Talk:List of cancer types

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Prevalence and More Statistics

It would be great if this page (or another) gave more information about the cancers, such as their prevalence and mortality. Here´s a starting point http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancerbasics/cancer-prevalence http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/types/commoncancers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.197.176.134 (talk) 12:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feel

Feel free to add to the list. Efansay---T/C/Sign Here Please 07:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabetical, histological or anatomical?

Of these three ways of classifying tumours (there are more than these three), I, as a pathologist, prefer the histological classification (carcinoma, sarcoma, lymphoma, etc). Oncologists and surgeons prefer an anatomical classification (breast, colon, lung, etc). I guess that most readers will also prefer the second. What is clear is that no one prefers an alphabetical classification. Furthermore, tumours often have more than one name. The most common type of breast cancer is ductal carcinoma of the breast; should it be under "B" or "D"?. Will someone object if the order is changed? Emmanuelm 12:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a hierarchical list? Lung cancer, subdivided into SCLC and NSCLC (again subdivided in adenoca, squamous cell ca, alveolar cell etc etc)? JFW | T@lk 21:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh

I understand the purpose behind having separate lines under "Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia" and "Leukemia, Acute Lymphoblastic" and so forth. However, do we really need to have separate lines for things like:

when there aren't separate articles for them? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Several Issues

I've got a few comments here, feel free to interleave (signed) comments throughout:

  1. Removing capitalization - I agree with this and tried a few more sections to see how it looks - just fine! But exactly what cap's should be kept? Obviously proper names, anything else?
  2. Adult and childhood separate entries - as expressed above, why keep them if there's no realistic possibility of separate articles? This list was pretty slavishly copied from its source, which had endlinks for each entry, but we don't. So we should either add redlinks to get each entry eventually filled in, or condense the list. I vote condense.
  3. Duplication - for instance, "Bone cancer, osteosarcoma" and later "Osteosarcoma" - do we want to duplicate these? This relates a little to the thread two above regarding organization.
  4. Completeness - should this list include each (human-related) entry in Category:Types_of_cancer? I assume the answer is yes?
  5. And more generally, if we trim this list down a bit, could we think about changing this over to a table format? This would have columns for "tissue" (i.e. what organ or structure), "name" (link to our article), "type" (carcinoma, sarcoma, blastoma, etc.) and perhaps "notes" or something. This would address the concerns of the pros expressed above and allow sorting of the entire list.

Thanks for any comments! Franamax (talk) 22:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the liberty of numbering your points for my convenience; I hope you don't mind.
1) IMO, proper names, and individual letters ("B cell" and "T cell"), and nothing else, unless someone else shows up and squawks at us.
2) Yes, let's dump the "adult" and "child" splits. If we ever develop separate articles, we can always add them back. I suppose we should keep "childhood" if there's no matching "adult".
3) Yes, I think we do want the "duplicates". The point behind the duplication is to make an alphabetical list work -- and also to give the non-specialists a fighting chance. If you're thinking "Now, my friend said it was some kind of bone cancer... but what was the exact name again?", then the current approach is likely to be very friendly. You might easily recognize a name that you can't actually recall.
4) I assume so as well.
5) I generally dislike large, clunky tables, but if it makes you happy, then I won't object. I see your point about the value of a sortable table.
Thanks for your work on this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, this is a lot of work! :) It strikes me that the solution to "duplicates" and my desire for a table to sort by tissue is to instead take the advice above and revamp this so that the headings are organized by tissue type. So then the primary headings would be "Bone cancers", "Brain cancers", etc. As pretty much everyone on this page is saying, that is really the natural way readers will be approaching this page, and adds genuine value - the category already has the alphabetical listing.
We can transition it gradually, by creating a section at a time and moving entries up from the alphabetical listing. After that, I can have my way with tables, listing type, frequency, etc. (if I still have the gumption - it could turn out to be a Featured List eventually if we keep at it). What do you think?
And BTW, take a look at ovarian cancer, then check out the linked pages and all the sub-types in those pages - I think there's a bunch more to be added here. Franamax (talk) 07:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Caps done, only 6 years later. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC).

Statistics

From a consumer: Would it be possible for you authors to include the frequency of occurrence and probability of survival for each cancer type? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.227.196.21 (talk) 01:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See cancer survival rates (needs much work) and cancer incidence rates (needs writing). All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC).

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

What is COPD doing on the list? I wasn't aware that it was even considered a precancerous condition, much less an actual cancer. It's not on the source list from NIH, and there's no mention of cancer in its primary article other than to say it can sometimes co-occur with lung cancer. It seems to have appeared in October of 2013 (revision 575588418), and the user's history doesn't seem to indicate any particular focus in medicine or biology.

Please let me know if I'm committing any crimes against editing etiquette here; I don't chime in very often! Jdrum00 (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Teratoma

I have no specialist knowledge in this area, but do know a little about Teratomas and had expected a listing here. Perhaps somebody would be kind enough to explain their omission and perhaps it would be prudent to include at least a disambig link to help others searching for the same subject. If they are here and I have missed it, please accept my apologies Thanks  Velella  Velella Talk   09:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ALS

why is ALS considered a cancer type? Is it not an autoimmune disease? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tasuki00 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Life sciences about Deoxyribonucleic

M 41.116.123.176 (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Male reproductive system

Male reproductive system 41.116.48.213 (talk) 16:11, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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