondary sources mention Sr-90 specifically as a notable source when compared to other causes of leukemia, by all means, let's include it. I'd have to see more (and better) sources, that place Sr-90 in context to other causes to determine the weight.  We aren't here to get into details about all causes of leukemia, but to detail important ones as noted by secondary sources.  The sources you have noted appear to be more appropriate for the Sr-90 article, than the article on leukemia. Yobol (talk) 04:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not a reliable source, and this has never particularly caught my interest, but let me tell you what I (think I) remember:
 * Ionizing radiation is associated with ALL, AML, and CML, but not CLL.
 * Most radiation-induced leukemias these days are caused by medical radiation (primarily to treat previous cancers).
 * Radiation related to nuclear testing is not a significant source of radiation exposure these days. You'd get more radiation from a single CT scan.
 * Low-dose radiation (like this) has a fairly low risk of causing leukemia. I think it's something on the order of if you gave 100 people 100 years' worth of radiation, you might get one extra case of leukemia (some time in the next ten or so years)–and then again, you might not.  High-dose radiation seems more likely to produce leukemia, but even then, the overwhelming majority of people won't get leukemia.
 * There've been studies about leukemia clusters around nuclear power plants, but none of them really panned out, or the risk increase was tiny (like a 10% increase of an unlikely event, whereas tobacco smoking is a 3,000% increase on a moderately likely event) (within the limits of my knowledge). Similarly, there were concerns about leukemia after the Chernobyl disaster, but nobody found any big changes.
 * So my feeling—like Yobol says, something that really ought to be settled by finding a good source—is that radiation isn't a major cause (although important to mention, especially because of the historical issues), and it isn't a cause at all for one of the most common types of leukemia, so therefore a single, less-common source of radiation might not be important enough to name.
 * I'd like to find a good source some day that says something like "X% of leukemias worldwide can be attributed to radiation, and X% by benzene, and the other causes (probably >90%) are unknown." WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair points, both of you. So if I find a study, not a report of a study, that shows a % then it is relevant to causes. If not it is just discussed as a cause. Thats a pretty decent interpretation. On the notes above though:

You mention that medically induced radiation is unlikely to cause any or many deaths. This is probably a historical issue as it was part of the evidence collated against nuclear tests, but radiologists were something like 100 times more likely to get Leukemia in the 1950's. I'm sure practices are better now though.
 * Also, neither of you commented on the contention in most of these sources that there is a direct, known mechanism for Leukemia through Sr-90. The numbers of deaths / numbers of medically significant cases may be unknown or minimal but isn't that in itself relevant as a 'known cause' or is this where you feel the undue weight issue comes in?--Senor Freebie (talk) 05:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Just thought I'd drop this into the debate; [|Nuclear Regulatory Commision on Tooth Fairy]. From the sounds of it they are still spouting the same crap they were spouting in the 50's and 60's about there being acceptable levels of something like Strontium. They seem to be measuring it against background radiation etc. when this is not a good way to compare since Strontium is near permanent once ingested and the consensus is that risk of cancer from radiation progresses in a linear fashion vs. the contamination. Not only this, but they seem to try to say that you need 1,000 times the background level to 'cause cancer' by flippantly mentioning a study that reproduced cancer (I suspect the study that covers the creation of cancer in lab animals). This is all contradicted by the EPA's very serious warnings about Strontium contamination.--Senor Freebie (talk) 05:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * A source that has data showing the correlation between leukemia & sr-90; http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/krubin/GG425/Lect44.pdf

--Senor Freebie (talk) 06:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * [|Major study] Incidents of Cancer went to their highest level during 62-64. Cases per 100,000 were above 20% during this period. After the test ban treaty incidents per 100,000 dropped to 14%, still 2% higher then pre-test levels. The secondary sources seem to be pointing to ongoing use of nuclear power / weapons / accidents as the reason they levels have not dropped right back down and this is completely in line with the linear interpretation of radiations affects on cells.--Senor Freebie (talk) 06:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The US governments official estimate is that 15,000 died from nuclear testing. The study mentioned above notes that a 2% increase in cancer rates would result in 1.5 million additional cancer cases. A reminder, the rate of cancer increased temporarily during testing by 8% and remained 2% above pre-test levels due to continued contamination.--Senor Freebie (talk) 06:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Studies that mention "cancer" in general are inappropriate for this page. Yobol (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Some of this might be usable for a history section. An appropriate summary would be something similar to, "In the 1950s and 1960s, a small increase leukemia rates was attributed to increased radiation from use and testing of nuclear weapons."
 * Overall, this is starting to remind me of the breastfeeding debate. Supposedly (on limited evidence), breastfeeding reduces the incidence of leukemia in children.  What the proponents "forget" to mention is that you'd have to breastfeed about four million babies to prevent a single case of childhood leukemia.  IMO, the most important message in this section is that the cause for the vast majority of cases is completely unknown.
 * I agree that Strontium is a source of radiation, and therefore it is a cause of (a tiny fraction of) leukemia cases. However, I'm still not seeing anything that says Strontium is an important cause—that it causes more radiation-induced leukemia cases than, say, X-rays or radiation to treat breast solid tumors.  Why should Strontium be called out by name, when none of the other sources of radiation are?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that comes down to its particular and well documented relationship with Leukemia. A - because it is widely dispersed, B - because it is easy to measure, C - because it has a half-life that gives it time to cause cancer unlike a lot of other fission products, D - because it has a known mechanism to cause cancer that is more medically significant then external radiation.
 * Also, let me remind you that I've already provided reference to secondary sources of studies that showed doubling (or more) of the leukemia rate during the period of extensive atmospheric tests. Some of this evidence was considered serious enough / useful enough by the New Zealand and Australian governments to actually use at the Hague in an attempt to prevent France from nuclear tests in the Pacific. The relationship between the increases in Sr-90 in the atmosphere and in teeth both correlate in different studies to a rough doubling of the risk for Leukemia in some places (such as Australia) and an 70% increase in the US. That would make it the most significant historically known cause. Additionally, while modern nuclear facilities are far better run and nuclear tests are very rare there is still more Strontium in the atmosphere and this correlates with the continued higher rate of Leukemia vs. the flat rate in the 1940's. It seems a bit disingenous to say a doubling is not more significant or that the best understood (and acted on) cause of Leukemia is not worth mentioning.--Senor Freebie (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What we need is WP:MEDRS compliant source(s) that ties Sr-90 directly to leukemia and explains in the context of other causes of leukemia why Sr-90 is so important that it is to be singled out specifically to be mentioned in this article. Maybe I missed where you presented such a source, but I do not see it yet.  At this point, we're just hand-waving as to how significant Sr-90 is in context to other causes, we need to have sources that show us how important it is to include it. I also agree that the sources as provided might be appropriate for a "history" section worth a sentence or so. Yobol (talk) 00:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Let me emphasize that my goal for the ==Causes== is to present current information. Something that had a significant effect half a century ago is not important for people who want to know about now.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * What would you consider a significant effect now? Do the cases still occuring amongst the population with decayed Strontium count as current? Do waste or other accidents count as significant? Would a separate article, linked to in this one be better such as introducing this information into the Nuclear test ban treaty article? What about current research underway into high voltage power line caused low frequency EM radiation? That seems more insignificant but of course more current. I will look into WP:MEDRS ... I'm not so familiar with medical sources.--Senor Freebie (talk) 07:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Should I be using the Reliable Sources Noticeboard or this discussion page to discuss sources?
 * Two of the studies I've already linked to directly (as well as referenced with secondary sources) are on PubMed, the Medical Journal search engine WP:MEDRS recommends. Neither study has seen criticism, other then it seems administrative stuff or that they didn't cover the subject broadly enough. Both studies are of teeth or bones from people who were alive during the tests. Here is an exert from the abstracts of some sources:


 * Elevated in vivo strontium-90 from nuclear weapons test fallout among cancer decedents One that I already mentioned;
 * This discovery suggests that many thousands have died or will die of cancer due to exposure to fallout, far more than previously believed.
 * A perspective on public concerns about exposure to fallout A new, (I think) secondary source discussing current implications
 * We conclude by noting that many individuals exposed in childhood during the 1950's to 131I in fallout from nuclear weapons production and testing would qualify for compensation and medical care if the present rules for the adjudication of claims for atomic veterans and radiation workers at DOE sites were to be extended to the public.
 * Childhood leukaemia, nuclear sites, and population mixing
 * Summary; The most plausable scenario for increased Leukemia amongst primarily incoming children (to the areas) was the nuclear reprocessing centres at 2 locations in Britain and one location in France were responsible, not the neighbouring nuclear plants.
 * Taking a break now... might last the whole weekend — Preceding unsigned comment added by Senor Freebie (talk • contribs)


 * No rush: WP:There is no deadline.  I've fixed the formatting on your links (so they'll work when people click on them) and will read them later.
 * As a quick answer, IMO something that is known to cause (at the "no reasonable doubt among experts" level) at least 5% of current leukemia cases would certainly be worth mentioning by name in the ==Causes== section.
 * Also, you might like to read Radiation and Public Health Project (the "Tooth Fairy Project" folks). One of the challenges with radiation-related research is that you can find someone to hold any position you happen to want to believe, from beneficial to instantly deadly.  That's why it's important to look over a lot of work and mainstream summaries of work.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a quick comment, I'm pretty sure there is 3 groups of 'tooth fairy' people. There is a modern community like group that asks for teeth near reactors and a group in Australia and the USA that was funded variously by a university / government and had access to teeth from the 60's.--Senor Freebie (talk) 14:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Stats
Someone added unsourced numbers to the lead the other day. This WHO publication:



offers worldwide stats for 2004; it reports 375,000 cases per year (25K more than the claimed 2008 stats). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Update
This article should be updated to reflect the new therapy of genetically modified t cells, seriel killer cells, as a treatment for leukemia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.94.129.89 (talk) 19:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I have added a new section under Treatment. Others are welcome to edit my addition. I just wanted to get the information added. I tried to do so in an appropriate manner. I added a new section to this talk page before I noticed this one. Douglas.hawkes (talk) 04:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

New Cure is so far successful
I am going to include a short mention of a new finding regarding treatment by a new gene therapy that has seen some success for early tests. The link is here: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-20091135-10391704.html Douglas.hawkes (talk) 03:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

"Younger patients tend to live longer, as older patients aren't expected to live quite as long."
This just reads to me as being silly. Can someone fix it? 72.201.74.103 (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Survival
Even when a complete cure is unlikely, most people with a chronic leukemia and many people with an acute leukemia can be successfully treated for years.

We don't usually spam citations into the lead of an article, but since someone is interested in the question, the answer is that survival depends on the particular type of leukemia. The range runs approximately from things like the acute-subtype of acute T-cell leukemia or T-cell prolymphocytic leukemia (just months) to things like hairy cell leukemia or CML on Gleevec, which have essentially normal lifespan. Among children with the most common type (ALL), about 90% reach the five-year survival mark, and most of those are permanently cured. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I think this article should be semi-protected as I believe it may be subject to minor vandalism due to the subject of the article and that edits may confuse those who read it, hope you agree (User:AH999) 20:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you're looking for WP:RPP (requests for page protection, I think I got the shortcut right) :) It's a Fox! (What did I break) 20:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

New bullet point under Treatment - Acute lymphoblastic
Hi,

This is the first time I have done this so apologies if I haven't followed the right process. I came across some new treatment information for ALL and think it should be added as a bullet point:

•	The minimal residual disease (MRD) test to identify the intensity of treatment needed for children. The test is given to all children diagnosed with ALL under the NHS as part of their treatment. The test is able to predict how well children with ALL are likely to respond to treatment by detecting leukaemia cells in the blood to an accuracy of 1 in 10,000 cells. The MRD test enables doctors to decrease or increase the intensity of the treatment according to each child’s needs.

My source is : http://leukaemialymphomaresearch.org.uk/research/achievements/improving-outlook-children

Are people happy for me to make this change? Do you have any advice or feedback on this? JNevil (talk) 11:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You need to summary it in your own words. Also would recommended a better quality secondary source per WP:MEDRS. Pubmed can be useful to help find review articles from the last 5 years. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:16, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Are leukemia's tumors?
This ref says yes. This ref supports the naming of the group as a whole. This dictionary also supports "liquid tumor" as does this textbook   Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:06, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * While tumor was historically used to mean any mass now it is used to mean any neoplasm by the World Health Organization. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:10, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "Tumor" means something close to "lump". When an agency decides to redefine the term so that it's unrecognizable, then using the "official" term instead of the intelligible one is just going to confuse the readers.  I don't want people to read the first paragraph of the lead (which is all that many read) and come away with the impression that leukemia involves lumps, and that's a very real risk with using the new "official" terminology in this particular case.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay we can use neoplasm instead. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:26, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Just happened to see this... Fwiw, when the WHO periodically goes about revising its leukemia classification to incorporate recently acquired knowledge, I don't think questions about how the word "tumor" is employed even show up at all on the radar. And I think that sort of 'update' need not worry us either. Agree that, in general, our priorities should be to choose term/s that are a) correct, and b) as plain as possible to our general readership. 109.157.86.177 (talk) 19:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

No 'Management' Section
Hi, I am with the Center to Advance Palliative Care (CAPC) at Mount Sinai in New York. I feel a section that briefly details the importance of palliative care in leukemia management should be added. However, it seems there is no 'Management' section. The only relevent section is titled 'treatment' and focuses solely on disease types. Most cancer-related articles include a 'Management' section. Perhaps one could be added for Leukemia as well. Thanks Mmersenne (talk) 13:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, good idea. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 14:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "Management" and "Treatment" sections are the same thing. The difference is mostly about whether we are talking about chronic or acute diseases (diabetes mellitus gets "managed"; strep throat gets "treated").  I've been thinking about seriously shortening that section, to remove the detail and focus more explicitly on the variety.  So, for example, we could say that treating ALL in babies might involve as little as a single round of drugs, but that in adults, it could involve more than a year of drugs and radiation; that some (like AML) get treated immediately and that others (CLL) might not require treatment at the time of diagnosis; that some use bone marrow transplants regularly, and others use it rarely or never.  It would be much easier to add information about palliative care into a section structured this way.  What do you think?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:13, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Leukemia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100405215530/http://www.cancer.org:80/docroot/cri/content/cri_2_4_3x_how_is_leukemia_diagnosed_62.asp to http://www.cancer.org/docroot/cri/content/cri_2_4_3x_how_is_leukemia_diagnosed_62.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090125041058/http://www.jmmlfoundation.org:80/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=8/ to http://www.jmmlfoundation.org/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=8/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

UK/American English
Why does the article begin with "Leukemia (American English) or leukaemia (British English)"?

WP:ARTCON says we should use only one variety of English within articles. Any reason for not changing it? --Nbauman (talk) 04:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Have simplified. Usually we state spelling variations once. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 12:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Environmental Triggers based on New Evidence
The following studies need to be incorporated into the article so people can be made aware of environmental triggers that can augment any genetic risks for leukemia.

Glyphosate Exposure -

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Glyphosate_and_Cancer.php

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1253709/


 * The first "study" you referenced is on a website run by Mae-Wan Ho who has embraced pseudoscience (including ideas like water memory) and the website is listed on Quackwatch. The second study you list is a cohort study which showed no causation or correlation between glyphosate and leukemia. In fact, there was only a "suggested association" (not correlation or causation) between glyphosate and multiple myeloma in a very small number of subjects (n = 19) which means nothing except other studies should be done. The study concluded: "Glyphosate exposure was not associated with cancer incidence overall or with most of the cancer subtypes we studied. There was a suggested association with multiple myeloma incidence that should be followed up as more cases occur in the AHS."


 * So, why should either be included in an article about leukemia, when one "study" is located on a website listed on Quackwatch and the other showed absolutely no association, correlation, let alone causation between glyphosate and leukemia? Supertheman  ( talk  ) 05:39, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Research directions -> gene therapy
This reference (or another similar one) should be added: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/30/health/gene-therapy-cancer.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibaldo (talk • contribs) 03:31, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

https://therenegadepharmacist.com/sauna-exposed/

86.168.32.240 (talk) 19:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC)