User talk:Rchamen

Welcome
Hey there. Thanks for your recent edit to breast cancer. It looks like you added an important paper. And here's a couple tips: 10.1038/nature11143 links to the doi and placing this would be a good way to cite it (inside of reftags per the H:Cheatsheet). But the article is a primary source, and I see that Web of Science says multiple review articles have cited it. Could you please cite review articles for breast cancer instead? WP:MEDRS says they are an ideal source, and as an encyclopedia, we are trying to be an overview summary of the literature. It would be too much work for us to decide if every new paper was worth citing or not, so we try to stick to reviews, when possible. And in this case, it is possible. =) You can see over at DVT how I've cited review articles and clinical practice guidelines nearly exclusively. Do you have any questions? If so, you can ask them at my talk page or at the WP:Teahouse. Biosthmors (talk) 19:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

This content
"A lot of mutations have been reported in both pathways (PI3K and MAPKs)in luminal cancer when their response to aromatase inhibitors was studied. These mutations include deletions, insertions, transpositions, etc, and some of them can be related with several clinical data. For example the mutation of PIK3CA gen, which codified to PI3K protein,  has been observed in  a percentage of 41.3% in luminal breast cancer and has been associated with a cooperation with the effects of MAP3K1 mutations.  The mutations in MAP3K1 and MAP2K4 (19.6%) suggest a functional inactivation of the proteins which are codified by these genes. The proteins are associated with the luminal A subtype of cancer, a low tumor grade with a low Ki67 proliferation index (good prognosis)." is based on this primary research study. And this sort of detail is probably best on the subpage.

Per WP:MEDRS we prefer secondary sources. Cheers Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)