Talk:Breast cancer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Breast cancer was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake.

Date of review: No date specified. Please edit template call function as follows: {{FailedGA|insert date in any format here}}

[edit] Publicity Query

Does anyone have any idea why this particular cancer is so emphasised in the news?

Presumably because, as well as being a very common cancer, it's a very visible cancer (or at least the surgical treatment - mastectomy - is). 81.156.18.164 23:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

One word. Feminists.--68.13.59.58 22:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Sexist comments aside, it's the most common cancer in females. Prostate cancer would also get this much publicity, if men were more comfortable talking about it. Unlike other diseases such as lung cancer etc, breast cancer occurs in anybody (well, almost any female) so there is no one to 'blame' and people see it as 'unfair'. Serrin 00:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] rewItalic textrite

This article badly needs a rewrite, and some of these "risk factors" seem really dodgy, at least the way they're explained.

They may sound dodgy, but those (early menarche, late menopause, late childbirth, late first child, hormone replacement) are well established factors that increase risk of developing breast cancer. Alex.tan 07:21, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

They are just risk factors, they are associated, and they are not necessarily causally associated. They are dodgy if you think of causality in a risk factor, rather than a chain of causation and association. What country you live in, how many 1st degree relatives with breast cancer are strong risk factors, but are likely confounders (themselves associated) witht the unknown, underlying cause. Bcameron54 21:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] aa

"Overall, it has been estimated that women have about a 1 in 10 lifetime risk of developing breast cancer."

I do not understand this 1 in 10 lifetime risk. Does it not contradict these stats from http://www.breastcancer.org/cmn_who_indrisk.html

From birth to age 39, 1 woman in 231 will get breast cancer (<0.5% risk).
From ages 40?59, the chance is 1 in 25 (4% risk).
From ages 60?79, the chance is 1 in 15 (nearly 7%).

I am not very good with stats so I won't dare edit.

Well, if you sum up those odds, you get a total of a bit more than 10% for the lifetime risk for a woman aged 79. That isn't too far from 10% given that not all women live to that age. Therefore, there is no contradiction. Alex.tan 17:26, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Nope, I am sorry but you can not add percentages up. In fact you can intuitively see that the odds will never go above 7% on an average. The odds for someone 79 years old are already given: 7%, they won't be more then that. In fact these stats make more sense with risk against age - Hence I EDIT. I add I am not good with stats but the change is more clarifying. ank 06:12, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I think you should go read up your mathematics book again. The same article you quote says - "The chance of getting breast cancer over the course of an entire lifetime, assuming you live to age 90, is one in 8, with an overall lifetime risk of 12.5%." - which means, obviously, that the overall lifetime risk is 12.5%. How much more intuitive can you get than that? Alex.tan 06:54, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Also was surprised by the figure. What Alex.tan is saying is that the conditional probability of having had breast cancer, given a person lives to age 90, is 12.5%. Ankur's data would imply that the conditional probability of getting breast cancer if you live to 79 is a bit over 7% (7%+a little bit extra for the previous categories) and lower if you live to a lower age. Since I think average life expectancy is in the 70s this is consistent with an overall lifetime risk of some 6-8%, roughly. I poked a bit on the web and found a figure of 8% at AAFP. They also say the chance of dying of breast cancer is 3.6%.

I think this means the 1 in 10 figure currently in this article is perhaps a bit high, but not too much. I'll leave any other hunting of data and/or editing to regular contributors to this article. Martinp 20:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

does someone want to do a writeup on breast cancer screening, mammography, epidemiology, etc. for this? Alex.tan 07:27 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)

- "More than 99% of cases occur in women, but men can also develop breast cancer (the relative risk of developing breast cancer in a female versus a male is more than 100" - isn't this just saying the same thing twice?

- "Breast cancer can be detected by a woman when washing, by her partner during foreplay" - is this serious? I can't tell. Maybe a rewording is in order.

GGano 23:15, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

"More than 99% of cases occur in women, but men can also develop breast cancer (the relative risk of developing breast cancer in a female versus a male is more than 100" - isn't this just saying the same thing twice?

No, not exactly. It would be saying the same thing twice given the assumption that there are exactly equal numbers of males and females and that they both have the same life expectancies. It's a given that this is pretty much what actually happens usually but it's not always the case. --Alex.tan 02:36, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Inflammatory breast cancer

Pete attempted to merge the inflammatory breast cancer article, but ended up pasting its whole content. I reverted; while this info certainly belongs in this article, it should be interwoven with the regular breast cancer information. Staging, for example, is no different. JFW | T@lk 23:58, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Staging systems

The clinical TNM staging system is listed here. But operative treatment, adjuvant therapy and prognosis depend on the pathological tumor staging (pTNM). This differs from the clinical TNM system in the N (node) category. To avoid confusion with the rather complicated definitions of clinical and pathological TNM, I would suggest that only stage groups are listed, like here: http://www.usnews.com/usnews/health/cancer/breast/bcancer.test.stage.htm 00:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] No need to keep removing link to the "Keeping Abreast" news blog!

InvictaHOG has repeatedly removed an external link, and I have repeatedly added it back, to Keeping Abreast: Dedicated to providing only the most interesting Breast Cancer News links and sumaries. There is no good reason for removing it. This is a legitimate news blog and is quite helpful. It was very helpful to my wife, and many of the breast cancer patients and survivors she interacts with on her BC forums have commented on its quality and relevance.

InvictaHOG initially removed the link with the comment "First page of blog link has article about the mistletoe cure. I'd rather not have this here." That is not only terribly biased, it is reactionary. Yes, that article appeared as the most current post (top of the page) -- on Christmas Day, which added somewhat of a "cute" flavor to it -- but it linked to a legitimate news story, not to some website that offered weird alternative cures or something. Had InvictaHOG read the article, s/he would have seen that. And had InvictaHOG actually looked through a fair sampling of the other news items on the front page and in the archives, s/he would have seen that that article was not in any way common for this blog.

I am adding the link back now, and InvictaHOG will need to provide a reasoned explanation here to convince me not to do so again.

InvictaHOG, I do appreciate your vast contributions to Wikipedia. That is not somehing I can claim for myself. But I think you are being very unreasonable, reactionary, and biased here. - TaintedAzure —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.243.210.226 (talk • contribs) .

There is an ongoing debate about whether or not blogs should be included in the external link section; see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Clinical_medicine. In general, the onus is on the editor to prove that a particular blog is noteworthy. Andrew73 20:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not doing this to be spiteful or mean. There are literally hundreds of breast cancer websites out there that people find helpful or interesting. Keeping Abreast is not particularly well-done or insightful. Yes, I did read through the article and I have seen many other popular press articles this holiday season touting mistletoe cures for many other diseases, none with evidence. I read other, better articles on the site but feel that as a whole it was not compelling. I am a relative inclusionist, but it not reactionary to see that not every blog or website needs or deserves to be linked here. This article would benefit from more attention, but not more links. A hundred more well-intentioned links (I know that your goal is to make the article better!) will not make this article more encyclopedic. I hope that you see my side of this! InvictaHOG 23:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, InvictaHOG, and I understand the concerns about blogs in the discussion Andre73 pointed to. There certainly are hundreds of sites about Breast Cancer out there, and the article wouldn't benefit from links to all of them. To be honest, I'm waffling on this after reading both of your comments, but I still am leaning toward this blog's inclusion, and here is why:

Breast Cancer patients will turn to Wikipedia for information about Breast Cancer. The article itself is very useful and very well written as a beginning educational resource. However, there are a couple of other types of resources breast cancer patients look for, and they do not know where to find them, or even to look for them. For instance, many breast cancer patients would love to find local support groups where they can get together with other patients and survivors. To my knowledge, there is no online resource that attempts to pull info on such local support groups together. However, patients and survivors also benefit from active online forums -- my wife has benefited beyond description from interacting with her "breast friends" at Healing Well's Breast Cancer forum, for example.

And another type of resource sought after by both patients and survivors alike is news related to the disease. "News," of course, can mean a whole lot of things. Most of the sites that pull together breast cancer "news" articles are either very popular-level (with the effect that they can mislead a seeker), are extremely biased in what they report (with the effect that they exclude some important or relevant information because it doesn't promote their agenda), or overly scholarly (with the effect that they are too difficult or inaccessible to the average patient). Yet someone who is dealing with cancer will want to be able to keep up with the goings on in breast cancer oncology. They'll want to know about research that is being conducted, clinical trials that are available, new medicines and procedures that are or may soon be available, old methods that are being supplanted by new ones, and a broad range of other "news" items. The Keeping Abreast news blog seems to do just that. Better than any I've yet found, it links to articles that touch the typical patient where s/he is. It claims to link to the "most interesting" news items, which appears to mean most interesting to the patient. Not all of the links are medical in nature -- it occasionally reports on "social" issues such as the controversy over whether European governments would provide Herceptin to survivors. The blog does not attempt to report news, just alert those interested to new items available elsewhere in a timely fashion. Nor does the blog appear to link to commercial interests. Basically, I'm saying what I already said -- it seems to meet typical breast cancer patients at the right level and with the right topics. It certainly does not attempt to provide much useful to the clinician or scientist in the field.

Does this sort of think belong in Wikipedia? I believe so. The encyclopedia article portion is not the place to include cutting edge or controversial or societal or "news" issues. Rather, it is a place to provide long-established knowledge about Breast Cancer. But in my mind, Wikipedia as a resource benefits greatly from also providing carefully selected external links to other types or resources (such as news) that are tangential to its purpose. -- TaintedAzure

How about linking to a link directory like http://dmoz.org/Health/Conditions_and_Diseases/Cancer/Breast/ instead? It has lots of links to good websites, support organisations and also personal blogs. --WS 15:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Nice resource, but it isn't a source for news. It serves a different purpose than Keeping Abreast. --TaintedAzure

[edit] male breast cancer

Does anyone know if the ICD-10 code C50 includes both female and male breast cancers? (unsigned comment, 1/3/2005)

Yes. Per this source, under "Differences in ICD-10 neoplasm codes and/or how they are applied", item #4 is "Breast cancer: (C500 - C509) ICD-10 codes for breast cancer are not gender specific." --Arcadian 14:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Is any body else scared of breast cancer out there.

Most of us are, but this page is for discussing the article.Mikereichold 03:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Treatment section

The current section for Adjuvant treatment seems to be a bit dificult to follow. The section almost reads as if some of the treatments (chemo and hormonal) are mutually exclusive. The second statement almost seems to imply that chemo isn't waranted in cases where lymph nodes weren't positive, however my understanding is that chemo depends on the size of the tumor as well as lymph node status. As I am not a doctor I'd like some input before editing this section. A possible rearrangement might include the following changes:

Rename the section from Adjuvant treatment to Systemic treatments. Reason: Chemotherapy can be given as both neo-adjuvant to shrink a tumor and adjuvant to lower the risk of recurrence.

Add 3 subsections for Hormonal (to discuss tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitors), immune system treatments (Herceptin), and Chemotherapy.

Put a statement at the top of the reorganized section stating that any combination of these can be used in treating breast cancer.

Move the first paragraph "At present, the treatment recommendations after surgery (adjuvant therapy) follow a pattern. This pattern may be adapted as every two years a worldwide conference takes place in St. Gallen, Switzerland to discuss the actual results of worldwide multi-center studies. Depending on clinical criteria (age, type of cancer, size, metastasis) patients are roughly divided to high risk and low risk cases which follow different rules for therapy." to the start of the treatment section since it appears to refer to all types of treatment.

Enterkin 01:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Any suggestions here?Enterkin 23:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead, be bold. JFW | T@lk 07:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abortion

Presently, the abortion article (Abortion#Breast_cancer) has a section about breast cancer. That and an entire article Abortion-breast_cancer_hypothesis could use some context from breast cancer Wikipedians as opposed to people simply seeking to promote their abortion POV.

I set up talk space for it Talk:Abortion#Breast_Cancer_bias, but feel free to rewrite away.--Pro-Lick 21:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Update: It's improving very slowly, but still in great need of more cancer experts and fewer anti-abortion campaigners. I'd like to do more, but I can only revert so often. The main problem is that the article overemphasizes a single study that has long been considered inferior to studies done after it.--Pro-Lick 04:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Pro-Lick is transparently a pro-choice POV warrior; and as the mention "revert so often" indicates is more interested in getting their way than helping to write an encyclopedia. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 15:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

And RoyBoy is transparently an anti-abortion POV warrior. Where does that leave us? Apparently for RoyBoy, it leaves us at name-calling instead of article content verification and WP:RS.--Pro-Lick 16:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

That's wrong, but that hasn't stopped you yet. Pity. If you would like sources on that – take the time to do the research yourself – preferably before you comment and/or edit articles of an encyclopedia. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 16:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

And if I was into name-calling I could have labelled you "Pro-Abortion"; but I'll leave it to you to not assume good faith and skip the "Pro-Life" label and go for the extreme. At least you're consistent on going for extremes. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 16:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The linkage between abortion and breast cancer is controversial, and while the evidence does not support the association, it's worth mentioning given that this issue has been raised in the lay press. 141.154.227.12 04:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Good point; this indeed has come up in the press and simply cannot be ignored. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 18:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reliable sources

The Daling interview studies and moreover the Howe cohort, and the positive results within the Melbye study are reliable sources; as they are peer reviewed scientific studies. Daling checked for response bias found none; of course bias could exist and remain in her research. The problem is it has yet to be shown response bias is a statistically significant confounding factor in any ABC interview based study. It is a (as yet) unsubstantiated criticism (I'll point out ahead of time I know it response and selection bias exists, but what I'm questioning is its statistical significance); and hence does not magically make positive results in interview based studies ignorable. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The American Cancer Society published a report called Can Having an Abortion Cause or Contribute to Breast Cancer?. It concluded:

Still, the public is not well-served by false alarms, even when both the exposure and the disease are of great importance and interest to us all. At the present time, the scientific evidence does not support a causal association between induced abortion and breast cancer.--Pro-Lick 15:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. We have a great deal in common, the problem is you cannot see the forrest for the trees. In this case; I specifically noted ABC was an unestablished factor. Your cites and sources are spot on excellent; but they in no way make reliable sources which indicate a link disappear. Right? - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 18:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

As on Wiki, they do not disappear. They do make them either 1)irrelevant or 2)deserving of far less, if any, weight. They put those sources in context and provide expert perspective from a wider medical community.--Pro-Lick 18:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

"As on Wiki"; you talk as if you know what you are talking about. Clearly you do not. The perspective of the wider community is not being ignored in the least (hence "unestablished"); what is being ignored and suppressed by you is the ABC issue. You aren't putting the sources in context, you are attempting to bury them by removing mention of the ABC issue in its entirety from this article. You have no leg to stand on in this instance; and as mentioned above this issue has been covered to some extent in the press. To not have it here, I now realize, is an oversight. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 19:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

There is a link under External links that links to a detailed guide that links to the risk factors page that, under the section called Factors With Uncertain, Controversial, or Unproven Effect on Breast Cancer Risk lists ABC along with underwire bras. That seems consistent with the WP:NPOV#Undue weight policy.--Pro-Lick 21:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

That is a entirely insufficient mention of the issue; and just so you know I've personally sent e-mails to organizations on the matter of their webpages being out of date and/or mischaracterizing the ABC issue. At least one I know of updated their page eventually (removing mention of Daling, as I mentioned her section was out of date) [1] history; poorly I might add as the "Sedish" was put in; but that cohort study only contains 65 breast cancer cases... but hey 49,000 sounds way more impressive doesn't it?

What I am getting at here is those webpages and sometimes associations have no transparency (the NCI workshop did not release the data/studies/and discussion of their workshop); can be partisan and only a handful of people have editorial control over those pages. They are often out of date and inaccurate; I and Wikipedia aspire for a higher standard. Don't get me wrong, your ACS link is good (that's why they are in External links in ABC article); but a "false alarm" is not mutually exclusive to there being an Abortion correlation. Meaning while it could be maintained anti-abortionist are raising a "false alarm" regarding the ABC issue and risks for the vast majority of women that have normal abortions (prior to 12 weeks); at the same time there could still be a minor link between abortion and breast cancer for a minority of women. Science but especially epidemiology and biology is not an all or nothing proposition. And although orginizations have to take firm stands on issues for political purposes and perceived (and real) threats; the science is not so firm and straight forward. It is that scientific ambiguity that is important for Wikipedia to cover.

I spent weeks looking over the primary research; I became uninterested in hearing what organizations opinions on the matter were. I found time and again research that was being ignored by the media (positive results); had very vague and unsubstantiated objections levelled against them by scientists... whereas studies that showed no link or attempted to validate those objections (eg. response bias) were touted by the media and had few objections raised. Despite some of them having serious flaws in their analysis and conclusions. This subject of course is frought with political interferance; but when you dig deep enough you are forced to realize that cuts both ways. Now you want to come along after doing a few Google searches with websites that essentially regurgitate unsubstantiated memes on the issue. Perhaps you can understand how I may not take kindly to that; and at some point you may have to acknowledge I actually know quite a bit about the ABC issue. I could teach you about it, but most of it is already in the ABC article if you read it carefully; and frankly I'm a firm believer in independant learning... so long as the person actually wants to learn about a subject; rather than reinforce their original position.

I would also like to say I really appreciate you ignored my barb; and took the high ground and argued for your case. And when you did bring up policy; you specified it "seems consistent"; a softened position that did not go unnoticed by me. I am happy you seem to appreciate policy isn't always exactly applicable as you see it. In this instance; despite the latest link(s) you've found; it does not change the reality abortion is an alleged factor with a significant amount of conflicting epidemiological research examining the issue. That simply cannot be ignored or thought "irrelevant" because a partisan website did poor job of researching the issue and/or updating their website. I am very confident a one sentence mention of the ABC issue is not "undue weight". Writing an entire paragraph or section would be, but mentioning the issue is actually required make the article more comprehensive and neutral (since not mentioning it implies "Wikipedia" considers there to be no ABC issue whatsoever... almost like it doesn't exist; but of course it does); being comprehensive and up-to-date is something we always strive for at Wikipedia. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robustness of study and ABC hypothesis

Hiya Andrew73. Thanks for your edits there, but I don't agree with them.

Firstly, to promote one source as robust is a little POV. I understand it has been present as such by some organizations; but to examine its robustness is an issue that should be handled in the ABC article rather than a one sided mention here. Moreover what you unintentionally did was promote a study over others. Unless it is the most important and highly regarded study (that would be the Melbye (Denmark) study in 1997) we shouldn't be referring to it outside the ABC article. But even then that would require a back and forth analysis that would bloat the ABC mention; and repeat material already in the ABC article.
As to "medical community in general feels abortion link not robust"; I entirely agree... but that is why I described it as "unestablished and controversial" and we could go a step further and expand the name of the article. (that way "hypothesis" would be seen right away by the reader, I see you put hypothesized in the article, that's good too)
"Based on the observation that early full-term pregnancy is associated with a reduced risk of breast cancer"... that implies the ABC hypothesis is an increased risk in relation to having children. The increased risk in scientific studies is almost always relative to women of same parity (child bearing). So that is misleading and likely factually incorrect on how the ABC issue was first hypothesized; and it is certainly incorrect on how it is currently presented.
"subsequently"... subsequently to what? That is confusing.

Also expanding the ABC mention itself in this article; makes it seem more important than it currently is. If we go back to my version, it is a minor side note. Maybe changing unestablished to hypothesized would be best. Is that alright with you? - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I've tweaked out the misleading and confusing parts. I'm okay with this version. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks better. I guess the specifics in terms of the studies are better amplified in a separate article, rather than in the main breast cancer article. Andrew73 18:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to add a section like "Breast Cancer Myths" in which we list various causes/links/effects that are known to be false or very weak. Combining ABC in a section with other confirmed causes/links seems misleading and potentially even dangerous if it's taken as a sign that the section can be used to add anything that has had 15 minutes of breast cancer fame.--Pro-Lick 16:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

ABC has been around longer than you. I've added a section, unproven. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 02:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The reference provided in support of the claim that recent large studies support an association between breast cancer and abortion says exactly the opposite: "Several studies have provided very strong data that induced abortions have no overall effect on the risk of breast cancer. Also, there is no evidence of a direct relationship between breast cancer and spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) in most of the studies that have been published. Scientists invited to participate in a conference on abortion and breast cancer by the National Cancer Institute (February 2003) concluded that there was no relationship. A recent report of 83,000 women with breast cancer found no link to a previous abortion, either spontaneous (stillbirth) or induced." Perhaps the original text was a typo - I've amended it. If not, another source is needed. --203.97.252.91 00:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it was simply vandalism that feel through the cracks. Good catch. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Artificial Light a cause?

It has been said on an online forum (via email) that breast cancer is caused by exposure artificial light. True or false?--陈鼎翔 ^说!贡献 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 10:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

It is a speculative theory, the proposed mechanism is that artificial lights confuse the body clock and alter the hormonal balance. Increased artificial light might also be correlated with other behaviors, such as LESS exposure to sunlight. There is also a theory that the potent vitamin D from sunlight is particularly good a preventing cancer. The proponents of this theory argue that while sunlight increases the risk of skin cancer, that increase is far outweighed by all the other cancer mortality it prevents.Technicaltechy 17:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Non-expert blogs...

This section doesn't seem notable enough to belong in this article...it seems to serve as a repository for link spams and attempts at self-promotion of blogs. Andrew73 17:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Most of the blogged material is regurgitated from other, more professional resources anyway and hence secondary. JFW | T@lk 19:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Everything in Wikipedia is "regurgitated from other, more professional resources anyway and hence secondary." No one is posting original research on Wikipedia. Respectable, responsible blogs and other websites can pull together disparate resources (such as news) in a single location. I believe the usefulness of the article decreases if such resources aren't included as an appendix. -- TaintedAzure

[edit] prevention?

The new prevention section for high risk patients, reminded me that some high risk patients even opt for propholactic mastectomy. If someone knows a good reference, it might add to the completeness of the article.--Technicaltechy 20:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] unreferenced article and contradictory passage

See WP:V, WP:CITE and WP:RS. Yesterday I putted a "unreferenced" tag which was immediately deleted. So, this is supposed to be a scientific article addressing a wide audience. We certainly need references for statistics and for almost everything. Since I'm sure pretty much of the editors here have a scientific background, this shouldn't be too difficult to provide. And it would make the article something on which we could rely on. If references are not introduced, than just any crack-head can put whatever he want, and we will just have to trust other editors struggles against silly or outlandish claims. I don't trust Wikipedia on sight, so I do think this article is totally unreferenced. Furthermore, without moving the passage here, I find this quite strange:

"Some ethnic groups have a higher risk of developing breast cancer - notably, women of European and African descent have been noted to have a higher rate of breast cancer than women of Asian origin ^[1]. However, these apparent racial differences diminish when geography is altered, as Asian women migrating to the western world, gradually acquire risk approaching that of western women."

I assume that this means that it is wrong than Asian ethnic groups have a higher risk of cancer! So why put it in the first place? Isn't it rather about food diet and such different mores, that are lost when they live in an Western environment? Then we could write this. Sorry for asking for sources, but if you look at political articles or even things like the Chernobyl disaster, you will see how sources are provided. I remind you that if no sources is provided, any editor, including me, has the right under Wikipedia policy to delete it on sight. Why should I believe things on race, alcohol, or percentages that come out of thin air? Unreferenced statistics is just... too much! Lapaz 17:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

ps:Please don't take offense, this is totally normal. Again, see WP:RS. Lapaz 17:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Lapaz, if you look at {{unreferenced}}, it is quite clear this template should be either at the bottom of the article or on the talkpage (There is currently no consensus about where to place this template; most suggest either the bottom of the article page (in an empty 'References' section), or on the article's talk page). This is why I removed it.

I totally agree that this article needs sources. Google is your friend. Unreferenced statistics are indeed absolute evil&tm;. I would not disagree with their targeted removal. Alternatively, you can put {{fact}} behind the more outrageous claims, so readers will understand that no source has yet been made available for them. JFW | T@lk 23:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moved paragraph on race issue

I changed the citation tag to the fact that it was backing up, and therefore put this strange and contradictory passage here, till source provide back-up and explanation (see also comments on section immediately above):

"Some ethnic groups have a higher risk of developing breast cancer - notably, women of European and African descent have been noted to have a higher rate of breast cancer than women of Asian origin. However, these apparent racial differences diminish when geography is altered, as Asian women migrating to the western world, gradually acquire risk approaching that of western women."

This means that it is wrong than Asian ethnic groups have a higher risk of cancer! isn't it rather about food diet and such different mores, that are lost when they live in an Western environment? In any cases, either this is true, and source can be found, either it's whatever, and i don't think whatever goes about race issues. Lapaz 01:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of breast cancer

I was looking for some history remarks on the diagnosis, treatment, and discoveries for breast cancer. For example, the earliest known cases of breast cancer I know of is from the Etruscans who used votives to ask the gods for mercy on health issues. They formed body parts from terracotta illustrating the health problem, and many breasts, complete with visible tumors, were found in votive pits (I saw these at the Allard Pearson Museum in Amsterdam) Jane 20:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA nomination

This nomination is on hold for 7 days for these issues: Reference section is ABOVE two article text sections, references are not properly formatted--they need to be in a single (cite php) format, refernces are a mix of external jumps and inline citations--all should be in inline citations, and the citation tags need to be taken care of with proper references. Rlevse 21:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)...There are also several fact tags.

GA failed due to the only fix done was to move the ref section. Rlevse 23:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links

There see to be quite a lot. Any that are particularly valuable per the guideline? - brenneman ^{L} 11:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] flax

it's not exactly "preclinical"--please note that the research being done in toronto is not "nutritional prevention"--what they are finding is that flax has treatment potential, as it not only shrinks extant tumor tissue but enhances effect of tamoxifen. Cindery 21:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree with treatment potential. However, most of the papers though mention its effect in vitro and only one of the papers talks about using it in people and tumor markers. Andrew73 22:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

so? the artificial light study is still at preliminary stage but was worth including. (also--i think there have been two more human studies--sweden, maybe? will look it up.) i agree obviously it needs more study, but should definitely be mentioned/not quite exactly "pre-clinical." Cindery 23:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One in 7? 12? (13?)

At the top of the article, it states the incidence as "one out of twelve or thirteen". Under "Age", it states it as "one in seven". In both places, it says that this statistics is for women who live to be 90. I have added a contradiction tag to the "Age" section. --Strait 23:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] bad statistic that should not be in wikipedia

This statistic seems like one make to try to confuse and distort the truth. First off percentages are much more common than fractions and easier to understand and why does it only count women that reach 90 in the western world?. I also checked the reference and it does not seem to support this statistic either.

Worldwide, it is the most common form of cancer in females, affecting, at some time in their lives, approximately one out of nine to thirteen women who reach age ninety in the Western world.

This statistic is just bad, why not make it 100% of women and men that get breast cancer get breast cancer? --222.152.90.4 22:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moved from the article

I have moved the following from the section on male breast cancer: Since the psychological effects of this surgery are just as great for males as for females, experimental surgery has been started to introduce the lumpectomy for males. This looks highly doubtful. The psychological relevance of the breasts is very different among the sexes. Unless properly referenced, this should not stay. 91.64.30.198 12:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism in "Screening" - what was meant originally??

Under 'Screening' I read (emph. mine):

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has been shown to detect cancers that are not visible on mammograms, but it has several disadvantages. For example, although it is 27-36% more sensitive, it is im hot age that is 10 years less than the age at which the relative was diagnosed with breast cancer.

I'm pretty sure that's Vandalism! I've been thinking about what the original text was but I was actually coming to this page to look for info, so I have no idea! Anybody know? Also, who put that in there - Wikibot hasn't spot it?

[edit] breast cancer

---BREAST CANCER--- breast cancer is a really bad thing.If you havr breast cancer and you don't go to a doctor you may died or something migth happend to you.the way that you will know if you are in risk of breast cancer if you are around 62 years old,if you are a women(men are still able to get breast cancer), if you are a tall women,and if you are an alcohol person.A way to prebent breast cancer is by not being over weight.this a lot of stuff you can know about breast cancer if what to know more information you can go to yahoo,google,wikipedia,or to ask.com and they will answer all your questions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.165.217.197 (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

^whoever wrote this is an idiot^

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/r/e/Talk%7EBreast_cancer_ab45.html"

Category: Former good article nominees