Jump to content

Talk:Non-small-cell lung cancer

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Source for prognosis?

[edit]

What is the source of these numbers in the article? They are considerably more optimistic than numbers on the American Cancer Society webpage[1] for non-small cell lung cancer staging, which puts the five-year survival rate at 47 percent for Stage I and 26 percent for Stage II. 4.232.195.227 02:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge

[edit]

Jfdwolff suggested merging Lung cancer staging with EUS into this article. Respectfully, I oppose this suggestion. The article on EUS is long and detailed. About half of the text is more relevant to this article, but the latter half is more appropriately kept in its own separate article. Axl (talk) 09:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]

I initially created this article as "Non-small cell lung cancer staging" (subsequently changed to "Non-small cell lung carcinoma staging") to remove the lengthy staging description from the main article "Lung cancer". This allows "Lung cancer" to use summary style. Arcadian has moved the page to its new title. If he (or anyone else) tries to expand this currently named article into a full description of "non-small cell lung carcinoma", he will be unhelpfully duplicating information already at "Lung cancer". I propose that the article should be re-named back to either "Non-small cell lung cancer staging" or "Non-small cell lung carcinoma staging". "Non-small cell lung carcinoma" should redirect to "Lung cancer". Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't this merit an article of its own? I think we should have a separate article on everything that differs between NSCLC and SCLC. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The title of the article as it currently stands: "Non-small cell lung carcinoma", does not imply that it should be about differences between SCLC and NSCLC. Rather, "Non-small lung carcinoma" is a disease that should follow the guidelines in WP:MOSMED. This would involve duplication of information from "Lung cancer". The differences between SCLC and NSCLC could arguably be placed in the "Classification" section. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This type of lung cancer merits an article on its own. Axl, you appear to have missed a step in your summary style. An appropriate summary of content from Lung cancer would be Lung cancer staging (which is probably already incorrectly placed at Lung cancer staging with EUS) which in turn could have a subset Non-small cell lung cancer staging. Is NSCLC the only lung cancer that get staged?
To me the current article progression does not apply appropriate tier order of WP:SUMMARY and is set to become very messy and hard to understand.--ZayZayEM (talk) 04:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus is clear. I withdraw the request. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: NSCLC, SCLC, Lung Cancer (generally)

[edit]

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Personally, I respectfully suggest that - at a minimum - comprehensive individual articles should be completed on:

  • Other histological variants as recognized in the latest WHO classification of lung tumors

I have started some of these and piddled with others, and because they are in my area of interest, will probably continue working on them. Comments would be greatly appreciated.

Very best regards: Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 08:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cliff, thanks for your suggestion. However I am concerned about the potential overlap of information in the different articles that you recommend, if indeed they are all to be comprehensive. I am opposed to the presence of this article, which already duplicates some of the info from "Lung cancer". Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it be better to remove the duplication from lung cancer and refer there to the articles on specific types ? Rod57 (talk) 19:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prevalence of subtypes of NSCLC

[edit]

This differs significantly between different regions, even within Western countries. For example, adenocarcinoma has a prevalence of just 27% in Europe (Cancer Research UK source), with squamous cell carcinoma the commonest subtype in Europe. Possibly some mention of this discrepancy in the article? I am unsure of how to phrase it, but currently it's a bit misleading. Yazza (talk) 12:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

split out staging

[edit]

The large staging section seems to unbalance the article. Shouldn't we split it out it to its own article eg NSCLC staging ? Rod57 (talk) 20:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rod,
It appears this was discussed some time ago here, but I think its worth considering again. I would support such a change in particular as the staging guidelines for NSCLC have changed again (see http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/719047). --JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Split template added to article section Staging --JoeSperrazza (talk) 03:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before, "NSCLC staging" should have its own article. This article's title should be a redirect to "Lung cancer". Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. Unless I did it wrong, I've updated this article's "Staging" section to indicate a proposal (which you made, documented here), to split that section out into its own, new article (although, upon reflection, I think that new article should be named Non-small cell lung carcinoma staging, with a redirect from NSCLC staging. Did I capture your proposal fully? Thanks! --JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. (Sorry about the delayed reply.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


An explanation of what I did: 1. removed out of date and misquoted (unintentional but substantial) copyright material 2. added easily accessible links to the best quality sources of that copyright material 3. edited content to a standard encyclopedic(non-synthesis) viewpoint of what all this means. I have no particular viewpoint on "splitting out" or not, other than to say that staging in itself is conceptually a "language" that shapes the meaning of the rest of the article, and to that extent might be best in the body text of the article (unless it becomes too large, when of course, it can be hyperlinked, but that may result in redundancy given the edits that have reformed this section.)FeatherPluma (talk) 14:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A further explanation of what I did: 1. lung cancers (NSCLC, SCLC and carcinoid) are staged in the TNM system by the same schema(while there are also reasons to continue the SCLC limited vs. extensive system as well). Lung cancer staging had no adequate TNM material, ergo I moved the necessary material to the higher-level location, and added an internal WP hyperlink here. 2. a brief executive summary for interested readers, who can link to high-quality standard information.FeatherPluma (talk) 16:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on almost all points, but I'd still like to ask; what was the rationale for removing the prognosis section? Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deficiencies in DNA repair - what causes and how does NSCLC differ

[edit]

The section DNA repair deficiency in NSCLC talks about "Deficiencies in DNA repair " says "Epigenetic gene silencing of DNA repair genes occurs frequently in NSCLC" but does not seem to say how they are acquired - eg inherited, or caused by environmental factors. Do the types and extent of deficiencies of DNA repair differ in NSCLC from SCLC or other cancers ?

Precision Diagnosis and Treatment

[edit]

doi:10.1056/NEJMra1703413 JFW | T@lk 08:53, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Non-small-cell lung carcinoma. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:55, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2023/2024 updates for effectiveness of osimertinib for NSCLC depending on EGFR and p53 mutations

[edit]

Summarising this edit by me on the lung cancer talk page, some updates would appear to be justified based on:

Boud (talk) 11:53, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Non-small-cell_lung_cancer&oldid=1250085902"