Talk:Hepatocellular carcinoma

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good articleHepatocellular carcinoma was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 8, 2006Good article nomineeListed
June 9, 2009Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Asifur1996.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jules014.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copper

In hepatocellular carcinoma , there is high level of serum copper and copper to zinc ratio as the serum zinc level is low.Is this interesting to measure the serum copper and zinc level?

Firstly, what is your source. Secondly, what would the cause be. Thirdly, are you now going to give penicillamine or zinc if there is otherwise no clinical need (e.g. neurological symptoms) to do so? JFW | T@lk 07:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liver cancer

Since liver cancer is not synonym for hepatocellular carcinoma, I turned liver cancer, which was previously a redirect to here, to a disambiguation page. --Steven Fruitsmaak 12:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think the translations should be different, not translating "liver cancer" but "hepatocellular carcinoma". --Steven Fruitsmaak 17:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HCC

Please redirect from HCC.

Hepatoma

>(an alternative name may be hepatoma) This was originally mentioned after the name. However, hepatomas are generally benign and harmless, which cannot be said about HCC Jfdwolff 00:05, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hepatoma is an old name for primary hepatocellular carcinoma. [Yes, it's a misnomer.] Axl 18:18, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So hepatoma should be a disambiguation. JFW | T@lk 21:00, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Eh? With respect, I think that you made a mistake. Hepatoma = hepatocellular carcinoma. Axl 12:14, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So what do you call benign liver neoplasms, if not hepatoma? JFW | T@lk 16:04, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I call them benign liver tumours/cysts/adenomas. Axl 09:54, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Good, it must be my training abroad that's leading to the confusion :-) JFW | T@lk 21:11, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hehe! :-) It is exactly this sort of confusion that caused the word (hepatoma) to fall into disuse. It doesn't comply with the general rule that solid epithelium-derived cancers should be designated 'carcinoma'. Axl 21:28, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

it is called HepatoCellular Carcinoma means malignant tumor of epithelial tissue (liver spicificlly) but hepatoma means a benign tumor of hepatocytes!!!

Some Questions

Is Aspergillus responsible for a "unique" type of HCC ? I wasn't aware of there being a big difference between the two forms, and also leaves us with the problem of what to do with those who have both Hep B and Aflatoxin (e.g. in West Africa) MattW 12:35, 26 July, 2005

Aflatoxin is a carcinogen; as the liver filters out most toxins, it has a habit of building up in the liver. As it still affects hepatocytes, I don't think there should be much of a difference between a HCC caused by aflatoxin, Hep B, alcohol or simply bad luck.Serrin 11:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this interesting to measure serum copper and Cu/Zn ratio in HCC?

Reverts

Dear Jfdwolff -- I think we need to revise the treatment section, or perhaps add a research heading, where we could link to clinical trials and current research -- the reason is that this may help patients -- What do you think? Anita Brenner

I agree, but please adhere to the manual of style. JFW | T@lk 06:29, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

JFW: Your reverts eliminated my references to screening tests, Dr. So's genetics research, even reference sites for patients and this week's ASCO abstracts.

I see by the history that you have reverted every time some one wanders in and posts a new link. All the links I have seen in the history, the ones that you erase, appear to be valid resources.

You describe yourself as a physician, so I don't understand why you want to deprive patients of full access to the vast array of online resources, particularly when they may be of more benefit than the outdated summary you keep reverting to.

What's the problem?

Anita Brenner

Anita, please don't be insulted by something so minor, and try not to attack me without hearing me out. As you have recently joined you have not yet have seen how some articles are continuously "updated" by people wanting every detail mentioned of the most obscure research, theories and sometimes worse.
Wikipedia does not need external links. What Wikipedia needs is a well-written clear outline, not just of frontline research but of basic principles such as staging, histology and prognosis. Readers are much more helped by the conclusions of a recent review paper than by a deluge of links.
I hope this explains my "record" of removing added links. Please cooperate - I think this article needs a lot of work and it has a lot of worldwide implications (its highest incidence being in Southeast Asia). JFW | T@lk 12:39, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What Wikipedia needs is a well-written clear outline, not just of frontline research but of basic principles such as staging, histology and prognosis. That's very nice: are you actually going to do this or just remove anyone else's contributions? And since you've set yourself up as a veteran here, perhaps you ought to reacquaint yourself with Don't bite the newcomers and lose the supercilious attitude. --Calton | Talk 14:47, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you've posted it here and on my talkpage? My response was intended to be constructive, so please do not make it sound differently. I'm honestly interested in Anita's expertise, and I don't think she needs you to come to her defense. JFW | T@lk 15:14, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Calton, thank you for sticking up for me. I appreciate it.
  • This is long, but since it is my last post on Wikipedia, please bear with me.
  • Calton is correct, . I am not the first newcomer to attempt to contribute to this page, to try to bring it current, but, as the history of this and other page suggests, Jfdwolff, is brutal to newcomers.
  • Wikipedia had the opportunity to clear up a confusing area for people who are diagnosed with HCC. When I came upon this page, Jfdwolff had spent more time on political statements (he seems not to like the USA very much) than he did on current treatments and research. So in good faith, I thought I would make a contribution. But Jfdwolff kept reverting everything.
  • Because Jfdwolff chases away newcomers and automatically reverts most revisions, this page, in particular, is out of date.
  • Thanks to Calton, Jfdwolff has finally, kicking and screaming, grudgingly kept a few of the links that I contributed.
  • However, Jfdwolff has marginalized some of the links by relegating them to a special section. For example, Jfdwolff mischaracterizes the Wilson site as mere "patients' links." Unlike Jfdwolff, the Wilsons have raised money to publish a handbook for HCC patients. That booklet was written and approved by phyisicians on their board. Their booklet is more current and better written than anything jfdwolff has written here.
  • Jfdwolff did the same with my search engine at liver.andrewtorres.org. liver.andrewtorres.orgis not a "patients" site. liver.andrewtorres.org is a search engine that allows patient to keep current on clinical trials, the results of clinical trials, recent literature and emerging drugs.
  • Why did I write that page and why did I take the time to share all these resources here? Because the doubling time of HCC is 1-3 months and bioinformatics is essential. Patients and their physician need quick access to the latest research abstracts from ASCO, journal abstracts from Pubmed, clinical trial results. They also need to know what drugs are in the pipeline and how approved drugs can be used off-label.
  • But, life is too short to waste time where one is not wanted. Jfdwolff, I prefer to spend my time raising money for cancer research, and supporting the fine physicians and patients at the forefront of this disease. Some day Cancer will be a disease of the past.
  • And yes, JfdWolff, I do object to your citation to the Brazilian Journal of Medical Biology as a background review. The NIH, MD Anderson, NCI and ASCO sites are far better for background information. But they don't fit in to your political world view.

Ciao, JfdWolff, You win.

17 May 2005 Anita Brenner

Background review

Does anyone object against this article (Franca AV, Elias Junior J, Lima BL, Martinelli AL, Carrilho FJ. Diagnosis, staging and treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Braz J Med Biol Res 2004;37:1689-705. PMID 15517086) as a background review? JFW | T@lk 15:50, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration of content

I found a lot of content removed in this edit, by an anon with one edit. I've restored the lost content, but there have been some minor changes made since then that are now lost. I think this is the proper action, but if anyone disagrees, let me know. --Arcadian 01:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Epidemiology

Incidence in Europe and USA doi:10.1111/j.1572-0241.2007.01337.x JFW | T@lk 07:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MRI is the best for diagnosis: doi:10.1111/j.1365-2036.2007.03498.x JFW | T@lk 11:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comparison of staging systems: doi:10.1111/j.1572-0241.2007.01604.x JFW | T@lk 01:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JfdWolff

Anybody who does not know that hepatoma is the same as hepatocellular carcinoma should NOT contribute to this article !!!81.244.197.160 (talk) 20:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you expand, I am a bit confused, I certainly don't know the difference and am a contributor to this article but we want a really good article so clarifying your comment would be really helpful. Thankis SqueakBox 20:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This relates to my above message from 2004. At that time I had undergone most of my training in a country where the term "hepatoma" is not routinely used, and I therefore acted on the understanding that anything called "-oma" must be benign. I stand corrected. I'm unsure why 81.244.197.160 seems to be so upset with me about this. The user has no other edits, and I can't remember ruffling any feathers in that IP range. JFW | T@lk 11:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Epidemiology

Study that lacks solid conclusions (from abstract at least) about HCC in the USA. Risk is higher in particular ethnic groups, which probably reflects the fact that they have risk factors. doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2008.03.005 JFW | T@lk 11:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Epidermal growth factors

Just curious, but why haven't epidermal growth factors been mentioned in this article? I recently read an article in JAMA (DOI 10.1001/jama.2007.65) of relationship between a single nucleotide polymorphism on the EGF gene and the risk for developing HCC in patients with cirrhosis. Another article (PMID 7862454) from 1995 determined that the overexpression of secreted EGF fusion protein led to the development of HCC in transgenic mice. I think this new research is worth mentioning in the "Future directions" section of the article. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 20:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

Needs extensive work to add inline references and reorganization to fulfill GA criteria. The treatment section is currently just a bunch of bullet points. Needs to be wikified. No verification for the people who had this condition. Could also do with a expanded classification section.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Treatment

Considering that this page is likely to be read by patients and their families trying to understand hepatoma and how it can be treated, the section on treatment needs considerable work to update it and correct a number of errors. For example, the article states that cryosurgery is "a new technique" - when in fact it has existed for decades and has been widely used to treat hepatoma since the 1980s. In the case of hepatoma it is also associated with high-risk to patients from shock, which can arise as a result of hormone and enzyme cascades triggered by the therapy. On the other hand, radiofrequency ablation as a treatment for hepatoma is relatively new (in widepsread use less than 7 years) and considered favorable to cryosurgery as it is minimally invasive, less risky and easier to perform (negligible risk of harmful biochemical response). The discussion of TACE is also incorrect - it states that TACE is not suitable for treatment of large tumors >8cm; this figure should be revised to >15cm, as it is now commonly used and frequently succeeds for tumors up to that size, without concurrent PEI or other treatments. Anyway, some update is certainly needed. Mudpuddles1418 (talk) 22:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those points are still in the article - perhaps because we need RS for changes ? - Rod57 (talk) 13:23, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]


This section is hugely skewed towards locally-directed liver therapies. Need to organize better (curative vs palliative intentions), more written on surgery/transplant, with more updated information on TACE/radioembolization and the other local therapies. Dr G (talk) 21:18, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

merge into liver cancer.

i suggest merging hepatocellular carcinoma into the liver cancer article for two reasons:1 this article does not cite any refrences,needs updating,wikification,and cleanup.and 2 hcc is the main type of liver cancer.24.97.164.250 (talk) 16:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i agree.for a fairly common and very important malignancy,this article is a mess.there is outdated information like"a new therapy sorafenib is showing some promise in clinical trials".currently,sorafenib is the standered of care in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (incorrectly termed hepatoma above).the treatment section esp needs cleanup and updating.i think that if in a few months the article is not at least somewhat improved,the whole article will need to be merged into liver cancer.169.244.148.235 (talk) 15:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Liver Cancer article is redundant. There is a Liver Tumour article which includes information about Benign and Malignant Tumours and then each separate tumour type should have its own article (if noteworthy). The Liver Cancer article does not have any useful or new information in it that cannot be placed under liver tumour or HCC. Natasqi (talk) 06:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Liver tumor and Liver cancer should be merged, but Hepatocellular carcinoma should be kept separate. There are many other types of liver tumors. --Arcadian (talk) 12:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hepatocellular carcinoma should be summarized in a section in liver cancer and I agree liver cancer and tumor should be merged.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The disease and its dietary concern...see...


Needs refs

==Society and culture==

Awareness

The Jade Ribbon Campaign is used for awareness of liver cancer and hepatitis B in the Pacific Islands, where such illnesses are more widespread than elsewhere.

Famous people

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainment-us-robingibb-death-idUSBRE84J0CN20120521

Diagnosis

In the Diagnosis section of the article it mentions that a biopsy to confirm the diagnosis is not required if certain imaging criteria are met. What are the criteria? Nonagonal Spider (talk) 06:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I addressed this (5 years later lol) in re-vamping the Diagnosis section. Much clean up still needed.Dr G (talk) 05:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lancet

Seminar doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61347-0 JFW | T@lk 20:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paywalled. Abstract doesn't promise much. Does it say anything worth putting in the WP article ? - Rod57 (talk) 13:29, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Immune-based therapies

Gut doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2014-307990 JFW | T@lk 14:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Current concepts of immune based treatments for patients with HCC: from basic science to novel treatment approaches Greten et al. - sadly paywalled : abstract says it's "... an overview for the rationale of immunotherapy in HCC, summarise ongoing studies and provide a perspective for immune based approaches in patients with HCC." - Could use in Research section ? - Rod57 (talk) 13:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Imaging review

doi:10.7326/M14-2509 - MRI is most sensitive, CT/MRI are better than USS. JFW | T@lk 15:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hepatocellular carcinoma. my edit. ... I made the following changes:

archive only shows Title - no content.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Review

doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2015.12.041 JFW | T@lk 10:16, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence-Based Diagnosis, Staging, and Treatment of Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma Bruix et al. - Full text - Looks good. - Rod57 (talk) 13:16, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hepatocellular 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 07:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hepatocellular 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 16:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NASH unglossed in lead

Metabolic syndrome and NASH [first mention] are also increasingly recognized as risk factors for HCC.

— MaxEnt 13:09, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Hepatocellular_carcinoma"