Talk:Lymphoma
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Working Formulation is outdated. Does anyone has a staightforward description of the WHO classification? JFW | T@lk 16:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
- Indeed, the Working Formulation is outdated. However, we code our patients with SNOMED, which requires a WF diagnosis. Also, the National Cancer Institute of Canada compiles national statistics as HL and NHL. Otherwise, it would be impossible to follow historical incidence rates. In the US, the NIH still uses the HL vs NHL division. Under the NHL heading, they mention the WF and the REAL classifications (the REAL is the mother of the WHO).
- Not only are we condemned to repeat history, we are also slaves of our history. For this reason, I give two diagnoses for each case: WF and WHO.
- As for a straightforward description of the WHO classification, forget about it: there is nothing straighforward about it! The introduction of the 2001 book takes two pages to explain how their classification is complex, but so were the previous classifications. They finish with the promise of more complexity in the future. Frankly, it is not their fault: nature is much more complex than we wish.
- Emmanuelm 18:12, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] WHO Classification
There seems to be a much better list at the National Cancer Institute than the one we've got. It ties much better to the actual publication (the same 11 sections, in the same order). I'd like to replace that section in this article -- any objections? --Arcadian 01:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- Not a problem. Perhaps we can also insert the relative incidence as published in this month's Blood here. JFW | T@lk 13:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- I've made the update. I've included template links to a source that supports looking up information by ICD-O code, but it doesn't recognize all the codes on the page, so I'll look for a more flexible source. (And JFW -- your idea sounds like a good one, but I can't get access to that data.) --Arcadian 16:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- I don't start until August 2006. --Arcadian 16:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- Can Arcadian tell me why he/she included the leukemia classification to this lymphoma page? It is not even listed in the leukemia page! I vote for dividing the WHO classification into 4 parts in 4 distinct pages: leukemia, lymphoma, histocytic and mastocytic neoplasms. Only the relevant part of the classification should be listed in each page. Wiki links will lead to the other pages. Remember, Wikipedia is not a technical text, it is meant to be readable by all. Let me know what you think before I delete the non-lymphoma parts. Emmanuelm 14:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Arcadian, I added only the lymphoma portion of the WHO classification, as shown on the page you link. You added the leukemias on Dec 29th. Would you mind moving the leukemia portion to the leukemia page? Emmanuelm 20:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, and please note that I would be very comfortable with a "cross-coverage" of lymphocytic leukemias (both CLL and ALL) in both pages. My comment is really about myeloid, histiocytic and mast cell neoplasms who share no real relationship with lymphomas. Emmanuelm 20:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- To simplify the discussion, I have restored that section to your version from 6 July 2005, including the section you added on Histiocytic and Dendritic Cell Neoplasms. You may make any further edits you would like, and I will have no objection. --Arcadian 21:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
-
-
The full list should be on hematological malignancy, and the lymphoma part can be copied over here. It would be defendable to list ALL and CLL here. They are neighbours of lymphoblastic lymphoma and small lymphocytic lymphoma and fall under the lymphoproliferative disorders. JFW | T@lk 21:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Non-sequitur?
The article says:
Because the lymphatic system is part of the body's immune system, patients with weakened immune system, such as from HIV infection or from certain drugs or medication, also have a higher incidence of lymphoma.
Why does belonging to the immune system lead to higher incidence of lymphoma? It would be better to either explain that connection or just start the phrase at "Patients with weakened etc...".
-
- response
- It's because having a weakened immune system leads to a weakened ability to kill cells that have gone off of their programming because the immune system is focused elsewhere. I get your point, it's not a non sequitur however. The article provides enough information for the person who has some knowledge of human biology already, but could be a little bit clearer for those who don't have such a founding.
-
- Perhaps it could read: "As the lymphatic system is a part of the body's immune system, a weakened or compromised immune system such as is caused by, for example: HIV, steroids and infection, would lead to a higher than usual incidence of lymphoma in those people as the immune system's natural ability to suppress such cancer formation is weakened also."
-
- What do you think? Fr33kMan 17:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
