Talk:Lipoma

Template suggestion

Suggested template for Orthopaedic Conditions (see Talk:Orthopedic surgery) is
Name
Definition
Synonyms
Incidence
Pathogenesis
Pathology
Stages
Classification
Natural History/Untreated Prognosis
Clinical Features
Investigation
Non-Operative Treatment
Risks of Non-Operative Treatment
Prognosis following Non-Operative Treatment
Operative Treatment (Note that each operations should have its own wiki entry)
Risks of Operative Treatment
Prognosis Post Operation
Complications
Management
Prevention
History
--Mylesclough 05:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Lipoma of the corpus callosum?

There is no reference in this article about lipoma's in for example the brain. I suggest one be made. Lighthead ^þ 19, November 2007 23:59 (UTC)

Cancerous or not?

The page states that it can be cancerous; however, various trusted sources state that it cannot become cancerous. It can, though, be confused with cancerous growths similar in appearance if not properly diagnosed. Are many people in the medical field (i.e. doctors and registered nurses) and I incorrect in this belief, or is the page incorrect? -1,000,000 Stars (talk) 06:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, those "trusted" sources are incorrect. --David Broadfoot (talk) 21:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I just added a cite re malignant transformation being possible. --David from Downunder (talk) 14:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Lipomatosis vs. Lipoma

Lipomatosis is not synonymous with Lipoma. Can someone who's more knowledgeable than I remove the redirect. 85.178.51.102 (talk) 21:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not synonymous, but the redirect is still valid. I moved the definition of lipomatosis up to the into and bolded the term - that is the accepted Wikipedia convention in the circumstances: there are two definitions in the one article (lipoma & lipomatosis.) --David from Downunder (talk) 05:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Still seems confusing. There are now two articles, Lipoma and Lipomatosis (which is good). However, the definition of the latter may be too restrictive in stating it is AD (see comments in this github ticket). It seems to be confusing the more generic lipomatosis with "Familial multiple lipomatosis", which is usually AD? Also the redirects are confusing, with many of the specific forms of lipomatosis pointing to lipoma rather than lipomatosis Cmungall (talk) 02:21, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Lipomas that have transformed to liposarcomas

Cases of lipomas that have transformed to liposarcomas are extremely rare, with only scattered case reports appearing the in the literature. Even these case reports are thought to be an underdiagnosis of an atypical lipomatous tumor as a lipoma. Lipomas and liposarcomas do not arise in the same locations, which one would expect if liposarcomas transformed into lipomas. Lipomas and liposarcomas show enterely different cytogenetic profiles, which one would also not expect if one arose from the other. Although it may be easy to think of liposarcoma as arising from a lipoma, this has not been shown to occur with confidence. For this reason, I removed that sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.35.79.70 (talk) 20:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I know that it is rare for it to happen, and that is what the article stated in the sentence that you deleted: that it is rare. The article never suggested that liposarcomas arise from lipomas (in general), merely that it can happen in rare cases. I will have a go at re-wording it again. P.S. please start new sections at the bottom of the talk page, and please sign your posts with four tildes. --David from Downunder (talk) 04:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Right, but it's not just rare. Most likely, it never happens. User 1,000,000 Stars came here and was dead on correct, but then was mislead by the page. Though, perhaps the page was different when that user came here. 66.61.25.164 (talk) 11:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)Unregistered User

Reference

I put this article with the revision back in it. If we want to list the one link as a source, we can simply move it to the references section without a revert. We should also try to cite the article inline if it's actually used as a reference, rather than just putting it as a blanket link at the bottom. Schu1321 (talk) 12:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Using the general articles as "Further reading" might solve this problem. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

No it wont: all sources used in the article must be included in the Notes/Footnotes/References sections. Schu1321 already moved that source to "External links" and I objected for the same reason. By you doing the same thing but renaming "External links" to "Further reading" does nothing to address my objection... "External links" are "Further reading". --David from Downunder (talk) 11:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Medical articles require in-line cites linking a particular statement with a particular source. It is not sufficient to have a "general reference" that is not linked to any parts of the text, see Wikipedia:MEDMOS#Citing medical sources. Such a general link is fine to provide further information on a topic, but it is not a reference. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

If the paper is used as a source, it must be classified as such and not put into "Further reading". There's no ban on putting the paper in the general references section, and it seems reasonable to me for a short article if that paper supplies much of the material. However, Tim is right to insist that aspects of the article be clearly sourced using inline references. If that paper is the source, then it must have an inline and be referred to in the Notes section. You could repeat the whole citation or just say "Salam 2002". A lot of literary articles, sourced to books, get done that way. I suspect that as the article grows, this one paper will no longer seem such a general reference. Colin°^Talk 19:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Colin: It's best to use this paper as an inline reference. The <ref name=whatever> system makes it very easy to use a reference repeatedly. You can use this article to support as many statements in the article as you choose (consistent with accuracy).

What we really don't want is this statement is this ref, that statement is that ref -- oh, and anything thing else is probably in this other thing, including whatever the vandal shoved in the article last week.

We also want to avoid having different "classes" of references. All refs belong in the same section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Colin and WhatAmIdoing are right. Inline cites are always preferable, but until editors have the time to cite all relevant facts are cited inline, the proper place for any general source is in the "References" section", not "Further Reading", as per Wikipedia:Citing_sources. --David from Downunder (talk) 00:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If you feel any statements seem are disputable, please add {{fact}} tags and I'll see if I can find references for them. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Tim, and thanks for all the edits. The bit about Lipomas that have transformed to liposarcomas needs some work. As per section above, some dispute it, but a friend of mine who is a leading oncologist told me some time ago that the chance of it happening is 0.3%, but now he cannot remember where he got that figure from. Rough translation of what he told me: once you have some genetic screw-ups as evidenced by having a lipoma, a fat cell in that lipoma has a greater chance of becoming a lipocarcoma than the average fat cell in a person who does not have a lipoma. Other medicos state outright that a lipoma cannot become a liposarcoma (and I'm sure that plenty of cites can be found to that effect), but it seems illogical to me to make such an assertion. --David from Downunder (talk)

I think part of the dispute is due to the location of the lipoma (some studies show transformation for intraosseous lipomas, but not much for malignant transformation elsewhere). I can expand that section a bit in a few days if no one gets to it before then. Schu1321 (talk) 06:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I've made a start on a "Prognosis" section. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Overweight

Interestingly, the article now states that being overweight is not a cause of lipoma, then it goes on to say that it is correlated in dogs! Probably one of those claims is wrong (the second one?) --David from Downunder (talk) 06:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The three references all seem to check out fine and appear reliable. Perhaps there is a different mechanism in other animals? Schu1321 (talk) 06:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Might be worth pointing out the difference in the article so people know it isn't a mistake? Schu1321 (talk) 06:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with doing that because I believe that pointing out the difference so that readers "know" that it isn't a mistake smacks of Original Research - based on supposition what's worse! (In fact, it probably is a mistake.)

There are a number of beliefs held by medical professionals regarding lipomas that do not match the experience of patients. A major one is that "lipomas never cause pain". When patients report pain, they are usually not believed and often ridiculed. It would not surprise me if there was a reality mismatch regarding overweight being a factor too. --David from Downunder (talk) 14:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

But unless that mismatch is published and in a verifiable source, we have to use what we can find in published literature. According to the two sources we have, it says humans have no risk from being overweight while dogs do (pointing that out isn't OR, but removing or changing it because of word of mouth would be). Schu1321 (talk) 17:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, the current information as written in the article isn't supported by its sources. Neither source states a link between obesity and lipomas; the e-medicine article states a link between obesity/postmenopause and dercum disease (which has lipomas, so in a round-about way, this is somewhat true). However, this isn't for obesity in the entire population and should at least be differentiated. As for the second article, it is currently written correctly in the wiki article, but may be a bit misleading as the gene has been linked separately to obesity and lipoma, but not mutation->obesity->lipoma from what I could tell. I didn't look up the actual publication (just the news article), so it could be better or differently explained there. Schu1321 (talk) 17:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Good points. I've fixed it as per your criticisms. I also moved your note about Dercum's away from that discussion as it's really a different condition. --David from Downunder (talk) 01:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The change again says there is a possible link between obesity and lipomas due to the mutation, however this is a misinterpretation of the data as I read it. The gene was linked to obesity, it has also now been linked to lipomas. However, just because they have a common start doesn't link obesity and lipoma; a common cause does not prove correlation. Schu1321 (talk) 01:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Re "a common cause does not prove correlation"... In fact, a common cause *does* imply a correlation. (On the other hand, a correlation does not imply any type of causality.) --David from Downunder (talk) 01:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

A common cause can lead to correlation, but doesn't mean that one must exist (some correlation may exist, but it could be +/0/-). However, the study (at least from the info in the news article) doesn't indicate a correlation between obesity and lipomas. It said that the mice with mutations were obese earlier in life but developed lipomas later in life. However, if we look at obese mice without the mutation there may be no increase in lipomas (and therefore no correlation). Also, there isn't any data presented that increased weight leads to a similar increase in lipomas (such as 1lb = 10% risk, 2lb = 20% risk, etc). I might be misinterpreting, but it seems a stretch to say that obesity is correlated to lipomas based on this study. Schu1321 (talk) 01:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I've done some searching on PubMed for "obesity" and "lipoma" and can't find anything particularly relevant. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I deemphasised the obesity link in the article. Though a very reliable source, I was not impressed by that article:

1. Note how they described lipomas as a "major clinical problem"?!! It’s an especially minor problem when you consider that they are apparently talking about sporadic lipomas, not even Familial Multiple Familial Lipomatosis.
2. The heading is flawed too: "'Obesity Gene' Causes Cancer of Fat Tissue"... given that the gene apprently causes lipoma, which only rarely could become a liposarcoma, the gene cannot said to "cause cancer".

Other conditions

Re other conditions related only by virtue of also presenting lipomas... we now have both lipomatosis and Dercum's mentioned in the lede. They could arguably be put in "See also" but I think they belong at least in the body of the article (perhaps in a new section called "Related conditions"?) so that their relationship to "Lipoma" can be made made clear.

Does anyone know about "Familial Multiple Lipomatosis" (FML)? Is that the same as what is meant by "Lipomatosis"? The Lipomatosis article needs work - it is just a stub.

FML is interesting because doctors invariably state that the cause is unknown, and there are numerous reliable sources that state that the cause is unknown. However, several specific mutations have been identified that cause FML (that's why I earlier added that fact to this article though I didn't cite it.)

Could I be correct in supposing that the same genetic mutation that causes FML also causes single lipomas if arising as a random mutation in a single cell? --David from Downunder (talk) 01:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd suspect that lipomas are much like other cancers and the transformation process involves a sequence of mutations in several different genes. Some of these targets could be common to all lipomas, and having them "pre-existing" in a hereditary form could speed up the process, but it is almost certainly a set of mutations, rather then a single hit on a single gene. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

A new "Related conditions" section would probably be worth starting to separate them out but keep them at their current importance. Schu1321 (talk) 01:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

As for the classification of lipomatosis, I would guess that lipomatosis is probably more accurately a general term for multiple lipomas, but should be differentiated for different causes (Familial, Benign symmetric). The current "lipomatosis" should probably be changed to FML. Schu1321 (talk) 02:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that an FML article is needed in addition to the lipomatosis article: note that there is a pelvic lipomatosis article already linked under lipomatosis. --David from Downunder (talk) 02:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Depending on how much info is available, would it be better to merge pelvic lipomatosis into the general lipomatosis article, and give them individual headings rather than their own articles? Schu1321 (talk) 02:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. So FML and lelvic lipomatosis, etc should all appear in the lipomatosis article (unless any of them get too large and need to be spun out into their own article.) Does anyone disagree? --David from Downunder (talk) 05:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Causes

I'll stick this here so we don't just go back and forth on the main page. How does this look for a rewrite of the causes section:

The tendency to develop a lipoma is not necessarily hereditary, although it is in a syndrome like familial multiple lipomatosis (where more than one lipoma develops over time.)[11] Hereditary lipomatosis is an autosomal dominant disorder and is a rare condition.[12] Genetic studies in mice have also shown a correlation between the HMG I-C gene (previously identified as a gene related to obesity) and lipoma development. These studies support prior epidemiologic data in humans showing a correlation between HMG I-C and mesenchymal tumors.[2]

Cases have been reported where minor injuries are alleged to have triggered the growth of a lipoma, called "posttraumatic lipomas".[13] However, the link between trauma and the development of lipomas is controversial.[14] Obesity has not been shown to cause lipoma in humans.[ref from page] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schu1321 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The whole paragraph about lipomatosis should be moved to the lipomatosis article. However, I'd like to see retained here a simple note that lipomatosis has hereditary and genetic factors. You may as well edit in place so it's easier to see what changes you made, and be able to click on the cites to check. Sometimes it's better to have the discussion in the edit comments. Please just change what you don't like of mine, and I'll do the same to you - we only need to discuss it here if we have a deadlock. If you want to change that text and move it to lipomatosis, please do it in two steps: move & edit, so it can be tracked. Thanks. --David from Downunder (talk) 05:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Dercum's

Just wondering what the style change for Dercum's -> Dercums is based on. The wikipedia redirect is for Dercum's disease and is referenced as such in the redirected article (Adiposis dolorosa). Schu1321 (talk) 02:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I read somewhere that not using the possessive is becoming the accepted style - more accepted in some branches of medicine than others. Also, general style principles eschew apostrophes in names: e.g. "XYX Boys High School", not "XYZ Boy's High School" or "XYX Boys' High School". You can go crazy thinking about it! --David from Downunder (talk) 05:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as style in most texts, it depends on what the reason of the name is. In the case of Dercum's, Dercum is an individual's name and is either Dercum disease (non-possessive but with no "s") or Dercum's disease (possessive with an "s"). As for the school example, the school isn't owned by the boys, but rather a school of boys, so no apostrophe. =) Schu1321 (talk) 05:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's not quite as simple as that. For example, it is standard practice to omit all apostrophes from place names in Australia (official style guide), so French's Forest is written "Frenchs Forest" even though it was a forest owned by a Mr French.

As far as students owning the school, Dercum didn't own the disease either. Nor did he even contract it. As Groucho Marx once said: "I've got Bright's disease, but not to worry -- he's got mine." (Add the apostrophes back in if you like - there doesn't seem to be a lot of consensus on that issue.) -- David from Downunder (talk) 13:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

As for medical discovery, it's meant to signify some ownership since they discovered it, which I think is the reason they are moving to remove the "'s". It could be different here (US), but most of the sites I found with Google had either Dercum disease/Dercum's disease, so I went with the former for now. We should probably get the other Wikipedia pages to match at some point, just so they have standard style. I'll be mostly absent from here until Thursday, but can do some of it then. Schu1321 (talk) 15:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

In the article, it is said that Dercum's Disease occurs most often in obese, post-menopausal women. However, the main article about Dercum's Disease says that Dercum supposed this, but that there was a survey that showed that 85.7% of the patients developed the disease before menopause. I am not an official editor, but I would propose to change this bit of information in this article. (92.105.44.155 (talk) 15:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC))

General Comments

Comment/question: I've noticed this in a few other entries too. Does the picture have to be so dark?

It doesn't seem dark to me. Perhaps it's a setting on your computer? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Removed ultrasound claim

I have removed the following text from the Treatment section:

Another method being developed is the use of ultrasound waves to destroy the lipoma. This can be compared with the removal of kidney stones where ultrasound is used to pulverize the stones.

My reasons for removal:

• There is no citation for this claim.

• It really does need substantiation. The parallel with lithotripsy is erroneous, since kidney stones are hard and brittle, and hence will break when exposed to very high amplitude sound waves, while lipomas are very soft and hence will not break even when exposed to the highest practicable sound waves.

• It might be thought that ultrasonic cavitation resulting from lithotripsy might be effective, but such mechanical disturbance is unlikely to penetrate inside a lipoma due to its higher density than surrounding tissues, its elasticity, and its ductility. Cavitation created by ultrasound may be expected to damage surrounding tissues before it would substantially effect a lipoma. David spector (talk) 16:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I have Lipoma on my right side of my back and the doctor said that I must of had it for awhile now but I just notice it. I want to know if I could die from this because the doctor said it's to big to remove. Lorrie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.254.161.24 (talk) 18:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes you will die! Seek alternative treatments in third world countries immediately!

I have multiple Lipomas, maybe around 5 total. With most in my quadriceps area.

I'm not 100% positive but it seems my mother and I both got the Lipomas within the same month. And most did appear within a month or so. Anyone else had that experience, other family getting Lipomas at the same time?

Time to perform self surgery and post it on youtube! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.131.210.151 (talk) 19:22, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Ambiguous use of "are supposed to"

"New methods under development are supposed to remove the lipomas without scarring." How are we to interpret "are supposed to" here - as "are said/claimed to", or as "are intended/meant to"? "Supposed to" can mean either of these, and should surely be replaced by something less ambiguous.213.127.210.95 (talk) 15:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lipoma. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050426184455/http://www.hms.harvard.edu/news/pressreleases/Schepens/0400ObesityGene.html to http://www.hms.harvard.edu/news/pressreleases/Schepens/0400ObesityGene.html

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) 16:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Conflicting figures on prevalence

The "Epidemiology" section includes the sentence "Approximately one percent of the general population has a lipoma", but the introductory section says that 2% of people are affected. These figures appear to conflict.188.230.240.75 (talk) 09:54, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Sure and fixed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:44, 24 May 2018 (UTC)