Talk:Skin cancer/Archive 1

Imunocompromised
something should be said about risk increasing in imunocompromised or those with organ (kidney, heart, etc) transplants. ie: ref here: http://treatmentofskincancer.com/?p=16 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.116.75.228 (talk) 01:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Skin Neoplasm??
I saw the change of page header from skin cancer to skin neoplasm is this the result of a discussion somewhere that I've missed out on, or is this one editors' Bold opinion that something needed to be done? I'd definitely be ok with it if it were a discussion I didn't find; but if this is a single person's opinion, I have the feeling that this might be something that should be discussed. Just my $0.02. Theturtlehermit (talk) 04:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Promising Alternative Treatment
I would like to see an Alternative Treatments section added which references but does not define items such as the very successful use of Baking Soda to treat skincancer. Instead of just representing the closed shop of medical/pharmaceutical/prescription. OzMick (talk) 23:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Headline text
'Bold text'' There are many types of cancer out there. Perhaps it would be good to standardize them with the format: Cancer, (skin) ? --ShaunMacPherson 23:17, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * See the nice list on Cancer. This page gives an overview of the three common skin malignancies; lung cancer explains the 4 major lung neoplasms etc. JFW | T@lk  00:28, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why is there a link to an acne-treatment site at the bottom? ~Van

Source Needed
On 19:15, 3 July 2005 67.150.35.122 added this sentence: "The chance of getting skin cancer doubles every time a person gets a suntan or sunburn."

This seems intuatively wrong to me, and without a source to back it up, I'd remove it. Please add the source or remove it. Bak

Frequency
I added that one of three US cancers is skin cancer. Source: http://www.skincancer.org/basal/index.php Skin Cancer Foundation. Carax 03:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I LOVE THE SUN :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.207.239.19 (talk) 11:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Prevalence among skin type?
Any information on whether or not skin color/lightness/darkness changes the risk involved? - Liontamer 18:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

sunscreen offers no protection??
The Prevalence chapter begins saying: Skin cancer is an increasingly common condition, in part attributed to increased exposure to ultraviolet radiation, against which no level of sun screens offer any decisive protection. and then later in the same paragraph it says that sunscreen is effective at blocking radiation. What is the point of that "against which no level..." clause? Should it be deleted? or is it trying to say something else, and should be clarified? or does it make sense, and I'm the moron? Derekt75 02:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Good point. I deleted it because sun screen does offer effective protection.  It is true than no sun screen blocks all UVB but that is not really relevant. Will Blake 00:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The current wording "Cancers caused by UV exposure may be prevented by ... using a broad-spectrum sun screen." is not substantiated. See the article on sunscreen for a discussion of its effectiveness in preventing skin cancer. Julesd 11:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Melanoma and UV / Contradiction
If "there is absolutely no proven data that links moderate sun exposure with the appearance of melanoma", how can "reducing exposure to ultraviolet (UV) radiation" have any preventive effect (on those with moderate sun exposure)?

Dark-skinned people?
I am missing information in this article about the actual protective qualities of dark skin, esp. in black people. Recently, Fox News had a News Extra about the health risks for black people not putting on any sun protection, because it is a wide misconception that their dark skin offers them natural immunity from skin cancer. This has confused me as to what degree dark skin / raised melanin levels actually protects people from this disease. Further information on this matter will be much appreciated! --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. 03:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I read about a scale of how long you could stay out in the sun- 1 was the whitest skinned, fairest blonde sort of person, and it went up to 5 or 6 as the darkest of black people, they gave an example but I can't remember who. The idea was that for every "point," you could stay completely unprotected in direct sun for 15 minutes without burning/tanning. so the blonde person had 15 minutes, a 5-point person had an hour and 15 minutes. This was some time back in some 3-2-1 Contact kind of educational kids' magazine, but it's probably a good mental reference point. Cantras 20:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

In my 15 years of practicing medicine and dermatology, I've seen only 3 cases of skin cancers in African American, 5 cases in Asians, 1 case in latin american - and thousands of cases in caucasian. I thin it is not a misconception that dark skin offers natural immunity to skin cancer - it is an accepted fact. Despite these facts, we still have to advise dark skinned individuals to examine themselves for skin cancers - especially on the foot and toes, near the genitalia, and the fingers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.219.108 (talk) 03:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC) Is there any way that you could add the statistics of people with skin cancer to show what there race/ethnicity is so that we could see which races were at highest risk, and where on the planet their at risk the most? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.4.54.33 (talk) 18:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism
This article has suffered a lot of vandalism over the last few days, and most of the reverts didn't go back far enough. I've reverted to the last version by Dina on 16 October. —Captaindan 18:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know why but this page is still getting an awful lot of vandalism.Lipperman 16:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, is vandalism why this page doesn't have an image or nobody provided one yet? Prottos007 (talk) 22:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

First line
The first line reads "Skin cancer is a malignant growth on the teeth...", but not in the "edit this page".

This is a serious topic, why are people doing this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.98.240.60 (talk) 17:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

My best guess is because wikipedia is a joke.

Wikipedia stinks. Armyrifle 19:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Controversy
This incident appears to be accurate but I would question the initial sentence that 'There is a lot of controversy in the medical community' over this issue. Lipperman 13:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have added the unreferenced template back to this section since the linked article makes no mention of anyone disputing the role of sunlight in causing skin cancer. I would also question whether any controversy over the role of sunlight for vitamin D production is relevant to this page. Lipperman 01:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Average Age??
I don't know if there is any information about it out there somewhere or not, but I'm curious as to what the average age of someone is at the time of diagnosis. Theturtlehermit 08:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * My grandfather was about 76 when he got his skin cancer. Of course, my dad's cousin's wife was about 40, so there really is no "average" age; I'd guess it's around 40 to 80.

Sun exposure
So, this article is saying that we should avoid any sun exposure at all at all costs and stay indoors all the time and never go outside?? Scorpionman 02:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I think a section on the benefits of sun exposure as well as the danger should be added, this article is extremely unbalanced and moderate sun exposure is extremely important for prevention of osteoporosis and other vitamin d related conditions. Supercat23 (talk) 17:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Time discrepancy
The risk factors section says 10am - 4pm, yet the reduction of risk section says 10am - 3pm, which is correct? Buzybeez 20:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Both, it just means that 3pm-4pm has biggest risk. singned, helpa

ways to reduce risk
when the sun is highest in the sky??

the sun isn't any higher in the sky at noon than it is at 8AM or 6PM...

i recommend "when the sun's rays are most direct". c'mon people.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.20.24.144 (talk) 17:09, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Globalize/US
I tagged it with this template because the article only cites examples from a US perspective. No other country is represented in the examples given. Other non-US perspectives are needed. Some examples of other perspectives that are not mentioned: the chance of getting skin cancer is higher in Australia than in any other country; the incidence of skin cancer is rising in a number of countries. -- B.D.Mills  (T, C) 00:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Excellent point. I've added some stats for Australia, UK, and global. I'd like to find more. Healthcheck22 (talk) 16:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Many statements, such as the one in the opening paragraph that 'only a minority of people die of skin cancer in comparison with other cancers' could simply be rectified with the additional point "in developed countries". The tag probably then be removed. --Tomsega (talk) 14:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Citation needed
It seems to me that there are a lot of questionable statements in the article. Maybe we should just remove them? Theemianworm (talk) 22:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)TheemianwormTheemianworm (talk) 22:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I want to tell you that reference 12 is broken. It gives a 'Sorry, the page you requested was not found' error. Anyone knows another location of the article it belonged too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.88.95.238 (talk) 20:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

50 what?
"use SPF sun block of at least 50+"

50 degrees fahrenheit? NO!!! 50+ SPF protection


 * SPF 50, SPF is an abriviation for Sun Protection Factor, its what the sunblocks and tanning lotions sell themselves buy, it is a industry regulated system (I believe). It does not need a conversion factor because it is a universal figure. (see Sunscreen for more information.)  I have changed the wording to make it easier to understand. Theturtlehermit (talk) 01:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Sunscreen
Is it really necessary to spam every mention of sun exposure with (DON'T USE SUNSCREEN see Sunscreens and Cancer by Hans R Larsen) ? Especially since the linked article doesn't say not to use sunscreen, it says not to rely on it to prevent skin cancer. The first paragraph mentions and links to this article, and it is unnecessary to keep repeating it every time sunscreen is mentioned or implied. Clearly Gerriet42 feels strongly about this, so I hesitate to wade in and remove the links, but I feel that they are excessive and misleading. Slothie (talk) 10:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I touched it up a little bit the other day before I saw your comment. Well put. -- Swerdnaneb 07:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

This desperately needs a comma, but where?
The following sentence in the article needs a comma - "In the case of disease that has spread (metastasized) further surgical or chemotherapy may be required". But where? Is the sentence specifying "after the cancer has spread", or "after the cancer has spread further"? Depending on the answer to that question, a comma is needed either after the word "metastasized", or after the word "further". Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 19:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Treatments
To this section should be added: A new treatment now approved in Australia is a topical cream, applied to the non-melanoma skin cancers, which kills all the cancer cells in a few weeks. Developed by Dr. Bill Cham and fully documented in his new book, The Eggplant Cancer Cure [#] Jmorgen4 (talk) 13:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Dr. Bill Cham, The Eggplant Cancer Cure, Smart Publications, http://www.smart-publications.com/books/EggplantCancerCure.php
 * No it shouldn't. According to the Web of Knowledge database, this guy had one article, in 1990, relating to possible effects these compounds might have.  If it really worked, there would have been a lot more, and it would be used all over the world.  It sounds like he did what a lot of others have done, i.e. realized you can still make money from a treatment that doesn't work very well by selling books about it.  KarlM (talk) 14:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, the use of Solasodine Glycoalkaloids/Solasodine Rhamnosyl Glycosides for non-melanoma skin cancer has been proven
 * * Glycoalkaloids from Solanum sodomaeum are effective in the treatment of skin cancers in man http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3621146
 * A similar compound derived from Curaderm renamed Coramsine, is now been trialled for internal cancers in Australia by the company Solbec and is currently at Phase II status. See that entry for references. Plus --
 * * Solasodine Rhamnosyl Glycosides Specifically Bind Cancer Cell Receptors and Induce Apoptosis and Necrosis. Treatment for Skin Cancer and Hope for Internal Cancers http://www.medwelljournals.com/fulltext/rjbs/2007/503-514.pdf and
 * A search for Cham, BE as Author will show 43 articles in PubMed. Cham is a credible researcher and Solasodine glycolakaloids/Curaderm (perhaps as a separate entry) is a valid treatment.


 * --Paperjunk (talk) 05:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

where did skin cancer originate(====James====) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.116.29.154 (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

UK skin cancer stats in lead
What are statistics specific to the UK doing in the lead to the article? Surely they don't belong there! Maybe if there are worldwide skin cancer statistics, they might belong in the lead, but even that is questionable... Kier07 (talk) 22:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Some of the stats tell a generalisable story. More innocuous was the point "More people now die of skin cancer in the UK than Australia", which was presumably added by some Australian rather pleased with himself. I removed that. More importantly, the opening paragraph, and indeed the whole article, should better-distinguish between the developed and third world. For instance the statement "only a small minority die of skin cancer in comparison with other organ cancers". Is that really generalizable to Venezuela or Botswana or India, etc etc?? --Tomsega (talk) 15:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

What about basosquamous?
http://www.ocskincancer.com/for-physicians/the-skin-cancer-connection-blog/tag/basosquamous-cell-carcinoma/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.234.184.100 (talk) 16:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Renaming to "Skin cancer"
This is the more common name and to fit with out other cancer articles I suggest we rename it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Vitamins vs. vitamin supplements, antioxidants vs. antioxidant supplements
I changed some text in a sentence sourced by ; the text had read that "vitamins and antioxidants have not been found effective"...but the source in question only dealt with supplements, not vitamins or antioxidants occurring in whole, natural foods. There seems to be a growing scientific consensus that supplements, across the board, not only carry fewer health benefits than nutrient-rich foods, but may sometimes carry additional risks. There is also some evidence of dietary influence on cancer, especially cancer recurrence rates. It's very important to separate the idea of vitamins in general, from vitamin supplements, because in the case of supplements, there may be issues with absorption, different forms of the vitamin, etc. I added some sources below in a new section that address two issues, serum concentrations of vitamins, and vitamin-rich foods in diets. Cazort (talk) 21:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable. I have replaced the primary sources you added with a recent secondary one per WP:MEDRS. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Global source
While it's a bit dated, the report below would seem useful, particularly in addressing the remaining cn tags. More recently updated: LeadSongDog come howl!  21:00, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Simple math
According to the introduction, melanoma is the least common but most aggressive form of skin cancer but it somehow has the highest survival rate at 75%? That being said: "There were 2,746 deaths from skin cancer, 2,203 from malignant melanoma and 546 from non-malignant melanoma." So I am to believe that melanoma, being the least common form of skin cancer with the highest survival rate, accounted for more deaths than the total number of deaths for all forms of skin cancer? That seems completely illogical not to mention mathematically impossible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.51.60.103 (talk) 17:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Specifically about melanoma
Thus should be their. Also not written in an encyclopedic tone. Words like "This could be an exceptional treatment" gah.

Using nanotechnology for diagnosis is very effective and makes it so that more imaging can be done to detect the skin cancer. One form in which cancer can be detected is through nanotechnology is nanoparticle quantum dots. These nanoparticle quantum dots can be used to detect melanoma in its early stages through imaging that makes the cancer cells bright and very noticeable through the photostability. This makes the cancer cells more noticeable so they can be easily detected and that will make treatment a lot easier. Also, theranostic nanomedicine can be used, which is imagining agents to observe the nanoparticles that distribute to the cancer cells so that the size of the tumors can be seen with imaging. Like the quantum dots this method allows us to see the size of the tumors based on how the nanoparticles attach to them. By being able to see the tumors we will know how to treat them.

There are a few methods that can use nanotechnology in order to prevent skin cancer. The first method is transdermal drug delivery nanoparticles that can be delivered topically in order to target the cancer causing genes while sparing the normal cells of the body. This would be an excellent treatment because of how easy it would be to deliver the nanoparticles. Also, photodynamic therapy can be used as therapeutic treatment that uses two nontoxic components to create a powerful oxidative stress on tumors so that they can be killed. This could be an exceptional treatment in its ability to kill cancer cells which is the hope in any treatment. The last treatment would be immunotherapy, so that the immune response in the body can be improved to increase the amount of cancer cells killed. If people had better immune systems, they would have a better ability to kill off cancer and recover fully.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Benign skin neoplasms?
I wanted to read about benign skin growths. In the Cutaneous conditions article, this sentence appears: "In the Diseases of the skin include skin infections and skin neoplasms (including skin cancer)." But both "skin neoplasms" and "skin cancer" come to this article, which is 100% about skin cancer. But a Neoplasm is not always a malignant growth.

I agree that skin cancer is a complex subject that requires a lot of depth. However, is there a reason why that link from "Cutaneous conditions" doesn't go to Neoplasm or Benign tumor? However, neither of those two articles is specifically about cutaneous growths. This seems to be a hole in Wikipedia's coverage. Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 06:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Please ignore the References right below my post. I did not add them. Yours, Wordreader (talk) 06:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

carcinoma or cancer
I changed to basal cell carcinoma. That's the title of the WP article. It is the most widely used term in the sources too. Why the revert please?Charlotte135 (talk) 22:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The widely ascribed acronym BCC also refers to basal cell carcinoma, not basal cell cancer.Charlotte135 (talk) 23:19, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You said cancer.gov uses the term basal cell cancer in the place of basal cell carcinoma to support your revert. I checked the USA website and most entries also refer to BCC as carcinoma. And as I said, most reliable sources around the globe, including medical journals, all refer to BCC as basal cell carcinoma. Will revert to my change, based on all of this strong evidence. If you believe you are right, please show me how? Otherwise we'll just leave it as carcinoma.Charlotte135 (talk) 02:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Cancer.gov uses basal cell skin cancer here . It is the same and easier terminology. I therefore see nothing wrong with using it. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 13:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you saying we should use the one isolated reference you provided to BCC, instead of the term all the reliable sources, including all medical journals use?Charlotte135 (talk) 20:46, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Charlotte, part of what we try to do in writing Wikipedia articles about medicine is to use words people understand, without dumbing it down too much. It's a balancing act.  That's why doc james is trying to accomplish.  This is described in WP:MEDMOS.  No one would argue with what you are saying about the literature; the issue is how we communicate that.  Doc James is also trying to get this ready for the translation task force so it can be propagated.  Jytdog (talk) 22:19, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Jytdog, thanks for explaining and after reading WP:MEDMOS I can understand what you're both saying, but I'm concerned that with basal and squamous cell carcinoma it is so widely used in the literature and general community internationally, that now using a fringe term, may run the risk of creating unnecessary confusion, rather than achieving simplicity. Some may see this as a different form of cancer rather than what it still is. That is, basal cell carcinoma. I think this is where the balancing act comes in.You'll note I have not reverted, but would be interested in continuing this discussion please and hearing from some other editors on this point. Hope that all sounds reasonable and makes some sense. Let me know.Charlotte135 (talk) 02:10, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I typically call it "basal cell skin cancer" when I am explaining it to patients. cancer.gov uses the term aswell so it is not exactly a fringe term.
 * Agree it is a balancing act. If you click on "basal cell skin cancer" it does give you the other possible terms. Have clarified the terms in the classification section Skin_cancer
 * I agree that in the technical literature "carcinoma" is more common. People who are okay with technical details have looks of sources available to them. We should IMO be writing more for the general population.
 * Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:49, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * calling it a "fringe term" is completely inappropriate. Jytdog (talk) 19:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Fringe in the sense of not being used very often Jytdog, when referring to BCC. Let's say marginal, then. Basal cell carcinoma is the term so widely used around the world, in all medical journals, internet sites, books, blogs, newspapers, pop mags, common language, that calling it anything else is definitely a marginal or fringe term. BCC is the most common form of skin cancer and people are comfortable with the word carcinoma IMO. But we're getting off point here. And I want to stick to content. Do we now change all references to carcinoma on WP to cancer? Is that what you are both saying?

And before Doc James changed the term to skin cancer in the article, a couple of days ago, it was being referred to basal cell cancer. . I changed it to basal-cell carcinoma and Doc James changed it to skin cancer. So it's a fresh debate. As I said, I want to put it to the community.Charlotte135 (talk) 22:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I have nothing more to say here. Jytdog (talk) 07:36, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You obviously see my point then Jytdog, regarding your previous comment, and that calling BCC something other than basal-cell carcinoma is counterproductive to the project.Charlotte135 (talk) 08:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Do not misrepresent other editors. I do not agree with anything you have written here. Jytdog (talk) 09:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No one is misrepresenting anyone Jytdog. If nobody else comments here, I will leave it as it is. I'm ok with what Doc James has now changed it to anyway, that is basal-cell skin cancer, which makes more sense to me. My original comment related to the word cancer.Charlotte135 (talk) 10:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If the compromise of "basal cell skin cancer" is sufficient than I think we are good. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 14:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That compromise works for me too. Thanks.Charlotte135 (talk) 01:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Images


These are not great sources. Why put all these images together?

Does not appear to be pubmed indexed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:55, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Statistics
"The mortality rate of basal-cell and squamous-cell carcinoma is around 0.3%, causing 2000 deaths per year in the US."- no citation on this (the citation for the next sentence appears to be for the statistic on melanoma only) ). Numerous sites on the internet state that there are around 2000 non-melanoma skin cancer deaths in the US each year, and cancer.org notes that 5.4 million basal and squamous cell skin cancers are diagnosed each year in the US. That gives a mortality rate of around 0.04%, almost 10 times lower. Any reason why the text should not be updated to reflect this? Gzabers (talk) 08:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)