Talk:Cancer

Plan for article

General:This introductory article on "cancer" is aimed at the lay reader, and must be sensitive to the fact that an individual who is worried about having cancer, or who has just received a diagnosis of cancer-for themselves or a loved one- is likely to be among its readers. Since the article must be scientifically and medically correct, it is always tempting to write in the sort of technical medical terms that are found in medical textbooks-but that temptation must be resisted here if Citizendium is to offer a freely accessible neutral and accurate source of information on this very important topic. It is harder and not easier to write folk-level prose about such subjects, and remain accurate, and I beg the authors here to consider carefully before revising text on the basis of it not sounding "scientific". If the concepts are there but the jargon is not then I argue it is scientific and also serves a public service that is abandoned when technical language is used. Terms must be explained so that an intelligent but naive user can follow the text.However, that text must convey high level information, and lead (with links) to a thorough presentation of thge subject. Nancy Sculerati MD 06:35, 19 March 2007 (CDT)

Something to think about, and speaking here as husband of an eleven-year survivor: a lot of people who read this article will have cancer or be connected to such a person. How about a section on psycho-social aspects of cancer? Just a thought. Stephen Ewen 12:32, 5 May 2007 (CDT)

I'd like to note, though, that we're not really a "patient manual". A lot of the medical articles in German wikipedia suffer from being completely dominated by medical personnel to the point of marginalizing issues of molecular biology. There's pages and pages on practical diagnosis and treatment, but the basic questions of "How does this disease work?" and "What is this disease to begin with?" are left vague at best and unanswered at worst. Yes, it is likely to have patients among the readers, but we shouldn't forget students and other researchers either who want to read outside their key area of expertise and given the genetic and epigenetic nature of cancer, I consider issues of molecular biology to be key to bringing the concept across -which still can be explained in a fashion understandable to the average reader, patient or no. (I often use the analogy of "a brick on the accelerator and another brick under the brake pedal in a car" analogy to illustrate oncogenes and tumor suppressors, for example). --Oliver Hauss 05:39, 1 June 2007 (CDT)

Note about Wikipedia article

I looked at thye Wikipedia article before beginning this from scratch. There is much useful information there, but it does not distinguish between epithelial malignancies as cancers upfront and it is rather patchwork. I began from scratch because I felt it would be easier and quicker to obtain a Citizendium article by doing so, rather than by revising. Editing that article was very unappealing to me. Nancy Sculerati MD 08:44, 19 March 2007 (CDT)

I think as far as individual cancers go, we could simply link to them instead of presenting a synopsis of them here. I have a little framework for an oversimplified article I can show you. Ill send you the link when I have it up.--Peter A. Lipson 12:23, 2 May 2007 (CDT)

I think too much text per section scares people, so in final versions, we may wish to keep individual sections brief enough to be palatable.--Peter A. Lipson 13:38, 2 May 2007 (CDT)

List of cancer types

Ok to delete section 5 that lists all of the cancers? I do not see this as helpful. - Robert Badgett 16:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Well I agree, one wouldn't be able to list ALL the cancers in one article anyway... we could leave some, but then at least brief descriptions should be added. On the other hand we could make a template, just like in wikipedia (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Team_Sport ), for that purpose. That way it could be quite usefull. Jonas Cicenas 16:57, 15 July 2010 (CEST)

Revise the "Classification" section to have subheads (or tables) for classification by location and by histological type; remove the section 5. Everything at the level here should have a subarticle.

I did fix one heading -- not everything was an epithelial tumor.

Diagnosis needs more work, and the article needs something on grading and staging. Biopsy should be revisited at least to have aspiration, but it would be best to build imaging into the section both for direct diagnosis and for guided biopsy. I be glad to collaborate if someone is interested. Howard C. Berkowitz 15:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)