Talk:Oncology
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of a WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's articles related to medicine. For guidelines see WikiProject Clinical Medicine and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ. | |
Hi, I think you may have outdated data. . Regarding, http://wikipedia.com/wiki/Oncology Specifically the paragraph: "A significant problem with treatment methods such as surgery and directed radiation is that destruction of the primary tumor often results in other dormant micrometastases becoming active. In other words, once the main cancer is removed, other cancer sites often pop up throughout the body." I have seen this information on PBS (KQED - San Francisco/Oakland) TV. However, according to information provided directly to me by Dr. Mitchel S. Berger M.D, this information has been disproven. According to Dr. Berger, MD, there is no scientific data that supports that primary tumor removal causes satellite/dormant tumor growth. If you wish to verify with Dr. Berger, MD: Dr. Berger, MD, Professor and Chairman, Department of Neurological Surgery http://cc.ucsf.edu/people/berger_mitchel.html http://www.som.ucsf.edu/departments/neuros/faculty_staff/department_faculty/berger.html Thank you. William M.
Why is this page dedicated almost completely to alternative and controversial approaches to cancer? How about the principles of oncological medicine, palliative care, radiotherapy and a condensation of chemotherapy? Jfdwolff 14:29, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Surgical Oncology
Why is it mentioned that "oncology", meaning therapeutic oncology, refers exclusively to "non-surgical" treatments? What of Surgical Oncology?
- You are right. Do you think you could give a concise paragraph on surgical oncological practice? JFW | T@lk 13:37, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Biological, Immunological and Hormonal therapies
Interesting observation by DocJohnny that immunological therapies more pertinant than biological. I would include immunological under the umbrella of biologicals in that they are part of the new wave of treatments which are not based on cytotoxics. Question of semantics really. The big money monoclonals (Rituximab, Cetuximab, Trastuzimab etc) are dominating the field at the moment. Whilst the EGFR inhibitors are antibodies, they are not immunological therapies in the same sense that vaccines or BCG are, since they are not primarily used to generate an immune response. Vaccine-type immunotherapy is really a long way behind. It is worth making a distinction.Jellytussle 04:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think you understood my point. I am just talking about the link, not about the treatments themselves. I understand your point, but did you look at the wiki page for biological? Is it as relevant to oncology as immunotherapy? I think the wiki article for immunotherapy is more pertinent to oncology than the wiki article for biological. I am not making any commentary on the relevance of the actual therapies. :P --DocJohnny 06:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. I have had a go at cleaning this up. It now links to the article on monoclonals which is far more relevant. I'm still not completely happy with it.Jellytussle 06:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Follow up
I'm not sure that the following belongs in Follow-up:
- " specialized area of oncology is that of "secondary cancer", tumors caused by treatment for a different cancer. The rate of secondary cancer is improving as chemotherapy treatment schedules are becoming less toxic, but on the whole the incidence of cancer in previous cancer patients is substantially higher than in the general population."
Secondary malignancy is an important concern, but I am not aware of any oncologist with a specialist clinical practice in this area. Is the rate of secondary malignancies really decreasing? Better survival certainly increases the incidence of late radiation-induced malignancy, even if the use of alkylating agents is decreasing. It is confusing to discuss second cancers (as opposed to secondary cancers) in the same paragraph. One reason that the incidence of second cancers is higher is that these patients have already demonstrated a predisposition for the disease. Jellytussle 05:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
- The situation is hard to disentangle. If you think the paragraph is too suggestive please just remove it. JFW | T@lk 23:49, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Complementary and alternative therapies
I have rewritten the section on this potentially controversial subject. Removed references to specific therapies. Added link to Quackwatch.Jellytussle 19:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Palliative Care/Ethical Issues
I have substantially rewritten these sections, but had forgotten to sign in. Let me know any problems.Jellytussle 19:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Oncology vs. Tumor Biology
Is there a difference between the two? - Bubbachuck 06:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Bit like the difference between zoology and veterinary medicine, or botany and farming. Tumour biology is the study of how tumours form, grow, respond to treatments in the laboratory. Oncology is a branch of medicine, ie treating people with cancer. Tumour biology provides an integral part of the rationale behind oncological treatments.Jellytussle 16:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
