Talk:Tumor

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.
Start This page has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance assessment scale

Contents

[edit] Can the tumor be prevented ?

Can the tumor be prevented ? What is the best prevention for the grow of tumor ?Malphaz 16:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How does cancer kill

How does cancer kill you? Is it because tumors impede growth in vital organs, or because they directly eat away at your body? Perhaps tumors simply apply too much pressure to the wrong places.. ? Fresheneesz 06:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aneurysmal Bone Cyst

Where to place a link to this type of tumor? I cant find a good place to stick a link for it. Please give me some feedback.

[edit] Tumor is not always cancer

According to the article, tumor would be either malignant which is cancer or benign which is not cancer. Please correct me if it's not true...

Tumors are only cancerous if they are malignant. What makes it "cancerous" is the fact that it moves to other places of the body and is hard to remove.Danasty 03:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Danast

For example, a benign tumor could be a mole that you have on your body. It's not cancer, but it's a tumor. 71.187.62.178 19:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)Katie

[edit] Other Appearances

Is it really necesary to put that tumors appear in those games? I'm sure tumors have appeared in other video games as well and don't think a reference to that is necesary on this page. (Don't get me wrong though, they are cool games, but they seem really out of place here)Danasty 03:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Danasty

[edit] "Tumor" vs. "Tumour"

Correct spelling of this word in english is important for Wikipedia. If the correct spelling is really tumor then all the articles should be named tumor and all the articles which are currently named tumour should be redirected to the correctly spelled version.

This is actually an issue of U.S. spelling (tumor) vs. UK / commonwealth spelling (tumour). Wikipedia guidelines in the "Manual of Style" state that editors should strive for consistency in spelling a given word within a given article, and should not change to an alternate spelling once an article has been established. I've seen very few articles on wikipedia that use the "tumour" spelling, but if there are pages that were originally created with that spelling, they should stay that way, or you may end up with some irritated Brits on your hands :-) -RustavoTalk/Contribs 04:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Enzyme discovery may lead to tumor treatment

“If we can block the tumour response, we should be able to successfully treat some tumours with vitamin D compounds,” says Dr. Jones [1] Brian Pearson 02:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anaplasia

Anaplasia redirects here, but it is not addressed in the article. It probably merits its own article, like that of hyperplasia, neoplasia, dysplasia, and metaplasia, but if it redirects here it should probably at least be addressed. Eli6 18:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

anaplasia indeed needs its own page, because it is not a neoplasia, and has its own unique def'n. how do you create a new page or stop it from redirecting? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.228.5.146 (talk) 17:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll fix it now. --Una Smith 04:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why is it visible in X-Ray

Is it because it's more dense, or because of large number of dead tumor cells at the core? 67.42.141.241 06:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Good question. Tumors are visible on radiographs due to one (or more) of several reasons:

  • the tumor has necrotic foci (dead spots), causing a fluid-filled void, that appears translucent
  • the tumor has cysts, containing fluid ditto
  • the patient is given a contrast agent, containing some metal, that appears opaque. The contrast agent can be given into the blood, and a tumor that has a good blood supply will "light up" more than the surrounding normal tissue; this is called "enhancement". The contrast agent can be given in a drink or an enema, or both, in which case the patient's GI tract will "light up", and a tumor will show up as a dark spot in a place where there should be no dark spot.

Someone please wikify this and maybe clean it up too. Thanks! --Una Smith 04:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article voluntarily kept short

I shortened the article to avoid counter-productive duplications with the cancer article and to soft-redirect the readers. To all those who contributed truly interesting stuff to this article, please do not be offended, stop hanging in this boring joint, bring your ideas to the cancer article and join the party! Emmanuelm (talk) 18:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Not all tumors are cancers and not all cancers are tumors. Furthermore, the latest edits nearly redefine "tumor" as "mass", which is also not correct. I don't think a soft-redirect to Cancer is helpful. Let's discuss it here. --Una Smith (talk) 03:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Re. Neoplasia and Tumor in the WikiProject Medicine talk page.
Hello WhatamIdoing & Una Smith, I understand your concern. In fact, in Dec 2005, I was the one arguing your point in the talk page of Cancer. Jellytussle and others convinced me that Cancer is the place to be. Remember that Wikipedia is written for patients, not doctors. I find that WP tends to grow in a completely disorganized fashion and, therefore, tends to become a maze where non-experts get lost.
Please reconsider or, at the very least, move this discussion in the Cancer talk page. You'll be surprised to see how active it is. Emmanuelm (talk) 14:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC) (cross-posted in the Neoplasia and Tumor talk pages)

[edit] Worthless soft redirect

Soft redirects are for redirection to other projects. The one on this page was to another page on Wikipedia, and thus was not a useful destination for a soft redirect. The page was using the wrong tool to fake having some sort of See Also section. But the page already had a very prominent link to Cancer right at the top, so the link is redundant on top of using an inappropriate tool. The removal was for the above reasons, not really for soft redirects needing to be empty, as was assumed incorrectly by the person who reverted me. - TexasAndroid (talk) 12:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Android, I --the person who reverted you-- read in Soft redirect A soft redirect is a very short page that essentially tells the user to look at another site to obtain the information they were seeking. I see no clear indication that soft redirects cannot be used between two WP articles.
Now, I understand you being a half-god and using knowledge not available to us simple mortals and all that, but please take the time to help me. My intention was to keep this article short (but not empty) and redirect the readers & editors to Cancer. If WP:SRD was not the right tool, what is? Emmanuelm (talk) 19:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Look at the very top of the article. The proper tool is already in place. If you must link to the Cancer article twice, I would think that a "See Also" section, above the nav template, (and maybe above the Ref section) would be the proper way to handle it. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Severed breast image

I removed the following image: Image:BreastCancer.jpg. Rationale: it is certainly not representative of most tumors, and the added factors of it being a female breast and severed from the body lead me to feel that it is an unnecessarily gruesome image for this article. Wikipedia is not censored, but those coming to this article are probably not expecting such a potentially offensive image. It may be more appropriate on Mastectomy, but even there I recommend placing it below the fold. -kotra (talk) 23:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Kotra, where is the image you chose to replace this one with? Emmanuelm (talk) 17:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I personally feel that the ankle image is sufficient. But if you think this article could use more images of tumors, there are plenty on the Commons. I just don't think we should use the most potentially offensive one available, because it's not representative of the vast majority of tumors, and it contains other distracting (this is an understatement) elements that are irrelevant to the tumor. It would be like using a picture of a severed head to illustrate "nose". -kotra (talk) 20:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Wow, Kotra, you know Wikipedia better than me. I can't wait to see how you'll improve this article. Emmanuelm (talk) 13:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Why the sarcasm? I have no plans for improving this article further. As I mentioned earlier, I feel that the ankle image is sufficient. If you want to add another image, I have no objection as long as it meets consensus. -kotra (talk) 18:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
There was no sarcasm; I honestly and truly am eager to see how you will improve this article.
Clarification: the two main causes of tumors are inflammation and neoplasm. I posted two pictures to illustrate these two types. You removed one, leaving the article lacking one picture. Emmanuelm (talk) 15:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Again, I have no plans for improving this article further. Thank you, however, for your clarification. I don't know enough about oncology to determine which of the available pictures of tumors (neoplasm or not) would be most appropriate. Perhaps a search on the Commons for "neoplasm" yields something of value. Image:Oncocytoma_of_the_Salivary_Gland.jpg, for example. It could be that some of the other pictures of tumors that don't show in a search for "neoplasm" are better representatives of the neoplasm type, just aren't labeled as such. As a layperson, I can't know. You seem to be an expert in this field, though, so perhaps you can. My only criteria (in order of importance) are relevance, lack of superfluous/distracting elements, and lack of gratuitous shock imagery. -kotra (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes Kotra, I am an expert. I do not get grossed out anymore. Which is why I need you. I added a new picture, do you like it? Emmanuelm (talk) 20:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, in my opinion, the new image is appropriate. I'd just like to note that the issue wasn't me being "grossed out". But there's probably no need for me to explain my reasons again, since we appear to have reached a result that we can agree on. Thanks. -kotra (talk) 21:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)