Talk:Management of prostate cancer

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Management of prostate cancer. [...] I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110503081607/http://www.cancer.gov:80/ncicancerbulletin/041911/page2 to http://www.cancer.gov/ncicancerbulletin/041911/page2

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:01, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

No research section eg for bipolar androgen therapy
prostate cancer has a Research section but perhaps some of it should be moved here - then can mention bipolar androgen therapy


 * Effect of bipolar androgen therapy for asymptomatic men with castration-resistant prostate cancer: Results from a pilot clinical study


 * Bipolar androgen therapy: the rationale for rapid cycling of supraphysiologic androgen/ablation in men with castration resistant prostate cancer.


 * 'Bipolar' Therapy: New Twist in Advanced Prostate Cancer


 * - Rod57 (talk) 17:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Management of prostate cancer. Please take a moment to review my edit. ... I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090329104050/http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5334181.html to http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5334181.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:10, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Management of prostate cancer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080924173131/http://www.preventprostatecancer.info/Articles/files/5e098219e5c93597247a2f997a4c677f-1.html to http://www.preventprostatecancer.info/Articles/files/5e098219e5c93597247a2f997a4c677f-1.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090715235040/http://www.rtanswers.com/treatment/disease/prostate_cancer.htm to http://www.rtanswers.com/treatment/disease/prostate_cancer.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:35, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Could have a section on advanced/metastatic PC
Needs more on metastatic PC (75% of article seems to be about dealing with the primary tumour) - then can also cover castration-resistant PC (when the antiandrogens fail). At the moment there is more in the management summary in prostate cancer on CRPC than here. Also : the FDA has just approved the first treatment for non-metastatic CRPC FDA approves Erleada, first treatment for prostate cancer subtype Feb 2018 - Somewhere it should say what fractions become metastatic before/after becoming castration resistant. Are there published flowcharts or state diagrams showing typical progression/treatment paths/sequences for patients ? - Rod57 (talk) 13:36, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Alternative therapies: unproven claims
This section seems to contain only unproven claims and should be clearer about that. Pomegrate juice for instance was demonstrated *not* to work in a follow-up study (need to look it up). Lowering PSA by itself does not mean anything. The link proposing benefits of neutron therapy is from 2000, relatively little was known then. Biker333 (talk) 10:18, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Cochrane review information
I added a paragraph to the section on hormone therapy with results from a Cochrane review article comparing the impacts of early versus late hormone therapy for men with advanced prostate cancer. --Gsom12812 (talk) 15:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I added a short paragraph to the cryosurgery section about the potential impacts of cryosurgery compared with radiation treatment. This information comes from a Cochrane review.--Gsom12812 (talk) 14:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Additions from three Cochrane reviews: - Added a section on hypofractionation as a form of radiation treatment - Inserted a comparison of MRI, biopsy and ultrasound for diagnosing prostate cancer - Added a paragraph on the impact of different regularities of medication on penile rehabilitation after prostatectomy surgery --Gsom12812 (talk) 16:13, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Inserted a section on chemohormonal therapy with information from a Cochrane review about the potential impact of combining chemotherapy with hormone therapy in treating prostate cancer --Gsom12812 (talk) 16:38, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

As a part of the Cochrane-Wikipedia project, I added a few sentences to the section on Extensive disease comparing different bone-modifying agents to prevent skeletal complications from metastatic bone cancer. --Gsom12812 (talk) 15:04, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Added information comparing early and late hormonal treatment for men with advanced prostate cancer. I also added two sentences about the impact of combining abiraterone acetate with other hormonal therapy. --Gsom12812 (talk) 18:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Added information from a recent review comparing radical prostatectomy with other common treatments for localized prostate cancer. --Gsom12812 (talk) 23:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It is terrific to see new editors here on Wikipedia, especially much needed experts who are willing to volunteer and can use their expertise to help improve what is presently shared. I noticed that this article is also flagged as needing more sources. Please note, there is usually no need to provide review details (i.e., "A 2018 Cochrane Review found that..." in a Wikipedia article. If people want more info they can read the full text (or abstract) via the linked citation. If you have any questions about the re-write suggestion for Cryosurgery as an example of an approach to integrate new evidence and improve the readability of the article please let me know. JenOttawa (talk) 23:44, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your helpful feedback! I've changed the relevant sections (Cryosurgery, Extensive disease) to reduce the excess information. Gsom12812 (talk) 00:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. It looks terrific. I made a few small copy edits. What happend to reference #13? I can look in the archive. JenOttawa (talk) 00:11, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Added info comparing the impact of two types of RALP procedures on continence for a year after surgery. --Gsom12812 (talk) 23:48, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The Management of prostate cancer section is very outdated. We avoid the use of the terms "recently" in the text and this is a good example of why! A previous editor stated a "recent" finding and it is a 2009 primary source. If you have any suggestions to improve this section that would be great!JenOttawa (talk) 02:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Reversal of edits
One of the editors removed over 6000 characters of edits that were done by one of our editors from the Cochrane-Wikipedia Initiative. While I understand that there are concerns regarding plagiarism (similar writing), these could be solved by editing and not deleting the entire information available. This will be done by us to prevent future deletions. --Jvaf85 (talk) 20:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * talk page posts go at the bottom of the page. Please review WP:COPYVIO and the posts regarding the edits by at Talk:Prostate cancer.  Copyvio is a serious matter, and if Cochrane wants to release the rights to their publications to Wikipedia, they will need to write to them to explicitly do that.  Independently, there are other problems with some of these edits (which I have explained repeatedly over the years to the Cochrane editors).  Separately, because I was able to remove the initial copyvio quickly, and anticipated a positive response, I had not reported this issue to WP:CCI; now that you have edit warred to reinstate copyvio, we will need an admin to look into removing the edits.   for review of all edits by Jvaf85 and Gsom12812; with apologies for the brevity of this message, as my computer is in repair and I am typing from an iPad.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  20:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand your worries and I think it's great that you'll look into WP:COPYVIO. The Cochrane-Wikipedia initiative works with the abstract and plain language summaries and we instruct our editors to summarize the findings and rewrite them accordingly, but sometimes this does not go as planned. I've also identified the problem with the references (the protocol is cited instead of the review, this is a problem related to Cochrane's DOI ending). I think all of this can be improved. I do hope we can find a way to improve the contents following the rules. I do not think that an inquiry is necessary as we do not have any intention of violating Copyright, though. And while they might need revising, it is not the same as removing.--Jvaf85 (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I am glad you have located the problem that led to using dated versions of the reviews, as tracking down the correct review created a lot of extra work. But there are other issues as well, and it is becoming frustrating that I have now explained these problems to half a dozen editors working on behalf of Cochrane, over many years, and I wish you could find a way to improve your training.   First, it is not reasonable to expect other editors to correct COPYVIO by editing, when that is a serious matter, and when it is occurring across multiple articles along with other issues.  You may not realize that those edits need to be removed from article history, and an admin is required to perform those revision deletions.  Other persistent problems are over describing the studies rather than just stating the results (sample here) in what begins to look like publicity for Cochrane rather than meaningful contributions to the article.  An additional problem is a failure to recognize and understand summary style; that is, when management of prostate cancer exists, it is not helpful to add extraneous detail to the main article, prostate cancer.  Tighter summaries of the results would be appreciated.  And, please review WP:CITEVAR; if editors are going to be working across many articles they should know Wikipedia guidelines, and yet I have had to repeatedly point out the kinds of corrections that others have to make to all of the Cochrane edits.  Because there is a years-long pattern here, it would be helpful if you could improve the training.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  22:30, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * are you able to lend a hand regarding the recurring nature of these issues (that is, I seem to keep having to train up Cochrane people, and it is becoming repetitive). Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  22:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your thorough response. I'm personally reviewing all the edits made by Grace and correcting the citation and revising possible problems related to copyright. We do try to avoid the description of the research and we limit it to the number of studies/patients since in some cases it's only one small study and it helps for a lay reader to understand that is not a large body of research. I also appreciate your feedback on the multiple references to the same research, I think that I will remove the mentions of the details of the treatment in the "prostate cancer" page and limit it to "management of prostate cancer". I do point out that a full description of treatments was pre-existent and we wanted to bring a balanced view of the benefits and harms, but it might be necessary to edit the rest for consistency too. This is a long-term project and we are all learning so all the feedback is much appreciated.--Jvaf85 (talk) 23:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, this (for training) in addition to missing PMIDs ... Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  02:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for flagging me here. It is great to see new volunteers engaging on the talk pages and here to work together and make the articles better. I cannot see the copyright errors (as they have been erased), but if there is a vio I agree with Sandy. I too agree that the paraphrased conclusions of any published secondary source should be incorporated into the exisiting text along with an effort to pull in other high quality sources and improve the whole section (as appropriate). Regarding the citation style, most editors learn using the tools provided in the Wikipedia editor (the "cite" button in the virtual and source based editor as shown in WP:MEDHOW). For featured articles, I have now been using a separate website to generate the references for featured articles, however I do not feel that Wikipedia volunteers should be discouraged from contributing to non-featured articles for this reason. If the regular cite tool is no longer working, maybe we can get some help with it. Is there still a bot that addes PMIDs if they are missing? I seem to remember this but quite a while ago. Thanks again. JenOttawa (talk) 23:57, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, this (for training) in addition to missing PMIDs ... Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  02:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for flagging me here. It is great to see new volunteers engaging on the talk pages and here to work together and make the articles better. I cannot see the copyright errors (as they have been erased), but if there is a vio I agree with Sandy. I too agree that the paraphrased conclusions of any published secondary source should be incorporated into the exisiting text along with an effort to pull in other high quality sources and improve the whole section (as appropriate). Regarding the citation style, most editors learn using the tools provided in the Wikipedia editor (the "cite" button in the virtual and source based editor as shown in WP:MEDHOW). For featured articles, I have now been using a separate website to generate the references for featured articles, however I do not feel that Wikipedia volunteers should be discouraged from contributing to non-featured articles for this reason. If the regular cite tool is no longer working, maybe we can get some help with it. Is there still a bot that addes PMIDs if they are missing? I seem to remember this but quite a while ago. Thanks again. JenOttawa (talk) 23:57, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Technical and Scientific Communication
— Assignment last updated by Vdanquah (talk) 15:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)