Talk:Leukemia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
B This page has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance assessment scale

Contents

[edit] General comments

Not quite sure about the extent red blood cells play in leukemia, I may hav misinterpreted it in this article. -- sodium.

Hey "cancer of bone marrow" there are other types of leukemia that derive from other tissues. I'd rather say "cancer of blood forming tissues" or something.

Thanks - corrected. -- sodium

This article is wanting a major rewrite. Some things are questionable and other are simply wrong. Some things would surely make a haematologist's hair stand on end. Let's put our forces together to make it better.--Kpjas

I took the liberty of taking the nonsense out (the three paragraphs of "I personally know...", etc.) that had been placed in the treatment section. It's ridiculous enough that someone would put a snake oil treatment in here and treat it as fact, but to write it in the first person displays a thorough misunderstanding of the Wikipedia project.

Thank you. JFW | T@lk 06:14, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Radiation in Japan

Something to add to the Causes: Radiation section: wasn't leukemia the most common form of radiation poisoning to afflict the victims of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings? That's what I thought, and that's what this report seems to describe. —RadRafe 03:21, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Misdiagnoses?

There is a (relatively) harmless disease that is often misdiagnosed as leukemia. I know it exists because I had it, but I was five years old at the time and I barely remember even having the disease--I certainly don't remember its name, much less anything about the disease itself (I only know of the misdiagnosis because my parents happened to mention it in passing much later). If anyone knows what I'm talking about, perhaps a mention of it in this article and a link to that disease's article would be appropriate. Kurt Weber 20:36, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but "misdiagnosis" is not really the correct terminology. With certain symptoms doctors are taught to think of the worst, and to make every effort to ensure that a certain diagnosis is not present. You may have received many investigations to ascertain that your symptoms were not attributable to ALL. I doubt it is necessary to mention this specificially on this page, because this "problem" is present, mutatis mutandis, on many other disease-related pages. JFW | T@lk 21:31, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Rename please

To leukaemia, thanks --62.251.90.73 16:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia uses both US and UK spelling. Unless the title is actually incorrect, there is no need to move it. JFW | T@lk 07:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Oh you lazy jerks, that "a" was knocked off out of sheer obsession of laziness. Leukaemia or Leukæmia is the correct spelling. Do you have to work so hard at being so lazy as to get so upset that the classical (and still used) spelling is retained? Instead the spelling that was created because spelling reformers thought it was too difficult to use a "u" or "a"? I have never seen anyone work so hard at being so lazy. That is like spending hours looking for a TV remote when you can just changed the channel on the set? Okay lets make everyone happy. Lets have a vote. Put one in for me for "leukaemia".
I don't see how it's lazy, American English is just a knock off basically of British English. It is just a variant so calm down. Phillip Shaw 07:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paleness

Isn't paleness also a symptom of leukemia? I don't think so. I think the ppl who get just are naturally white.

Depends on the degree of anemia. With the bone marrow overrun by malignant cells, it is less capable of producing red blood cells (and the ones that develop may not function too well). Some leukemia patients are diagnosed and treated before they get a chance to become severe anemic. Pallor is not just a sign of leukemia; it may reflect sepsis, other anemias, and seeing a ghost. JFW | T@lk 20:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

So it's more likely to be anemia. It's good because I've already seen two cases of leukemia in people I know (one fatal) in my life and if there's a third one I'd like to spot it early.

Goodness, that's dreadful. If someone looks unhealthily pale and doesn't feel well, a complete blood count (a very simple blood test) is the first step. It will give a lot of information on whether there is anemia, what the cause could be, and whether other tests are necesssary. The doctor who arranges the blood test will know what to do with the result. JFW | T@lk 21:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


I've been pale and gotten paler. I've lost wieght due to working on the night shift. My menstruation was really painful the last time and I've had a lot less blood than I usually have the last three times I had it. But I'm a little nervous to go for a blood count due to needles...

You could be pale for any number of reasons, like the fact that nighshift workers are sleeping when the sun's out and therefore not stimulating any melanin production. That's what makes "looks kinda pale" such a useless symptom: it can be caused by any number of circumstances, including the fact that most people's summer tans fade during the winter. Sometimes people are pale when they're tired or stressed. Sometimes people are pale when they are frightened. I've had people tell me one day, when I wear a red shirt, that I have such a "healthy, rosy glow," and the very next day, when I wear a black shirt (which is not an ideal color for me), I'm told that I'm looking really pale and worn out these days. Paleness is really a uselessly imprecise symptom. At best, it can corroborate more significant symptoms or anemia, such as unexplained fatigue or unexpected changes in an ability to climb stairs. The bottomline is that paleness isn't a useful symptom for leukemia. (BTW, anemia can be checked with a tiny fingerstick, much like diabetics use to check their blood sugar levels.) WhatamIdoing 18:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 71.65.17.59

On 10 Dec 71.65.17.59 (talk · contribs) made numerous edits, generally not bad but poorly sourced and wrong in some important ways. 12.13.143.2 (talk · contribs) reverted, and I tend to support the reversion. One leukemia is not the other. ALL and CLL are almost diametrical opposites. To generalise here and put all risk factors for acute leukemias on this page is a mistake. Also, lymphocytes are leukocytes, a fact consistently ignored by 71.65.17.59. JFW | T@lk 08:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Has any cure yet...

Is there any cure for blood cancer or leukemia yet.. many people need that cure...nope nope nope shlop

I think that nowadays, you can donate your healthy bone marrow at Red Cross or something. Then doctors can inject your bone marrow into someone who needs healthy bone marrow. --Starry.dreams 15:38, 17 July 2006

Isn't donating bonemarrow incredibly painful? (Not if you're under amnesia, ya idiot.)

They put give you a shot to ease the pain. My teacher does it once every month I think. Basically they do surgery on your thigh to get the bonemarrow. --Starry.dreams 21:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about your theachers thigh but in mine the bone is completely surrounded by muscle. How do they get to the marrow without damaging the muscles?
Standard bone marrow extraction place is the back of the hip. They tend o give you a local anaesthetic and a warning. Its not a very fun procedure like giving blood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TomaKrain (talk • contribs) 11:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Small clarification: The back of the hip is the most common site for adults. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it is much like getting a Bone Marrow Biopsy, which can be done in more than one spot. All of mine have been done on the backside of my hip. I can say for certain that Bone marrow biopsies are not enjoyable. I always had a numbing shot (or two) and muscle relaxant, and would still cringe in pain a good bit, but I may have a low tolerance for pain. You are also sore for about a week afterwords. I imagine donating Bone marrow is a bit more painful, since a larger sample is required. More than one site on the body might be required as well. I think you can opt for sedation during the procedure; I know they do this often at the local childrens hospital.--Loplin 08:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I have Leukemia and so I've had to have bone marrow drawn to run tests on, as well as to find a potential bone marrow donor. It's definitely not a fun experience, but it can very easily save someone elses life, so I think it easily makes up for your week or discomfort. DavimusK 20:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

There is supposidly another cure, as reported by a clinic that was named something similiar to "hahnemann" clinic. The head doctor of the clinic (Dr. Clyde Reynolds) was doing research with Liquid Deprenyl Citrate and Silvicidal (a Colloidal Silver made by a company infused into a protein). The Liquid Deprenyl leveled the bodies serotonin, Epinephrine, and the norepinephrine while the Silvicidal killed the Leukemia. Although many people would think it's crazy and a lie, the doctor did use this as a treatment for his patients and he said they all got cured.

The doctor also believed Leukemia was a virus, which I've heard about from quite a few people in that field of research. It should be noted, the Liquid Deprenyl can no longer be purchased or obtained. If people start looking into natural treatments, they will no doubt find a bunch of frauds and fakes. so anyone looking into natural treatments PLEASE make sure you see scientific tests and trials. Some company even tried to copy the Liquid Deprenyl by calling it "Deprenyl Liquid" AND using the trials done on the Liquid Deprenyl for their fake product. I do believe there are a few natural products that work, but I think most are nothing but fakes.- Jason1170 19:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

There are lots of "supposed" cures. The problem is that they don't work like they're "supposed" to, and while the sales people claim that everyone's cured, you'd be hard pressed to find a currently living patient who (a) was diagnosed by a regular doctor instead of by the sales staff AND (b) no longer has cancer according to an independent doctor (again, instead of the sales staff) -- although there are lots and lots of people (including me) whose relatives died while pursuing herbal treatments for cancer.
And yes, some forms of leukemia can be caused by viral infections. See HTLV for an example. However, most forms of leukemia are not caused by a virus -- and just because it was originally triggered by a virus does not mean that it will behave like a common cold and go away after a little while. WhatamIdoing 04:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Radiation & leukaemia

What forms/types of leukaemia are caused by radiation? I heard that there was NO KNOWN CAUSE of leukaemia. Any one know?--aceslead 22:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Parts of the article sound like they're saying that radiation causes all leukaemia. THIS NEEDS CLARIFING, any claim of a known cause should be cited.--aceslead 22:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It would be much more accurate to say that there is no SINGLE known cause of leukemia. Some cases are easily attributed to radiation. A few are easily attributed to a handful of specific chemicals (e.g., benzene, some chemo drugs that are used for solid tumors). Most individuals will never know what caused their disease, because there was always a chance that you would have gotten leukemia even if you didn't have this or that suspicious exposure. 66.124.70.108 18:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


If you eat peanut butter a lot, it could prevent leukemia. Sorry to the ones allergic to peanuts.

[edit] How common is leukemia?

About 1 in every 8,831 people get leukemia

Per what? 1 in every 8,831 people per day? per year? per lifetime? And is that for one kind of leukemia, or all types lumped together? 70.137.157.20 22:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Hairy cell leukemia

I have removed this statement: "Unfortunately, some younger patients develop HCL that is unresponsive to treatment.[citation needed]" on the grounds that I have been unable to find anything to support it, and I have found studies to contradict it (e.g., the Deardon/Else article in Current Oncology Reports 2006, 8:337–342). 70.137.157.20 22:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

and a lot of kids have it
Please sign your comments with four tildes. Actually, hairy cell leukemia is exceedingly rare in children and adolescents. WhatamIdoing 02:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aleukemia

I have tagged the assertion that 30% of all leukemia patients develop aleukemia. And I'd like to state in advance that I consider the "oncoterm dictionary" at U. Granada to be an insufficient source for this particular claim. It strikes me as being much too high, and I want to see a original source.

Also, it's my opinion that this condition does not really belong in the "Four characteristics of leukemia" section. However, it doesn't really belong anywhere else, either. Should we make a section called "Complications"? Should we let it have its own section? What do you think? WhatamIdoing 04:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with pretty much all of your points. "Aleukemic" leukemia is not a separate type of leukemia; it just means that people with acute leukemias can present with a low (rather than high) peripheral white blood cell count. It might be best under "symptoms" or "diagnosis" or such. As far as its prevalence, 30% may be about right, but I agree we need a better source. Generally, the classification scheme should be acute vs. chronic, lymphoid vs. myeloid, with a few outliers (e.g. hairy cell leukemia) thrown in. This article needs a lot of work; much of the information in it is duplicated (in much better and more well-referenced form) at the subdisease articles (acute myeloid leukemia, chronic myeloid leukemia, etc). I haven't gotten around to working on it yet. MastCell Talk 16:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I moved 'aleukemia' to the Symptoms section. I decided to axe the unsupported statistic in the process; I though "less common" might be adequate for now. I'd be happy to have you adjust what I've written. WhatamIdoing 04:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] So much activity, so little progress

Is it just me, or does this page attract more than its fair share of vandalism? Leukemia seems to get ten edits for every net change. Almost everything ends up getting reverted. Is this normal for Wikipedia? 70.137.135.192 03:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Some pages are vandalized more than others. Not sure why this one is such a target. Fortunately, it's pretty easy to deal with. If you're interested in contributing to the page, don't let the vandalism deter you; it can always be dealt with. MastCell Talk 04:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Information on 'cure' rates for AML

As someone who has recently (18 months ago) been diagnosed with AML and (so far) been succesfully treated using the chemotherapy drugs described here, it would be interesting to make mention of the current and previous success rates in terms of treatment using these drugs.

As part of my treatment I took part in a medical trial which was looking at the effect a fifth course of chemotherapy has on prolonging remission/preventing relapse. Perhaps some comparisons between older success rates and the effects these new trials have had would be beneficial? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.66.208.10 (talk)

[edit] Redirect pages

Would it be useful to create redirects for the disease's two major forms, "Acute Leukemia" and "Chronic Leukemia"? When I first searched for the article, it was by the first name which I'd heard somewhere, since I didn't know there wasn't a separate article for it. (which is why I'm asking for the redirect, but going to this article was easy enough too...) --70.143.57.160 05:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About that Research section

Any thoughts on the "Research" section that just mentions a single item of relatively unimportant (and extremely early stage) research? I'm inclined to kill the whole section, as I think it would be much too difficult to maintain. WhatamIdoing 01:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Could we list some organizations that are researching into it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.7.183.132 (talk) 09:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge proposal

The Leukemia article already has most of the information on most types of lymphocytic leukemia, it seems only natural that these new article be merged in here as well. Do people agree? Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) - Review me! 06:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm unclear on what the proposed merge is -- the description above is distinct from the proposal on the article page. Could you clarify? --Arcadian 12:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
The proposed merge is as stated on the article page. I.e. dealing with merging the prolymphocytic leukemias into the Leukemia article, just like the lymphocytic leukimias. Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) - Review me! 13:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I strongly oppose this proposed merge. Just because we could put everything into a single "All forms of blood neoplasms" page doesn't make it sensible -- and, on a slightly smaller scale, that's pretty much what you've proposed doing. Prolymphocytic leukemias are very specific subtypes. The stubs need expanding, but they deserve their own space. Furthermore, there are several pages that already link those articles -- making some red links go away is why I started two of those three pages -- and having them drop directly to "all leukemias in general" will not be as useful.
BTW, it would be helpful if you could identify your level of expertise. My assumption is that you've proposed merging them primarily because you've never heard of these fairly rare (but scientifically interesting) diseases. WhatamIdoing 17:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I oppose the proposed merge. --Arcadian 19:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

This merge proposal has been active for a month. There is no support. Shall we kill the proposal? WhatamIdoing 17:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Garbage

I have reverted the inclusion of this outdated information twice now: "Regarding Zalmanov's research(1955) leukemia is caused by capillary circulation and metabolism problems and can be cured by using yellow and white bath turpentine emulsion, which open the closed capillary vessels, restore a feeding by blood elements of dried cell islands, restore normal, healthy life of cells('Secrets and wisdom of the human body', France, 1958)."

The first insertion was the first-ever edit of a new user. The second one was an anon editor (possibly the same person). Since turpentine is a known cause of cancer, its inclusion as a "treatment" is particularly inappropriate. If someone other than the original editor believes it's really notable, then I'm willing to include it on the unproven cancer therapy page, or on a new Failed cancer treatments from Medieval Europe page (because that treatment was proposed at least five hundred years ago and hasn't ever worked), but not in this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Four Major Types before Symptoms?

I suggest that the Four Major Types section be moved to be before Symptoms, just as in the lung cancer article. Also, I think the Four Major Types section should be renamed "Classification". Marcus J. McLean (talk) 04:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I just made the change. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison of leukemia types

I have some concerns about the new table in the Classification subsection. I think it may tend to grow infinitely, as one editor after another decides to add "just one more" detail. Can we get some agreement on what specific need this table fills, and how to prevent its endless expansion? I'm starting to wonder whether this information is better presented as a series of short paragraphs or bullet points, like this:

Chronic lymphocytic leukemia most often affects adults over the age of 55. It sometimes occurs in younger adults, but it almost never affects children. Two-thirds of affected people are male. The disease is treatable, but considered Incurable. The five-year survival rate is 75%.

This kind of information could perhaps be put in the (very short) introduction to the article instead of in the classification section. What do (several of you) think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New treatment for CML

There is a new treatment for CML being used (at least in Australia) going by the name Sprycel or Dasatinib. I think it should be mentioned in the CML section. --TomaKrain (talk) 11:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ages and stuff

It says in the article that mostly adults get leukemia. But I know this one kid who actually got it when he was, around 11. He survived, though. Is it normal for people under the normal age to get it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.79.100.159 (talk) 23:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, you can get some kind of leukemia at any age. "Mostly adults" leaves a lot of room for "and sometimes kids." The different kinds of leukemia have different age distributions, too. ALL has a lot of kids; HCL has no kids and only one reported teenager. If you'll let me use a lymphoma, Waldenström's macroglobulinemia seems to affect teens and older people -- but not so much the adults in between.

[edit] Linking?

Hello. I was reading this article, and I am not very familiar with all of these medical terms. I would like to link the "science words" to go to their wikipedia pages. I was simply wondering if anyone has any opposition to this (since it's not really on the page too often). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Believr4god (talk • contribs) 01:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I probably don't link enough words, so let me say that linking some words is great, and I'd be happy to have you do it. Linking every single instance of a word is bad, of course. I'm sure you can find a reasonable balance. I believe that the official guidelines suggest a maximum of one internal link for a word in each section. So if you open up, say, the subsection "Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia (CML)", then you could usefully wikilink one instance of each unfamiliar word (usually the first, unless you've got a whole string of words in a row. In that case, it's best to spread them out a bit).
Thanks for offering to help. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Treatment

I'm not feeling the love with the treatment section any longer. It's too long, it's too detailed, and it doesn't do a good enough job of getting people off to the sub-articles. Frankly, if someone in your family has one of these diseases, you are really not going to hang out at the "all the possible kinds of leukemia" article: you are going to head to ALL/CLL/AML/CML/HCL/whatever article, and from there possibly to further sub-articles, with the ideal goal of getting to the "Exactly My Personal Situation" article. From the editing perspective, the duplication of information between articles only adds to the maintenance challenge.

I'm thinking about halving the level of information in these sections, so that they're summaries of the "real" articles. Does anyone else have any opinions about this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

In the absence of objections, I've (just barely) started doing this. I also turned one of the tables in the classification section into text because I think it will be easier to read that way. I left out all details of treatment, however, because we already have plenty of that in the treatment section. Short summaries are welcome, if anyone can think of a way to reduce the overall treatment idea for ALL, AML, and CML to a short, big-picture sentence (like "Treatment usually involves chemotherapy and radiation"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I've just finished. Parts of it could probably be tightened up a bit, and other parts expanded slightly, but I think the treatment section is finally under control. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External links

The ACOR link isn't working for me today. Could someone else click the three links at the very end of the article, and see whether they're working for you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it just me? I get "could not open the page “http://leukemia.acor.org/” because the server is not responding" when I try to open that link. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I've been trying to get this link to open for almost a month. The first time, I thought it must just be a bad day. The second time, I posted above. Two weeks later, I posted here again. I've tried different computers and different browsers. Nobody else has posted a note that says they've been able to open it, either.
I have removed the link today because dead links are useless to our readers. If the site is down, there's no point in us advertising it. If you want the link re-inserted, please post here to say that you've actually gotten it open, and tell me what's actually on the page we're linking to. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Causes of childhood leukemia

I thought that this news story was interesting and might deserve about two sentences in the ==Causes== section. Specifically, I'd like to include a statement about a genetic change occurring before birth, followed by a trigger later in life. (The hygiene hypothesis aspect doesn't interest me as much, because it's much less well-established.) However, we should probably ref the original paper, and I'm out of time for today. Anyone want to find it at pubmed.gov? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:44, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lymphocytic or Lymphoblastic?

I think that this page should use either lymphocytic or lymphoblastic consistently. I somewhat prefer lymphocytic, but I see that an anon changed two instances to lymphoblastic recently. Does anyone have a preference? My primary goal is that they all match. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)