Talk:Acute myeloid leukemia

Featured article review needed

Blood

Is full of AML reviews this week here JFW | T@lk 12:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Looks good. An editorial and 5 reviews. The last review (Emerging therapeutic drugs for AML) has summary table and discussion including on phase II results of CP-351 (a liposomal formulation of cytarabine and daunorubicin in a 5:1 molar ratio), Volasertib and many others. Has anyone updated the article based on any of these reviews ? - Rod57 (talk) 15:20, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Cord blood transplant

... can help doi:10.1111/bjh.13926 JFW | T@lk 11:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Review in April 2016 Oncology Journal

Acute Myeloid Leukemia: Biologic, Prognostic, and Therapeutic Insights. April 2016 (3 pages) says eg "to date only a few of these biomarkers have been incorporated into outcome-risk classifications. The European LeukemiaNet (ELN) classification, for example, incorporates NPM1 and CEBPA mutations and FLT3 internal tandem duplication (ITD) in an integrated cytogenetic-molecular classification that separates AML patients into four genetic groups: favorable, intermediate I, intermediate II, and adverse.[7,8]" .... "The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) treatment guidelines also use KIT mutations." ... "Thus, we take the position that, if possible, all AML patients should first be evaluated for clinical trials involving novel molecularly targeted therapies incorporated into established chemotherapy regimens" and discusses CPX-351, Polo-like kinase inhibitors eg Volasertib, Selinexor (KPT-330). Also MLN4924 has completed phase 1. - Individualizing Therapeutic Strategies in Acute Myeloid Leukemia: Moving Beyond the ‘One-Size-Fits-All’ Approach. (one page Summary/comment on the review)
Has anyone compared the review to the NEJM and Blood reviews above ? Does it require any changes to this article ? - Rod57 (talk) 14:54, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Maintenance therapy

Review in Blood doi:10.1182/blood-2016-03-674127 JFW | T@lk 11:19, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

European LeukemiaNet recommendations

doi:10.1182/blood-2016-08-733196 JFW | T@lk 21:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Major Overhaul Needed

This article is highly outdated and in need of serious overhaul. Over the past 4 years there have 7 new drug approvals and a re-approval, none of these are mentioned. This statement in the article is glaringly wrong "Long-term survival after a relapse is so rare that the only known case was submitted to the Catholic Church as evidence of a miracle attributed to Marie-Marguerite d'Youville.[95]" there are thousands of long term survivors of relapsed AML. FAB subtypes (other than M3 which is now just refered to as APL) are obsolete and don't inform clinical practice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.191.83.136 (talk) 22:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

The call for a major overhaul is entirely on point and I am wondering why it isn't being addressed. There are many, many cases of people surviving long-term after having gone through relapse, and then given a second or third stem cell transplant, given additional cells from their original donor or being treated with chemo alone. I am an AML patient and belong to multiple support groups of AML patients from around the world. There are many errors in this article, but this paragraph is one of the most erroneous. Please address or better yet, remove it entirely.2605:A000:160D:4A0B:D555:F2E6:D069:6DF3 (talk) 04:13, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020

This is the oldest medical Featured article listed at Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020, last reviewed in 2006. There are several reviews posted above that have not been worked in, and calls for a major overhaul. @MastCell and Jfdwolff: any plans to work on this, or should the article go to Featured article review? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:42, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I am not likely to be able to do much. MastCell is occasionally around. JFW | T@lk 21:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

A month in, I will regretfully have to upgrade this to a Featured article review needed notice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia I've made a first pass update of the article, there are still lots of things that probably need attention. I'm ready for someone else to take a look at it and note any deficient areas that I will try and respond to. Cheers Tom (LT) (talk) 00:45, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Update: I am at a loss for what to suggest next, as the article isn’t yet approaching FA status, there is so much left to do, but work seems to have stopped. This was readable; now we have large charts of information barely digestible to the average reader, and jargon everywhere I look. There are topics that aren’t even covered (eg pediatric AML), gobs and tons of new reviews that aren’t incorporated, confusing jargon and overly technical info, excess detail in some places, but lack of relevant info that the average lay reader will seek (tell us about cause, prognosis, treatment in plain language). Prognosis now has 2001 data. There is choppiness in the Risk sections factor, along with the huge indecipherable charts full of jargon in diagnosis. There are citation needed tags and contradictory and confusing prose. The citation style has been changed (was vancouver), and there is no defined citation style. The WHO section of Diagnosis urgently needs a digestible prose summary of whatever the table is trying to convey, unclear why one type is below the chart and not included in it, and the text in the section before the WHO section needs to be better organized relative to the WHO and FAB sections. Links are given in article titles that do not go to free full text. Prose needs smoothing, jargon needs to be addressed. Are there plans to finish work here? I think this needs to go to FAR, in which case I will have to lay out the issues in more careful detail, but it seems to me that they are obvious. I am left unable to find the information I want to know about the condition. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:11, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Maybe using these basic websites as checklists for what is covered and what is not, and how to simplify terminology, would help provide a roadmap to the still considerable updating, smoothing, MOS-ifying and dejargon-izing needed.

• https://www.cancer.gov/types/leukemia/patient/adult-aml-treatment-pdq
• https://www.webmd.com/cancer/lymphoma/acute-myeloid-leukemia-symptoms-treatments#1
• https://www.cancer.org/cancer/acute-myeloid-leukemia/about/what-is-aml.html

I’m not sure if this can be brought to FA standard if MastCell is no longer involved; the previous featured version was digestible, but this one is not (yet). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:28, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I made some edits earlier this year to update the WHO classification, but I'm afraid I don't have the time or the expertise to commit to a rewrite of the article. Spicy (talk) 06:21, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Time for an update

Hi all, per the discussion at VP's talk let's see if we can assemble a dream team and spruce up this article. My assessment (for what it's worth) is that the bones are good, it just needs an update. The more thorough the update, the more useful the article will be. Tom (LT) offered to start on signs & symptoms. Spicy and Bibeyjj would you like to claim a section to start, or float around looking for problems for now? I'd like to work on a section, but don't have a preference which one, so I'll happily pick after others. Vaticidalprophet you didn't promise to sink any of your time into this, but since we had this discussion at your talk page, I felt I should ping you here. You're most welcome here, but if you decide to turn your attention elsewhere we won't be offended. I reset this to a level 2 header, so feel free to post comments, concerns, calls-for-help et al. here. Cheers all! Looking forward to cleaning this up. Ajpolino (talk) 15:43, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I've updated the 'classification' section to use the most recent version of the WHO system. In the meantime I noticed that all the ICD-O links are dead. Anyone know if there is another site we can link to? Spicy (talk) 05:57, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done please let me know what you think (this is my first major edit to an FA), and if there are changes needed to make my source formatting more appropriate (one source was an online-acccessed textbook). I'm happy to assist in other areas if the situation arises.Tom (LT) (talk) 03:56, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Also, does anyone have access to this Nature Reviews Diseases Primers about AML? [1] Tom (LT) (talk) 03:56, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Tom (LT)! I have access to nature through university, so will email you a PDF. Bibeyjj (talk) 11:47, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure I have the time to go through this article in details but just want to add it really does need attention. The number of highly dated statements, primary sources, and simply things that are wrong e.g. "as well as ruling out pernicious anemia (Vitamin B12 deficiency), folic acid deficiency and copper deficiency" in diagnosis is quite concerning. Tom (LT) (talk) 01:35, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Question: is my Hoffbrand's Essential Haematology a source reliable enough to use on a featured article? Tom (LT) (talk) 01:39, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not a hematologist, but in general I'm sure it's an excellent source for most things. If a more-recent, more-specific/authoritative source has the sames information, we may occasionally swap out a Hoffbrand's ref for that, since it might be more reliable going forward. Also if we start seeing authoritative sources contradict the material in Hoffbrand's we can reconsider, but I don't foresee that being a problem. Nice work so far folks! Pardon the absence on my part, hoping to squeeze in some time this week. Ajpolino (talk) 15:46, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

 Doing... I have to admit this article has piqued my interest. I will chip through pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment sections as well. Tom (LT) (talk) 21:04, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

 Question: particularly @Spicy. All the sources I consult use the WHO guidelines; it's I think UNDUE and confusing (as a reader) to have both WHO and FAB covered in such prominence. What would be the thoughts about (1) moving everything but a paragraph on FAB to the actual article, and (2) inserting a sentence or two in the history section about it? Tom (LT) (talk) 21:04, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

You will still sometimes hear people refer to the FAB classifications and I was taught it in school just a few years ago (though I am not a clinician), but yes, it is not really used anymore. I don't know if *all* of the information should be removed but the intro to the 'Diagnosis' section should make this clearer. I had planned to do this earlier but forgot about it, my apologies. Will take another look at this soon. Spicy (talk) 23:03, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. In that case I'd be strongly in favour of shortening the FAB section to a paragraph or two at most. The rest of the detail should be placed on the FAB article.Tom (LT) (talk) 06:42, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Source requests

• Would I also be able to have (for the epidemiology section):
  1. "Epidemiology and Etiology of AML" (G Juliusson, S Lehmann, V Lazarevic (Acute Myeloid Leukemia, 2021) - a book, I think.
  2. "Epidemiology of acute myeloid leukemia: recent progress and enduring challenges" (RM Shallis, R Wang, A Davidoff, X Ma, AM Zeidan - Blood reviews, 2019)?
• Hopeful ping to Bibeyjj :).Tom (LT) (talk) 06:42, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Sent the second one. Spicy (talk) 23:00, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

  Sent the first one (I think)! Ajpolino (talk) 03:25, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

  Received. Thanks! Tom (LT) (talk) 10:06, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Proceed to FAR

Based on what I found when looking at the query below, I recommend that this article proceed to FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi @SandyGeorgia I am happy to help out to try and preserve this as an FA but may need some more specific feedback about the article than you have included below. Tom (LT) (talk) 00:38, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think I have the necessary skills to rebuild this article to FA status; I can't understand most of the article, and don't see how we can get there from here without a cancer person on board. We have organization problems, prose problems, datedness and sourcing problems, and jargon beyond what a layperson can digest. I'm at a loss. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:38, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

@Tom (LT): Are you still interested in updating this article? While Sandy might not be able to give specific feedback, I noticed that there are numerous failed verification tags and an update needed banner at the top. Can you proceed with addressing those concerns? Z1720 (talk) 01:53, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

@Z1720 I can address those but I can only promise within the next three months. I am exceedingly busy off wikipedia at the moment. Tom (LT) (talk) 09:50, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@Tom (LT): That's fine. I just wanted to know if someone was still going to work on this. I won't bring it to FAR and in a couple months I'll ping again if there aren't any edits to the article. Z1720 (talk) 14:54, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Specifically, the Diagnosis section could go to a sub-article and be summarized back to here in plain English. Updates are needed throughout. And jargon is a problem; most sections can be written in plain English (recognizing that some sections are very technical by necessity). My 18-yo niece was diagnosed and died of AML on Thanksgiving Day, during and while I could still get nothing useful from this article to understand the why or how or what was happening to her. Hence, I find this article very hard to comment on without emotion. If not for that, I would take it straight to FAR, actually; we shouldn't be giving leeway on out-of-compliance medical content, and I doubt this article will be restored unless someone can entice MastCell to look in again, or get Graham Beards and Colin to bring their clear language talents on board. Personally, I have too much grief to try to read through the jargon, dated information and unnecessarily complicated tables. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

As an AML patient in remission for 2 years after a STEM cell transplant, I think this article is badly flawed. My understanding (and partial experience) is that the treatments have moved massively forward. Also the survival rates have improved, or at least I hope so (and what I have read also indicates).

It is critical to recognize that the largest audience for this will be AML patients and their family. Currently this is written for medical professionals.

For privacy reasons I am not using my name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.91.192.148 (talk) 03:24, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

YK?

Sorry, probably a dumb question, but at least easily answered: “YK, Canada, Australia and Sweden” - is YK a typo for UK (United Kingdom), or am I unaware of a common abbreviation? I was going to just go “fix it” but wanted to be careful. Remarksman (talk) 15:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Not a dumb question at all; the Epidemiology section is quite a jumble. I did a small bit of copyediting, but the section needs to be rewritten. Thanks for noting that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:23, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

ELN Classification of Leukemia

In 2022 ELN European LeukemiaNet Released a revised classification by DÖNHER et, al. Please refer to the research article. Dev8174077 (talk) 16:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)