Talk:Cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma

Is

Is this 20% of non-melanoma skin cancer, is it 20% of skin cancers period? -- Toby Bartels 09:47, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The former. It's hard to get an absolute incidence on melanoma, but it accounts for up to 80% of deaths from skin cancer...not because it's that much more common, but because it's that much more deadly. This is improving with the use of vaccination as treatment. But skin cancers are always discussed as "melanomas" and "non-melanotic skin cancers" because of their different implications for treatment and prognosis, and because they are not likely to be confused with each other. It's non-melanoma skin cancer that's 20% SCC and 80% BCC - Nunh-huh 10:04, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Source of US cases per year was Skin Care foundation website, http://www.skincancer.org/squamous/index.php Carax 03:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

The figure quoted relates to skin cancer rather than all forms. As such, it appears to be misleading. Am I right in thinking this? If so, I suggest it is removed to start with, until such time as someone can source the true figure - and not just for the US. Some international data would be better here. I'm not a medically trained person, so it would be good if someone qualified could look at this. 81.109.216.245 (talk) 21:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree. I have removed these statistics, and basically rewritten the page. After all, it is essentially a disambiguation page for all cancers with a squamous histology. The page still needs attention. For instance, the typical features on light microscopy and the use of immunohistochemistry in distinguishing different cell types (e.g. if the SCC is found in the form of a metastasis with unknown primary). JFW | T@lk 21:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I also raised the point at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine but you've taken care of it now. 81.109.216.245 (talk) 21:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Images

I wanted to make a site available on the external links page with some good medical images of SCC - I wanted to run this by the discussion group first. Squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) Burrills99 14:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

terms

What does "Squamous" mean?

Squamous means "flat" or "scaly" and refers to the cells on the outer layer of the skin (the epidermis) (From websters dictionary) Burrills99 14:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

picture

can someone remove the last picture on Bronchus cell carcinoma? Seriously, it's worse than Goatse. 147.252.65.67 15:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Well... There is an intermediate solution between removing and keeping. I have restored it as a link, so it will be only displayed if requested. Please note that Wikipedia is not censored, i.e: "some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content (...) and do not violate any of our existing policies (...) nor the law of the U.S. state of Florida, where Wikipedia's servers are hosted." According to Wikipedia content disclaimer, "Wikipedia contains many different images, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers. For example, some articles contain graphical depictions of violence, or depictions of human anatomy." Rjgodoy 21:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

P for pathologist

I like how Pathologist in the text has a capital "P". I wonder what the author of the article thinks about dermatologists. (I am only jesting.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.52.13 (talk) 04:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

HPV vs. Cervical Cancer

In the line, "Australian scientist Ian Frazer who developed the cervical cancer vaccine, says that animal tests have been effective in preventing squamous cell carcinoma in animals, and there may be a human vaccine against this kind of skin cancer within the decade.[5]" while sited by Cosmo this information is not 100% accurate. The vaccine protects from Types 6, 11, 16 & 18 of HPV and HPV types 16 & 18 are know to cause 70% of cervical cancer cases. So the vaccine does not protect someone from Cervical Cancer but from HPV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.230.121.12 (talk) 07:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the phrasing was odd. Changed to HPV vaccine, which more accurately describes it. (Since it protects against more than just cervical cancer). Zodon (talk) 08:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Prognosis Section Added

I added a Prognosis section, and cited it to medical journals as well as I could. Due to the various sub-types of squamous cell carcinoma however, it still needs a lot of work on expanding coverage. LiamSP (talk) 00:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merge

Hello to all! I am proposing a merge from the following articles into this article:

• Adenoid squamous-cell carcinoma
• Basaloid squamous-cell carcinoma
• Clear-cell squamous-cell carcinoma
• Signet-ring-cell squamous-cell carcinoma
• Spindle cell squamous cell carcinoma

This is for the following reasons:

• The main article would benefit significantly from having all this information in one place.
• These articles are very short in length (1-2 sentences) and have not been edited significantly in 3-4 years.
• This knowledge shouldn't be obscured from readers of this article by virtue of being isolated in an obscure article of 1-2 lines.
• These topics may receive more attention by being mentioned in the main article.
• The articles, if needs be, could be re-expanded at a later date.

Kind Regards, LT90001 (talk) 00:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• With no objections, I have completed this merge. LT910001 (talk) 01:01, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

'Squamous-cell' vs. 'Squamous cell'

I'm confused by the unusual and consistent use of the hyphenated 'squamous-cell carcinoma' on this wiki, including in the title. As can be easily seen just by scanning through the references section on the wiki, the unhyphenated 'squamous cell carcinoma' is consistently used in the titles of cited articles. See Medscape's page as another example of the accepted unhyphenated form.

There is a similar 'hyphen scenario' with the 'basal-cell' carcinoma wiki too, although the hyphenated form is used less consistently there. - McLondon (talk) 01:54, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

21:33, 19 December 2016‎ - Doc James

I disagree with Doc James (talk · contribs) that the source is poor. What do other people think? I want to build a consensus to determine one way or another and put the issue to rest. There are a couple other pages (Basal-cell carcinoma, for example) where the user Doc James is deleting content from the source.

The revision is:

According to Hoel ''et al.'' 2016, "The US. Preventive Services Task Force, in its May 2012 Final Recommendation Statement on skin cancer counseling, stated that studies that measured long-term or total sun exposure had found no association between cumulative sun exposure and either SCC or BCC."

--Michael Powerhouse (talk) 22:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Does not appear to have an impact factor[1]

That is not an accurate reflection of the USPSTF. The AIM says "On the basis of 5 fair- or good-quality cohort studies and 7 fair- or good-quality case–control studies, increasing intermittent sun exposure in childhood and during one's lifetime is associated with an increased risk for both squamous cell carcinoma and basal cell carcinoma"[2]

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:54, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

[3]agree w/ Doc James,--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:05, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• Agree that the cited source for that revision is not high-quality; also, the USPSTF summary statement includes many caveats and limitations not represented in the revision above. — soupvector (talk) 03:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

At face value, Hoel does indeed make that statement about the USPSTF. (I have not checked the USPSTF itself.) Ironically, earlier in the same paragraph, Hoel stated "Cumulative sun exposure ... is apparently associated with increased risk of SCC and BCC, although the relationship between cumulative sun exposure and NMSC is not entirely clear." Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed - that's why I said what I did; it's not a high-quality source, and the USPSTF statement is a high-quality source that is poorly represented in the proposed edit. — soupvector (talk) 19:21, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I've checked the USPSTF source, and it does say exactly that, almost word for word. In the third line of this table, in the "Findings" column, it says "No significant association" and "Increased risk (OR, 1.8-4.4) in studies with sun exposure in childhood" on the line labeled "Total or cumulative sun exposure".

The main issue is that there are five lines in that table, and this is just about one of them. This particular sentence doesn't mention the other four: "Intermittent or recreational sun exposure", "Chronic or occupational sun exposure", "Indoor tanning", and "Sunscreen use".

In general, I think the solution here isn't to re-write the article to either contradict or omit the USPSTF's findings; the solution is to explain that five different types of exposure were measured, and only some of them show associations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

The additional important elements in the USPSTF statement are the limitations - they make clear that the studies are likely too few & small to strongly conclude lack of association. — soupvector (talk) 21:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Its a hard area to study. The issue was undue weight. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:47, 22 December 2016 (UTC)