Talk:TNM staging system

Discussion
Like so many systems and classifications in medicine, there is urgent need for internationally agreement, partly to facilitate research and partly for fruitful international scientific and clinical co-operation. The TNM system is not always as internationally cooperative as may first seem. One recent example that struck me was the changes made to the definition of lymph node metastases and vascular invasion in TNM6 from TNM5. These are thought by many in the UK to be unsupported by evidence, unneccesary and indeed potentially dangerous (P Quirke, E Morris (2007)- Reporting colorectal cancer; Histopathology 2007: 50 (1), 103–112) and I entirely agree with their arguments. The current UK guidance in reporting colorectal cancer recommends usage of TNM5 in preference to TNM6. If the TNM system was a bit less Americo-centric then I'm sure that it would feature more prominently and have a greater part to play in the research and clinical management of cancer. My suggestion to the AJCC would be to ensure that any changes made to TNM are made by international consensus and also that any changes made are backed by rigorous evidence. Created by Marek1975 (talk page - contributions) on 16:59, 8 July 2007
 * This isn't a page for discussion about a subject of TNM, it's a page to discuss about the coherent article. Thanks anyway for your nice discussion! Dr. F.C. Turner - [ USERPAGE | USERTALK ] - 08:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Conversely, it could be argued that the comment from 2007 could be worked up into a new section within the article labeled "criticism" if adequate supporting material were pulled together. A project well worth undertaking if someone can devote some time to it.FeatherPluma (talk) 16:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I reverted the article to using "tumor" consistently rather than admixing the two spellings, so things now conform to MoS guidelines (consistency); further, I judge the external reference to an iPhone app to be rather useful to users of that device (I am not) provided the app works well. If app users find it to be problematic, IMO removing the link with an explanation would be preferable to simply removing the link.FeatherPluma (talk) 16:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)