Talk:Sarcoma

Medicine: Hematology-oncology High‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Hematology-oncology task force.

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Sarcoma.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 March 2019 and 29 March 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MJBinSF. Peer reviewers: Davojann.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The

The second sentence makes no sense, it is not clear what sarcomas are compared with. Someone had written something more there but part of it is removed I suppose. If no one fixes it, I will delete that sentence totally.

Some areas needing expansion

I'm not very skilled at editing Wikipedia, which is why I'm posting this here instead of editing it myself! Two things: a) Phyllodes tumor, aka cystosarcoma phylloides, is also a sarcoma and not included in the list; b) some discussion of the difference between sarcomas and "cancers" would improve this article a great deal. At least in my experience, sarcomas are considered to be cancers (in that they are malignant mutations of cells) but they seem very different in structure, etc. A good explanation of this for the layman would be a helpful addition.--Injoy 00:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing cancers

"Soft tissue sarcomas, such as leiomyosarcoma, chondrosarcoma, and gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST), are more common in adults than in children. GIST is the most common form of sarcoma, with approximately 3000-3500 cases per year in the United States.[7] This should be compared with breast cancer, with approximately 200,000 cases per year in North America."

Why, exactly, should the two be compared? The first number is from the USA only, and the second number is from the whole continent. Who knows how many cases are in North America, but don't happen to be in the USA? They're good sentences, but the comparison really would fit a politician more than Wikipedia. Sudoku424 (talk) 20:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I suspect that the editor is trying to make a point about sarcoma being relatively rare, but breast cancer, which affects primarily women, is not a good comparison. What do you think would be a better comparison? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the comparison to all cancers, and restored the "rare" designation. As the incidence of sarcomas is about 6% of the "rare disease" threshold (which has the additional complication of being a prevalence, not an incidence), I suspect that even "very rare" would be acceptably accurate, but the distinction didn't seem important to me. If anyone's curious, the "all cancers" number is actually all "scary" cancers; it excludes about a million cases of trivial skin carcinomas. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why does "myxofibrosarcoma" redirect here?

What is it exactly? 31.53.185.104 (talk) 07:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article from the journal Rare Tumors says, "Myxofibrosarcoma (MFS) is a variant of the group of malignant fibrous histiocytomas. It is one of the most aggressive types of soft tissue neoplasms. The clinical presentation is not pathognomonic and the histological aspects are highly heterogenous, frequently delaying the diagnosis or leading to misdiagnosis. ... Extensive surgery followed by radiotherapy is the first choice treatment."

Wikipedia needs an article about this. If you do more reading on the topic, write down what you learn, noting the urls of the sources of that information. Our disease articles cover

diagnosis
causes
prevention
treatment/management
prognosis (outlook)
epidemiology (who gets it, how common it is, etc.)
history
research directions
special populations (e.g., geriatrics, pregnancy, pediatrics).

We prefer only the highest quality sources for medical content, and the highest are medical journal articles, medical textbooks, statements from specialist orgnisations, etc.

Above, I link to an article at the National Library of Medicine's PubMed Central. That is a good place to search for free reliable articles. Another is their general PubMed site - but some of the articles there require payment or access through a university library.

The very best sources are "reviews" - articles that address a topic in general - rather than single scientific trials, studies or case reports like the one I linked to.

If you do get together some useful information on this, contact me at my talk page, or leave a message at the medicine project WT:MED and someone will help you knock it into an article - or at least the beginnings of an article.

For now, I've moved the redirect from here to histiocytoma. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article Revision Planned for March 2019 -- UCSF Expanding WikiProject Medicine

I am a medical student at UCSF School of Medicine. As part of UCSF’s Expanding WikiProject Medicine course, I will be editing this article during the period March 4-28, 2019. The goals of my revisions will be to:

- Assess the current references and cite to more recent and/or higher quality sources where appropriate - Verify/update existing content, and add relevant content that currently is missing (e.g., no outcomes/prognosis section in current version of the article) - Modify the structure of the article to more closely follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style for medicine-related articles, as follows:

1. Classification - Explain that sarcomas are typically grouped into bone sarcomas and soft tissue sarcomas - List the common subtypes of bone and soft tissue sarcomas based on those described in the American Joint Commission on Cancer Staging Manual, 8th ed. (2018). Include links to Wikipedia main articles for sarcoma subtypes where they exist (e.g., Ewing sarcoma has its own article, so embed link to that article).

2. Signs & symptoms - No symptom-related discussion in the current version of the article - Add content describing symptoms and signs

3. Causes and mechanisms - This is not included in the article currently - Add relevant content regarding known causes/mechanism, including hereditary/genetic factors and environmental factors (e.g., radiation exposure)

4. Diagnosis and staging - Using non-technical jargon, include description of how sarcomas are diagnosed, including findings on physical exam, radiologic findings, biopsy/histology findings, and molecular markers - Add discussion of staging, including what is meant by clinical stage, TNM stage and tumor grade

5. Prevention/screening - Add screening information included in published guidelines from US Preventative Task Force and American Cancer Society

6. Treatment/management - Treatment for certain subtypes of sarcoma is currently included in the article, but it is included under the “Types” section. There is no separate heading for “Treatment” or “Management” in the current version of the article. - Create heading for Treatment and add existing content to this section - Verify accuracy of current treatment information and revise as appropriate - Replace any existing low-quality references with high-quality sources - Add content for other subtypes where available - Do all this using non-technical jargon

7. Outcomes/prognosis - Not currently included in the article - Add outcome information from most recent version of National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Evidence Blocks, which are included in the NCCN’s Clinical Practice Guidelines for Soft Tissue Sarcoma and Bone Cancer. - Also add most recent outcome data published by the American Cancer Society (e.g., RL Siegel, et al. Cancer Statistics, 2019. CA Cancer J Clin. 2019;69:7-34) - Avoid technical/medical jargon

8. Epidemiology - The references cited for epidemiology data in the current version of the article are from 2003, 2009 and 2007 - Update epidemiological data using more recent sources

9. Society & Culture - Add relevant content, if any can be found - If not, I propose leaving the heading as a placeholder to encourage others to add content

10. Research Directions - Summarize directions described in high quality sources (e.g., recent medical review articles)

11. Special populations - Add relevant content, if any can be found - If not, I propose leaving the heading as a placeholder to encourage others to add content

12. Awareness - This section is included in the current version of the article. Although it is not one of the headings suggested by the Manual of Style, I think it is a useful section that may be of interest to people searching "sarcoma," and therefore I propose to keep it. - Verify accuracy of existing content and add additional content, if any

Timeline

Week 1 (3/4-3/10): - assess current references and confirm hyperlinks still work - begin obtaining and reviewing additional high-quality reference materials - develop and post work plan and timeline

Week 2 (3/11-3/17): - live edit article pursuant to work plan - goal will be to edit/add sections for Classification, Signs/Symptoms, Causes/Mechanisms, Diagnosis/Staging, and Prevention/Screening

Week 3 (3/18-3/24): - live edit article pursuant to work plan - goal will be to edit/add sections for Treatment/Management, Outcomes/Prognosis, Epidemiology, Society/Culture, Research Directions, and Special Populations - revise lede to reflect new/updated content - peer review on 3/20-3/22

Week 4 (3/25-3/28) - revise pursuant to peer review feedback - complete any unfinished sections - confirm all references are appropriately cited

--MJBinSF (talk) 18:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review for UCSF WikiProject Medicine

Hey Mike,

First and foremost, spectacular job on this page! I checked the revision history and saw how much you fleshed out this article and gave it life. It truly looks amazing and it reads very well too.

I will try to base most of my peer review comments from your plan posted on the talk page.

The Lead - I like how you expanded on the lead yet simplified it at the same time. It flows and reads well.

Classification - I appreciate how you added more tumors to this section.

Signs and symptoms - I like how you added the typical symptoms based on the type of sarcoma without adding superfluous details. The only thing I would change is to write out "Gastrointestinal stromal tumol (GIST)" instead of just GIST. I know that you wrote it out in the classification section, but I think that it would be helpful to write it out against in this section as I think people may not see the full written out version of GIST before they reach the signs and symptoms section. Also, do patients with sarcoma have B symptoms? If so, I think that would be important to add as well.

Causes and Mechanisms - Absolutely love this section. It's succinct yet very insightful and easily digestible.

Diagnosis, staging and grade - In the "Staging" section, I would create a new paragraph between the 3rd sentence (ending with ..."forming distant 'metastases'") and the 4th sentence (the most common imaging tools...). I think that the first part of the "Staging" section highlights the general way in which sarcomas are staged while the second part of the section highlights the specific modalities used to stage bone vs. soft tissue sarcomas. Thus, I think making them two distinct paragraphs would make sense.

Prevention and screening; treatment - Great, wouldn't change anything here.

Outcomes and prognosis - I think you do a great job highlighting the prognostic factors of the different types of sarcoma. You don't mention much about the outcomes or survival rates (although you mentioned the survival rate of patients with rhabdomyosarcoma previously in the treatment section). I would perhaps change the heading of this section to just "Prognosis".

Epidemiology - Great, wouldn't change anything.

Awareness - I would keep this section as I think it's an interesting factoid and has the potential to expand more in the future.

Overall, extremely well written article with great expansions that are easy to read and flow well. I only added minor suggestions here as I think this article is excellent. I'm curious if you are still going to add the sections "Society & Culture, and Research Directions". I think the "research directions" section would be a great addition as it would give hope to individuals out there with sarcomas.

Hope you had a great weekend!

- Davojann — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davojann (talk • contribs) 03:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oncology

What is gastric cancer Syed umath (talk) 12:25, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leiomyosarcoma

I would like to know that a woman who gets a hysterectomy that has absolutely no cancer cells in the uterus that’s removed, has no cancer on her mother side and no cancer on her father side how did she develop leiomyosarcoma… Power morcellator is not used… Is it because of the procedure itself? 2600:6C44:657F:B2AE:4188:5D45:3527:9D6C (talk) 12:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]