Talk:Angiogenesis inhibitor

This article was part of an assignment from Saint Louis University in Spring 2014 (see the course page for more details).

Cediranib

Cediranib (Recentin) since it's a VEGF inhibitor should be somewhere in the Exogenous table ? Rod57 (talk) 00:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Side-effects

Are there any unwanted side effects or toxicity in reducing angiogenesis in mature mammals ? Rod57 (talk) 01:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article Improvements

This article was part of an assignment from Saint Louis University in Spring 2014 (see the course page for more details).

Rglastet (talk) 06:11, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any Suggestions/Objections?

This article was heavily modified on March 18th, 2014. Are there any problems with what we've added/subtracted? Please see the page history for details. Curtis Bixenstine (talk) 02:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from User: Jfriend2

I would re-write the lead to base it more off of the content present in the article, or add a section in the article talking about what is talked about in the lead. Macular degeneration is talked about in the lead, but never again in the article. At the articles current state, the lead should say what an angiogenesis inhibitor is, have a blurb about endogenous, exogenous, drugs and diet, as a way to summarize what is to come in the article for the reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfriend2 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Created new section on the mechanism of action of anti-angiogenic inhibitors and made the lead better suited to the rest of the article Rglastet (talk) 23:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the third paragraph of the lead needs a reference, or a tag saying that a reference is needed.

Paragraph cited

I was told by other wikipedians, section headers should never have wiki-links in them. So for endogenous and exogenous, remove the link in the header and add a line under the section header, before you start the paragraph that says see main article: endogenous

Done Rglastet (talk) 22:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

in the endogenous regulation section, remove the spaces between the periods and the reference tags. I removed one space in the lead for you already. Nit-picky editing things.

Done Rglastet (talk) 22:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd add some wiki-links to other pages in the endogenous regulation section, maybe for, endothelial cell, cancer therapy

Done Rglastet (talk) 22:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph of exogenous regulation is very short (2 sentences) and should either be added to or worked into the article in a different way. It is also confusing because the second sentence say that "Some of them are endogenous as well." what some? drugs? diet? and if they are endogenous, then why are you talking about them in the exogenous paragraph?

Reworked sentence into the lead and removed it from the section on exogenous regulation Rglastet (talk) 19:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Found an article for the Avastin FDA removal for breast cancer, here's a link: http://www.fda.gov/newsevents/newsroom/pressannouncements/ucm280536.htm, so you can add the citation needed. Also that sentence currently says "FDA approval for breast cancer was later revoked on November 18, 2011". You should say that FDA revoked approval of Avastin for breast cancer treatment. The FDA did not revoke its approval of breast cancer!

Citation added and sentence changed Rglastet (talk) 22:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

do some research and try to fill in more of the table for antiangiogenic use, right now it only mentions cancer, but the article talks about many other ways (obesity, macular degeneration)

Will continue filling in table

do some wikipedia related research on the red links and see if there is a page under a different name that you can actually provide a proper link

Found an active link or removed the link to the red-linked terms Rglastet (talk) 00:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

maybe the diet section should be organized in table form as the other inhibitors? It looks like you have a lot to say about some of the foods (Trametes versicolor mushrooms in particular). Maybe you should highlight this in its own small article, or cut back the description in the parentheses.

Information on the anti-angiogenic effects of Trametes versicolor is found in its own article so I cut down the description in parentheses Rglastet (talk) 00:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also think it would be interesting to see a paragraph about nutrition in medicine. Something that says doctors actually encourage (or discourage) eating this food because of these affects. I know that cancer patients are paired with a dietitian when they are diagnosed.

Jfriend2 (talk) 18:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from User: Ecapelle

The section on the Mechanism of Action could use more information. In an article like this, I believe you could go into cellular detail.

Done Curtis Bixenstine (talk) 22:19, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should the last sentence under Endogenous Regulation be a part of the top paragraph? It seems to be by itself.

Done Curtis Bixenstine (talk) 22:55, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Under Exogenous Regulation: Drugs: I would look into combining the first three sentences with the following paragraph because they all seem to be talking about the same things.

Paragraph has been restructured Rglastet (talk) 04:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The third sentence under Exogenous Regulation: Drugs could use a citation.

The first two sentences also need citations, but only once if it is the same one. Biolprof (talk) 22:00, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Curtis Bixenstine (talk) 23:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exogenous Regulation: Drugs: cancer, tumors, and metastasize are wikilinked, but they were previously mentioned and not linked.

Fixed Rglastet (talk) 04:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had a difficult time following the section on Drugs under Exogenous Regulation.

Section has been modified. Should be clearer now. Rglastet (talk) 04:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Metastasis and angiogenesis are repetitively wikilinked in the Diet section. I may be wrong, but I'm under the impression that words should only be wikilinked once, the first time they appear, but I'm new to this all too.

Correct - just once in any article, the first time it is used in the body of the text (not in a header).Biolprof (talk) 22:00, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done; all redundant wikilinks have been cleaned up. Curtis Bixenstine (talk) 04:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The word "foodstuffs" in the Diet section should probably be a different word unless it is being used for a particular reason. If that is the case, some explanation on its use may be necessary for those reading.

Done. You were right, foodstuffs is not at all a word. Curtis Bixenstine (talk) 04:59, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The table in the Drugs section could use some extra information under the "Antiangiogenic Use in" section.

This column has been removed; too broad of a topic, the links to the drugs themselves provide enough information for those looking for more. Curtis Bixenstine (talk) 05:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 4 and 12 need additional citation information.

Fixed Rglastet (talk) 05:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 30 has a dead link attached to it.

The links worked for me.

Reference 5 and 6, 10 and 11, and 34 and 35 are the same resources. To cite a resource a second time use: ref name="" / (inside <>), and insert your previous reference name, and it shouldn't create an additional reference.

Done Curtis Bixenstine (talk) 05:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC) Ecapelle (talk) 23:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jtrivedi92 for 2nd peer review

There are a few scientific terms that need to either be explained, or linked to their own article if possible, eg-"monoclonal antibodies" under exogenous regulation

Added more links. Rglastet (talk) 05:23, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This was mentioned in the previous review, but the table under the "drugs" section could mention uses of angiogenesis inhibitors in diseases other than cancer, such as macular degeneration

Table modified and column is not longer present. Rglastet (talk) 05:23, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You guys did your presentation on this topic as well, and some of the diagrams describing angiogenesis and inhibition of it from there would provide some clarity to the article
Your cancer.gov source mentions some angiogenesis inhibitors that are currently still FDA approved and being used. You could mention these and their drug names, which may be informative for a lay-person

Jtrivedi92 (talk) 20:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC) Added inhibitors to drugs table. Rglastet (talk) 05:41, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "mechanism of action" section is a little short. You could talk about why tumors larger than a certain size need vascularization, and why diffusion alone wouldn't work for them.

Section has been expanded. Rglastet (talk) 05:23, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You could talk about some general side effects of angiogenesis inhibitors under its own section so its easier for people researching this to find

Done, Side effects section added. Curtis Bixenstine (talk) 15:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe add a "see also" section with a list of related articles. I find these really convenient when researching.

Jtrivedi92 (talk) 20:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

you could add some more cellular or pathway detail on how exactly angiogenesis is inhibited by these molecules.

Jtrivedi92 (talk) 20:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Common pathway (VEGF inhibition) added. Rglastet (talk) 05:23, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Biolprof

This article is being reviewed for this class. I began these notes before your peer reviews were posted, so some may be redundant.

In the lead, add wikilinks to endogenous (and/or define) and drugs (pharmaceutical drugs). Other wikilink suggestions: extracellular matrix, basement membrane, genes, and others…

Wikilinks added Rglastet (talk) 05:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Mechanism of action section seems specific to tumors rather than more generally about angiogenesis and it’s inhibition. A figure could be a great addition here if you can find one that is open access.
In response to Jfriend2, you added the line that says see main article: endogenous/exogenous. But that is not really the main article on these topics, so in this case you should just add a wikilink the first time the terms are used in text, but not a heading.

Done Rglastet (talk) 05:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Headers should capitalize the first letter only of the first word, but not subsequent words.

Done Rglastet (talk) 05:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Endogenous regulation section might start with a one or two sentences explaining angiogenesis (these can be cut and pasted from the Angiogenesis lead. This is commonly done to build consistency in WP articles; it is not plagiarism and should not be cited.
Consider deleting the phrase “Unlike exogenous inhibitors.” The reference to exogenous inhibitors is not very helpful since they are described later.

Done Rglastet (talk) 05:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The section on Exogenous regulation/Drugs could benefit from some reorganization. It seems to jump around from general topics to specific drugs to specific diseases. Maybe start with a general overview such as the material in the paragraph that begins “Research and development in this field….” Then after the table include subsections on specific drugs such as bevacizumab and thalidomide. In this way, the table may be eliminated completely as the text is filled in by future editors. See the paragraphs under the table in Angiogenesis#Chemical stimulation for an example.

Reorganized section Rglastet (talk) 06:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ranibizumab for treatment of the wet form of age-related macular degeneration should be added to the section on Exogenous regulation/Drugs. Since AMD is mentioned in the lead, it would be good to have more information in the text.

Information on AMD has been added under the drugs section of exogenous regulation Rglastet (talk) 21:39, 9 May 2014 (UTC) Ranibizumab added to table Rglastet (talk) 21:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some details were removed from the Diet section in response to the peer review. I would suggest they should be added back and expanded. Generally, a bulleted list like this is inserted with the expectation that each item on the list will be incorporated into a full paragraph in the future.
The External links to the Angiogenesis Foundation need to be updated. The one to New Scientist is subscription only & should be deleted.

Done Curtis Bixenstine (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Antiangiogenics table at the bottom of the article includes several red links. You may want to check to see if any of these have alternative names that do have wikilinks. Don’t remove them if the article doesn’t exist yet. It is just waiting to be written.

Biolprof (talk) 22:15, 25 April 2014 (UTC) Checked to see if any of the red links had articles under different names, they did not. Curtis Bixenstine (talk) 15:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Rraju2 for Final contribution

These comments are apart of this assignment.

I think the article could benefit from some external links especially in the side effects section. Such as for hand-foot syndrome and bowel perforation.
If you think you added a significant amount of information, you can consider changing the class of the article. To be on the safe side I would change it to a C class. You would go into the template and change to Class=C. Rraju2 (talk) 17:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from User: Jfriend2

a picture would greatly improve this article, maybe even just a simple one of the process of angiogenesis, or of blood vessels
paragraph: VEG pathway inhibition. You have two paragraphs but the second paragraph is only one phrase. It could be presented in a better way.
consider changing the class of the article to something higher than start-class

Jfriend2 (talk) 18:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Estephe9

Under the Mechanism of Action section you say, "Before we describe... Perhaps this is just a stylistic opinion, but I think it is best to avoid using the first (and second) person in formal and didactic writing (such as that found in an encyclopedia). Consider rewording this to keep it (and the rest of the article) in the third person.
- The same for using "our body" later in that same sentence.
- both deleted Biolprof (talk) 18:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little confused as to why it says you'll discuss the body's natural process of angiogenesis, but then you start talking about cancer development, an unnatural process in the body.
- deleted Biolprof (talk) 18:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Consider making an additional section on cancer's utilization of the angiogenic process.

Estephe9 (talk) 18:21, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jtrivedi92

you should add some pictures from your class presentation that clarify the process of angiogenesis or angiogenesis inhibition.
the process of angiogenesis induced by tumors or inhibition thereof could be explained in more molecular detail. Maybe add more links to relevant molecules — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtrivedi92 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from iamwillthinnes

It looks like you have an improperly added source #6 at the end of VEGF pathway inhibition.
- fixed Biolprof (talk) 20:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could the text box under Drugs be edited to go on the side of the text? There is some wasted space inside there.

Iamwillthinnes (talk) 00:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

garlic and cinnamon not listed; maybe diet section seriously incomplete?

google for {garlic angiogenesis inhibitor} and {cinnamon angiogenesis inhibitor} returns lots of claims for that. 76.119.30.87 (talk) 19:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lancet review re oncology

doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01088-0 JFW | T@lk 23:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]