Jump to content

Talk:Ovarian cancer/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

"Victims"? Is this the correct word?

A more sensitive word would be "facing" - facing ovarian cancer / faced ovarian cancer thanks SionBrown 02:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Most people I know who have (or have had) cancer prefer survivor. --Una Smith 02:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Famous patients

This page has developed a list of "famous patients". Unfortunately there is no policy as to which cases are significant enough to mention here. I think someone without a Wiki page whose disease has not been mentioned in the national press does not qualify for inclusion here. Otherwise we'd have to mention all those numerous anonymous women worldwide whose suffering has not made headlines.

I am mordicus against mentioning people's disease stage. This is meaningless to non-patients, almost voyeuristic and of no encyclopedic relevance. I also urge contributors to avoid dramatic terminology ("battling cancer"). Without being insensitive to the obvious suffering, it promulgates the stigma that every cancer patient is in tremendous distress, quod non. JFW | T@lk 13:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I removed a few women without their own Wikipedia pages, which suggests they themselves are possibly not notable, let alone their (private) illness. Not every case of cancer makes the headlines. JFW | T@lk 10:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

"Victims"? Is this the correct word? Especially as some of those listed have survived. Will change it soon if no objections here. --Mongreilf 20:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

i don't mean to be a bummer to whomever put that list here, because obviously it involved a lot of work and their intentions were only good--but it's not really standard for cancer articles, and it makes this article really long. maybe there should be a separate article on ovarian cancer patients? (that could be a good place for links to support groups and listservs, etc., too.) Cindery 20:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

If it gets any bigger, I'd certainly support moving it to a new page. Nunquam Dormio 09:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
What happened to this list of famous women with ovarian cancer? It appears to have been deleted? anyone mind if I re-add it? QuizzicalBee 16:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the list is long and a tangent from the article. I will move the list to list of notable survivors of ovarian cancer. --Una Smith 22:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

missing characters

An analysis in 1991 raised the possibility that use of drugs tation may increase the risk for ovarian cancer.

Anyone like to hazard a guess at what's been deleted here? Flapdragon 16:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

ref system all screwy

1,2,3,4 do not link to 1,2,3,4/+ there are inline cites. I'm not sure how to fix. Cindery 20:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The former reference 3 wasn't actually referred to in the text. Whatever referred to it must have been deleted some time ago. I've changed some references to inline format, but more still needs to be done.

CLEANUP: Germ cell tumors

Some text on Germ cell ovarian cancer belongs here, and some text here belongs on germ cell tumor. --Una Smith 02:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


Ovarian cancer symptoms

I restored paragraph that summarizes original studies on the accuracy of symptoms. This paragraph was delete by user:OCNA (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ovarian_cancer&diff=next&oldid=142310453) when they put in the Consensus statement. I also added a reference and link to the full text of the statement.Badgettrg 21:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

This article

This article needs to be continually monitored by individuals with some writing and research ability, and hopefully some medical knowledge (I recommend User:Alison) because I have found blatant conjecture and broad statements posing as facts, at least one of which contradicted other text (to wit that ovarian cancer is not "a silent killer", which is nonsense). This is one disease you don't want to play around with or disrespect. 216.194.20.241 22:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

"* Ovarian cancer at the Open Directory Project" -the link is broken...Any suggestions on how to repair it? MeganFenstermaker (talk) 22:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure, just go to dmoz.org and enter "ovarian cancer" in the search box. That leads you to this category. I'll fix the bad link in the article. --Una Smith (talk) 23:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the problem is not the link but the "DMOZ" template in which the link is embedded; the template adds a final slash, so the link text must omit the slash. --Una Smith (talk) 23:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Ginger

The very reference used to back the outlandish ginger section itself says, "U-M researchers do not recommend taking ginger as treatment for cancer. Please talk to your oncologist before taking any dietary or herbal supplements." This article severely misrepresented the research, and in my opinion it is much better to leave this rather minor (though popular) research out of the article than to have it misrepresented so. Antelan talk 06:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Hm. I think it would be better to explain accurately the research results. --Una Smith (talk) 17:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

text from Germ cell ovarian cancer

The following paragraphs from Germ cell ovarian cancer are copied here because there may be some tidbit of contradictory information in them, or they need a supporting citation, so I prefer not to put them in the article. --Una Smith 22:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

There are three main types of ovarian cancer.

Although 20% to 25% of all benign and malignant ovarian neoplasms are of germ cell origin, only about 3% of these tumors are malignant. Germ cell malignancies account for less than 5% of all ovarian cancers in Western countries but they represent up to 15% of ovarian cancers in Asian and black societies, where epithelial ovarian cancers are much less common.

In contrast to epithelial ovarian neoplasms, most germ cell neoplasms are early stage at the time of diagnosis. This observation, in conjunction with the low incidence of bilaterality and the young age of most patients, for whom future fertility is an issue, influences the surgical management of this group of neoplasms. For young women with a germ cell neoplasm of the ovary, removal of the involved adnexa with preservation of the normal-appearing contralateral adnexa and uterus is generally advocated. In view of the low incidence of bilaterality, biopsy or bivalving the contralateral ovary is not recommended because of the risk of peritubal and periovarian adhesions. Complete surgical staging of germ cell neoplasms is the same as for epithelial ovarian neoplasms and should be performed in all cases.

Most patients with advanced-stage germ cell malignancies or high-risk early-stage disease can be cured with combination chemotherapy. Bleomycin, etoposide, and cisplatin are most commonly used.

With respect to germ cell neoplasms, radiation therapy has been used successfully in the treatment of patients with dysgerminoma.

text from Talk:Ovarian neoplasm

one of the factors that causes infertility -- 219.95.192.56, 15:24, 15 April 2006 (

text from Endodermal sinus tumor

Almost all ovarian endodermal sinus tumors occur in women under the age of 30. Patients usually present with sudden onset pain and a large pelvic mass. There is spread to the peritoneum or lymph nodes in 30-70% of cases.

Inclusion in Article? (diagnosis)

Was curious if this updated research would be useful in the entry for Ovarian Cancer. I haven't looked up the article on pubmed yet. Will be printed on the 15th.

"Researchers at Yale School of Medicine have developed a blood test with enough sensitivity and specificity to detect early stage ovarian cancer with 99 percent accuracy." See Press Release

"Results of this new study are published in the February 15 issue of the journal Clinical Cancer Research. The results build on work done by the same Yale group in 2005 showing 95 percent effectiveness of a blood test using four proteins." —Preceding unsigned comment added by JasonSpradlin82 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

First read the article, then decide. "Ovarian cancer" is several different cancers, that happen to occur in the ovary. This makes early diagnosis a complex problem. --Una Smith (talk) 04:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm... Good Point... I'm no Ovarian Cancer expert, so I was hoping adding it to the discussion might bring it to the attention of somebody who might be. It does reference epithelial ovarian cancer. This article was regarding Phase II, in which they boosted the accuracy from 95% to 99.4% accuracy. It doesn't say that it only finds epithelial ovarian cancer, but rather says tells how dangerous epithelial is. Also, it doesn't just find out if you have cancer, but rather it detects 99.4% of new tumors.
Again, I'm not a doctor, so I'm not sure if this is of interest to the article. -JasonSpradlin82 (talk) 00:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like the article concerns surface epithelial-stromal tumor, not ovarian tumors in general. WT:MED is the place to ask for help. --Una Smith (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Here's a link to the free full text of the peer-reviewed article, and letters to the editor in response. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PubMed?term=18258665[pmid] --Nbauman (talk) 20:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Error found.

I am not someone who should be editing Wikipedia, but there is a error in the incidence of clear cell carcinoma of the ovary. It should be 4.0% and not 40%. CCC of the ovary is very uncommon.

Table 16.5: Cancer of the Ovary: Number and Distribution of Cases and 5-Year Relative Survival Rate (RSR) (%) by Histology, Ages 20+, 12 SEER Areas, 1988-2001

Kosary, Carol L. (2007), "Chapter 16: Cancers of the Ovary", in Ries, LAG; Young, JL; Keel, GE et al., SEER Survival Monograph: Cancer Survival Among Adults: US SEER Program, 1988-2001, Patient and Tumor Characteristics, SEER Program, NIH Pub. No. 07-6215, Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute, pp. 133-144, http://seer.cancer.gov/publications/survival

144.30.0.116 (talk) 08:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. I have amended the article. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Classification

The table will probably confuse readers as it gives 5yr survival by histology when it is really stage that is important Can I suggest it is divided into separate sections Epithelial and Non-epithelial (perhaps the article should too.) Epithelial types should also include clear cell and mixed. It may be also worth referring to carcinosarcomas (MMMTs) or at least wikifying them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Escoces (talk Escoces (talk) 22:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Symptoms/Consensus Statement Section

The wording of this section needs to be re-evaluated to improve the tact and professionalism of the article. Specifically, indicating the phrase 'Pain while having sexual intercourse (which would suck)' should be altered. I tried to do it myself but could not access it through the edit section. Based on the content of the page, this sort of flippant comment is both unnecessary and inappropriate. 99.224.213.190 (talk) 14:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)RDK 10:24am, 16 May 2010

Seconding this. It sounds like vandalism and so I attempted to remove it. 217.44.135.24 (talk) 16:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Clarification requested on genetic risk factors

In the first section I read:

Lifetime risk is about 1.6%, but women with affected first-degree relatives have a 5% risk. Women with a mutated BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene carry a risk between 25% and 60% depending on the specific mutation.[5]

I would read this as meaning that people with the mutated BRCA1 or BRCA2 alleles have a lifetime risk of developing ovarian cancer of at least one in four. This seems unlikely, and contradicts an online source like http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/ovarian-cancer/DS00293/DSECTION=risk-factors which says the BRCA1 mutation elevates risk by 35-70%; this would make a total lifetime risk of about 2-2.7%. The 5% figure might also be correct, but implies there are other inherited factors besides the two BRCA genes.

Could someone with access to Harrison's principles of internal medicine or similar please verify? --Cedderstk 07:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Investigational drugs in clinical trials

AEZS-108 (in phase II trials) has FDA orphan drug status for ovarian cancer. Rod57 (talk) 12:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

intedanib (BIBF1120) is in phase III for ovarian cancer. - Rod57 (talk) 11:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Emerging Agents for the Treatment of Ovarian Cancer. Dec 2012 mentions 3 - Could mention in main article ? - Rod57 (talk) 02:34, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Article for the general reader

WP:MEDMOS points out that "Wikipedia is written for the general reader. It is an encyclopaedia, not a comprehensive medical or pharmaceutical resource, nor a first-aid (how-to) manual. Although healthcare professionals and patients may find much of interest, they are not the target audience."

After 14 years at university and obtaining my own doctorate, I am frustrated that another professional comes and changes the common language I have found reaches more people in my own Sociological research, to "Doctorspeak." My intention here is to write an article that is understandable and easily memorable to the average woman. This could save lives. Please refrain from using professional jargon and reverting the simpler language. Also, my research has shown a list rather than prosification is easier to remember for most people so I will be replacing that important info. Please keep article discussions off my talk page. Namaste... — DocOfSoc • Talk • 09:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Moved from my talk page

"Sorry to hear. Yes ovarian ca is a horrible disease and have seen many dye way before their time from it. With respect to Wikipedia it is used by 50-70% of physicians as well as over half of e patients. Thus there is a fine balance needed in writing style to communicate to both groups. I guess the biggest thing IMO is the importance of referencing to review articles. BTW if you are able to get this article to WP:Featured article status it ends up on the main page and thus you would increase the visibility of this condition. Let me know if you need help accessing references. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

We still strongly prefer reviews. You can ask others for clarification if you wish.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)"
WP:MEDMOS clearly states that Physicians are not the target audience. "Review" articles are for professionals and you have easy access to them. Those articles are unintelligible to the average person. With 14 years at University, I am familiar with the standard to which these article are held, had one published myself. I repeat, My intention here is to write an article that is understandable and easily memorable to the average woman. This could save a life. Please do not revert again the "plainspeak" written to reach the target audience. Respectfully, — DocOfSoc • Talk • 06:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Please do not make any revisions without discussion here. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 08:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Consensus is for the use of review articles. Thus please follow consensus. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:35, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Consensus by whom? I am guess there is an NPOV conflict here. The tone of that section is that women need to advocate for themselves. Common sense says that said article should be written in understandable terms that can reach the common woman, the people with ovaries. Review articles are not written in language understandable to the common woman, the target audience here. This is not a medical encyclopedia nor a valid reference medium for M.D.'s.

Thank you. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 23:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

We take the conclusions of review articles which we use as refs and put in language that is encyclopedic and understandable. The segment you are adding is already covered and is thus duplication of content.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


AGAIN, please keep article issues off my talk page. I believe symptoms needed to be emphasized because BOTH women and doctors (how freudian!) are unaware or not giving the symptoms the attention they deserve and women are dying. Your use of the imperial "we" I find quite distressing. Because of the recency of my sister's death, and because her doctors did not listen to her symptoms for more than a year of regular visits, I am not up to engaging your edit war or your doctor cadre but instead will focus on an article for publication because women need the information and it is time that doctors take responsibility for NOT listening. I will continue to inform women of this deadly disease in whatever forum I can, and improve the article at a later time. When the symptoms "whisper" one needs to listen more closely! and BTW it's "die" not "dye" — DocOfSoc • Talk • 22:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC) — DocOfSoc • Talk • 02:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Added to Genetics section

Hi, I've added in some information to the genetics section in the light of a new paper published by Loveday et al in Nature Genetics, describing a new 'ovarian cancer gene'. This is a significant finding in the field of ovarian cancer genetics and I feel it should be mentioned. (hope I've done this right) Thanks KatArney (talk) 12:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I've added a section and some links on the upcoming study from the Lancet Oncology. I figured this is important enough research to get out there right away before the official citation is online. Does anyone have access to the actual article -- I could not find it yet online. Thanks much. Gofigure41 20:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gofigure41 (talk • contribs)

I've reverted on the following based on WP:RECENTISM. Additionally, I had some problems with the text, particularly the use of the word "between", twice in close succession. I'm a bit of a purist who distinguishes between "between" for two entities and "among" for more, and the juxtaposition was painful to me. More importantly, I think that the details of the cell types are not as important as the low-grade/high-grade distinction, if it has been made explicitly. I have no overwhelming opposition to the addition, but it needs a rewrite targeted to the general-interest audience. It was a good first effort. I'll see what I can pull up. Because it is an association with uncommon cell types, it is unclear if there are significant clinical implications.Novangelis (talk) 21:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
It is best to wait for secondary sources to appear before adding to the main part of the article. I guess we could add it to a section on research.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
All comments are welcome -- I too would like to read the actual article. It was very exciting to hear about on the Lancet podcast -- I probably rushed the changes a bit. What the researcher reports seems like a big shift in the science.Gofigure41 02:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gofigure41 (talk • contribs)
There are plenty of secondary sources now - I added a link to the Lancet Onc. abstract and a full citation, as well as a comment by a Professor at Columbia. I also re-organized this section to show the potential associated causes as a list, making it easier to read. I wonder if the section on Protective Factors should be moved down below to Prevention?

Graft

Not sure why we had this here as the page is about ovarian cancer. Also needs a reference

Approximate proportion of hereditary breast cancer cases caused by each gene

  BRCA1 mutations (28%)
  BRCA2 mutations (19%)
  All other known genes (8%)
  Unknown genes or multiple genes (45%)

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 22:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Associations??

"Ovarian cancer is associated with age, family history of ovarian cancer (9.8-fold higher risk), anaemia (2.3-fold higher), abdominal pain (sevenfold higher), abdominal distension (23-fold higher), rectal bleeding (twofold higher), postmenopausal bleeding (6.6-fold higher), appetite loss (5.2-fold higher), and weight loss (twofold higher).[7]"

IMHO the text above mixes risk factors with symptoms.--128.214.2.137 (talk) 10:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Valuable info

In the months I have been absent from this article you have managed to make this an even dryer article with more "medicalese"included. You have again deleted a resource which is easier to understand. There is NO reason not to just leave it there. It could save someone's life! I have a doctorate degree and you lost me halfway thru this article. This article is meant for the average woman, NOT for doctors, as we have previously discussed. WP states:

  • Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia. People who read Wikipedia have different backgrounds, education and opinions. Make your article accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible. Assume readers are reading the article to learn. It is possible that the reader knows nothing about the subject: the article needs to explain the subject fully.
  • Avoid using jargon whenever possible. Consider the reader. An article entitled "Use of chromatic scales in early Baroque music" is likely to be read by musicians, and technical details and terms are appropriate, linking to articles explaining the technical terms.
  • An article entitled "Baroque music" is likely to be read by laypersons who want a brief and plainly written overview, with links to available detailed information. When jargon is used in an article, a brief explanation should be given within the article. Aim for a balance between comprehensibility and detail so that readers can gain information from the article.'

As you may recall my younger sister died of Ovarian cancer 3 weeks after diagnosis. She went to a new doctor after a year of complaining of the very subtle symptoms of this " whispering disease" to her former physician.She could have possibly been saved if everyone involved had been properly informed or just plain listened! The more info the better. Please just leave the info link there. It IS NEEDED and one I frequently use as a referral to the women I speak to in my campaign against this horrible disease. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 09:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

We link to DMOZ and they specialize in external links. We recommend against external links in general per WP:MEDMOS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


FDA ? - USA-centric

FDA ... Mention is made of tests introduced by the FDA ... i am british and have no idea who this body is or if these tests are administerd here ..... maybe some mention of them being {presumably)U.S specific would be helpfull and some info as to wether it is available elsewhere.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.41.42 (talk) 17:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Secondary sources

Biomarkers

To date, only two biomarkers have been approved by the FDA for monitoring patients with EOC: CA125[1] and HE4.[2] Several additional genes have been suggested as potential biomarkers for the progression of EOC, including the low expression of p21, bax, hTERT, high expression of survivin, VEGFR, p53, human kallikrein 6, human kallikrein 10 , IL-6, p27, cyclin D1, cyclin D3, cyclin E, Bcl-xL, cIAP, and ERBB1. The open access project Kaplan-Meier plotter was developed to validate and visualize performance of gene expression based biomarker candidates using gene expression data of 1,464 ovarian cancer patients.[3]

  1. ^ Gadducci A, Zola P, Landoni F, et al. Serum half-life of CA 125 during early chemotherapy as an independent prognostic variable for patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer: results of a multicentric Italian study. Gynecol Oncol. 1995 Jul;58(1):42-7. PubMed PMID:7789889.
  2. ^ Huhtinen K, Suvitie P, Hiissa J, et al. Serum HE4 concentration differentiates malignant ovarian tumours from ovarian endometriotic cysts. Br J Cancer. 2009 Apr 21;100(8):1315-9. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6605011.
  3. ^ Gyorffy, Balazs (10). "Implementing an online tool for genome-wide validation of survival-associated biomarkers in ovarian-cancer using microarray data from 1287 patients". Endocr Relat Cancer. 19 (2). doi:10.1530/ERC-11-0329.. PMID 22277193. {{cite journal}}: Check |doi= value (help); Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

This should be supported with secondary rather than primary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Ovarian neoplasms

It would be preferable to create a specific page for "Ovarian tumors" (or "Ovarian neoplasms"). Ovarian cancer is just "Malignant ovarian tumors". patho (talk) 15:24, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Potential COI - CRUK editor

Hello all

I am editing the epidemiology section of ovarian cancer to add UK cancer statistics as these were currently missing. I will be taking these statistics compiled from ONS, ISD Scotland, Northern Ireland Cancer Registry and Welsh Cancer Intelligence and Surveillance Unit. These statistics are summarised on the CRUK Cancer Statistics website which will be reference on this page. Eproctor5 (talk) 15:26, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

What is borderline ovarian tumor?

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe it refers to 'borderline' Serous tumour ? - Rod57 (talk) 15:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Seminar

doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62146-7 Lancet JFW | T@lk 22:37, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

"Ovarian cancer is a cancer that begins in an ovary"

There is something about this sentence that irks me - I know what it means but it comes over as a bit wonky. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

It's wrong. Current thinking in JAMA 2016 is that most ovarian cancers begin in the fallopian tubes.
Besides it's a tautology. "Morphine causes sleep because of its dormitive properties." --Nbauman (talk) 18:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Does not seem to be a tautology ? - It seems to exclude cancers of the ovary that spread there from outside the ovary. - Rod57 (talk) 14:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Molecular genetics

... of sporadic and hereditary ovarian cancer. Review doi:10.1093/bmb/ldu034 JFW | T@lk 22:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

@Jfdwolff: Thank you! Will be checking that out asap. :) Keilana|Parlez ici 00:09, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

New test and new drug

An FDA news release announces:

  • FDA approves Lynparza to treat advanced ovarian cancer
  • First LDT companion diagnostic test also approved to identify appropriate patients

Hope this is useful. --Hordaland (talk) 01:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

BRCA1/2

The World Cancer Report says around "Women with germline mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 have a 30–70% risk of developing ovarian cancer, mainly high-grade serous carcinomas, by age 70". Other give "for ovarian cancer, the lifetime risk is 45–60% and 11–35% for BRCA1-and BRCA2 -mutation carriers, respectively" [1] Which should we go with? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I guess we could go with around 50% for BRCA1 and around 25% for BRCA2? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
@Doc James: It's....complicated. I'm not sure we can distill the risk down like that. When I get home later I can check on some more sources to see if there's a consensus. Cheers, Keilana|Parlez ici 21:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
We can say around in the lead and than provide greater details in the body. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

HRT and risk

doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61687-1 JFW | T@lk 15:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Ovarian cancer in mares

@Keilana: here are some resources on ovarian cancer in mares. As I said at my talk page, I owned a mare that had a granulosa tumor removed from an ovary (along with the ovary) and I was there for the surgery. Maybe the thing wasn't quite the size of a volleyball, but it was at least the size of a mature cantaloupe! She was about 4 at the time of the surgery and lived to be 31. In her case, she didn't have behavior changes, but she had several bouts of equine colic that led to the diagnoses. See below for the citations: Montanabw(talk) 03:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Cable, Christina S. (March 1, 2001). "Ovarian Tumors". TheHorse.com. Retrieved 11 January 2016. (old, but cites refs)
  • McCue, Patrick M. "OVARIAN TUMORS" (PDF). Colorado State University. Retrieved 11 January 2016. (undated, but CSU is the leading vet school in the USA for equine reproductive technology, IMHO)
  • Marcella, Kenneth. "Equine ovarian tumors". dvm360.com. Retrieved 11 January 2016.
  • Dascanio, John; McCue, Patrick. Equine Reproductive Procedures. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 9781118813843. (good textbook)
  • McCue, Patrick (1998). "Review of Ovarian Abnormalities in the Mare" (PDF). Proceedings of the Annual Convention of the AAEP 1998. Retrieved 11 January 2016. (Old, but same guy who did the CSU article, good overview of the anatomy)
@Montanabw: Thank you so much! This is exactly what I needed. You're awesome! Keilana (talk) 07:45, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
No problem. For more gross photos, see these:

JAMA 2016 NAS report

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleID=2499446
Evolving Approaches in Research and Care for Ovarian Cancers: A Report From the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine FREE ONLINE FIRST
Douglas A. Levine, Beth Y. Karlan, Jerome F. Strauss III
JAMA.
Online March 02, 2016.

doi:10.1001/jama.2016.2640

"Recent evidence suggests that most ovarian cancers do not arise in the ovary, as had been thought for decades.3 Instead, the most common and aggressive form of ovarian cancer, high-grade serous carcinoma (HGSC), is now thought to arise predominantly in the distal end of the fallopian tube.4 Other forms of ovarian cancer, including endometrioid, clear cell, and low-grade serous, likely arise from different sites and cells of origin including ovarian cysts and endometriosis, emphasizing the heterogeneity involved in the etiology and risk of ovarian cancer."

--Nbauman (talk) 18:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Hum yes this is an interesting one. This ref uses the term "begins" [2] but also uses formed. Am happy with either. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ovarian cancer. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 20:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Locating additional sources, resources and citations about this topic

Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 13:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ovarian cancer. 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) 06:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Mayo Clinic citation

I don't doubt that the Mayo Clinic provides useful information, but I believe it fails WP:MEDRS criteria. The cite that I have removed fails verification, but I have to ask the question is any citation that prompts "Request an Appointment" three times on the same page, a suitable reference anyway? CV9933 (talk) 19:13, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Yah Mayo is not a great ref. Does it barely meet the bar? Meh... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:51, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
"About 7% of ovarian cancers are due to metastases" is not covered by the Mayo citation. I would be inclined to remove that (uncited for 4 years) statement. I see a lot of these Mayo refs whilst working in the ref sections of articles and my impression is that they aren't really high quality but better than nothing. CV9933 (talk) 10:20, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


Study in England shows a substantial correlation with chlamydia. Non-hormonal contraception (condoms?) also seems to be related (phlatalates(sp)- plastics). Can't win - 2601:181:8301:4510:104A:8836:5C00:2154 (talk) 02:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)


The chlamydia link was released at the American Association of Cancer Research and the CDC. Chlamydia doubles the risk of ovarian cancer. This article is totally deceptive - covering up the major cause that is weel known and widely published. 2601:181:8301:4510:846B:BCE4:2C2C:173E (talk) 17:01, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

FIGO stages and survival rates

I may be missing something here but I am a bit confused about the break-down of the survival rates for invasive epithelial ovarian cancer. As I understand the definition in Ovarian cancer#FIGO, shouldn't IIA and IIB add up to II? In other words, if someone is in FIGO stage II, then they must necessarily be in either IIA or IIB. But if that is the case, then I'm confused about the reported survival rates. In Ovarian cancer#Survival rates, a survival rate of 70% is stated for II, but IIA and IIB both have higher survival rates (78%/73%). That seems mathematically impossible. — Pajz (talk) 14:38, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ovarian_cancer/Archive_1&oldid=1144235663"