Jump to content

Talk:Cancer

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 109.156.204.159 (talk) at 12:42, 13 July 2014 (→Cancer#Causes). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.



Former good articleCancer was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 22, 2005Good article nomineeListed
February 1, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
April 28, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 21, 2009Good article reassessmentDelisted
December 18, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Delisted good article

Template:Vital article

To Maintaining Low Blood Sugar as a New Cancer Treatment

Original research
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Many people believe that vegetarian diet is good for cancer. And many scientist tried to find out certain factor which is important thing as cancer treatment from vegetables and fruits. But, remarkable factor is not revealed in the world. So this writing is for the discovery of the factor. And perhaps side effect of surfeit of vegetable is the factor. For determine whether low blood sugar which is side effect of surfeit of vegetable is the main factor or have no relation to death of cancer, amount of sugar essential and total of sugar supply are partially calculated.

A human cell has about 2.8billion(1) base pairs(or about 5.6 billion base) and 2.8billion base pairs have 11.2 billion deoxyriboses as a DNA back bone(2). Deoxyribose and glucose are sugar. So glucose maybe used as a raw material of DNA back bone. And for 1.12e+10 deoxyriboses, 3.3477e-12 g glucose may be essential as a raw material of deoxyriboses.

The number of cancer cells is about 2000/mm^2(3) and the density of microvessel is about 200(count)/mm^2(3) and the average diameter of microvessels is about 10μm(). One microvessel of 200 microvessels in 1cm length of tumor is surrounded by 4472 cancer cells.

2000/mm^2 times sqrt{2000/mm^2} times 10mm div 200/mm^2 approx 4472.136 The concept of a cancer cell is a point. And the concept of a microvessel is a line.

Cancer cells which surround one microvessel must needs 1.4971e-8 g glucose per 1cm as the raw material of the deoxyriboses.

The blood flow velocity is about 0.49 mm/sec in capillaries(4). If the average blood sugar level is 100mg/dl, total amount of glucose which passes through a microvessel of10μm diameter is 3.323376e-6g/Day.

1.4971e-8 g is about 0.45% of 3.323376e-6g. But it's not calculated that how percent of 3.323376e-6g glucose is absorbed by 4472 cancer cells. And it's sure that 4472 cancer cells consume more glucose than 1.4971e-8 g.

For calculating the percent of the absorption, osmotic pressure and diffusion velocity must be considered. And it must not ignored that the convection must be limited among the cancer cells.

Most cancer cells starve(die) and 4% of survived cells induce KRAS Pathway Mutations in 9mg/dl glucose(5). This means that low blood sugar induce the necrosis of cancer cells. Besides, the density of microvessels in tumor have relation to cancer returns(6).

Under 70mg/dl glucose in micorvessels may reach under 9mg/dl glucose among cancer cells. One microvessel manages about 40μm from itself. 40μm is 8 times of radius of microvessel of 10μm diameter. Cancer cell which closes to microvessel will absorbs more sugar than enough so another cell may absorbs less sugar than essential amount. Besides, the glucose concentration in a micorvessel of the cancer tumor will be getting lower as blood flows(figure1). Figure1 explains that why huge tumor have disadvantages in low blood sugar level.

The calculation is not completed. But if someone completes this calculation, every things will be sure. Or if someone who has cancer maintains low blood sugar level(under 70mg/dl), we can know the relation between blood sugar level and cancer growth.

At last, the change of dietary has relation to avoid cancer death(7) no matter that the relation are strong or not. The important thing is that perhaps the induced low blood sugar by vegetable based diets are the main reason to avoid cancer death. The concentration of amino acid also needs to consider.

The purpose of this writing is to informing that to maintaining low glucose may be better treatment than chemotherapy. All of cancer patients have to know that perhaps to maintaining low blood glucose(always under 70mg/dl) is enough good as a new cancer treatment.

Figure1. Conception of glucose loss when blood flows : As blood flows, concentration of glucose is getting lower as cancer cell absorb much glucose.

e-mail : evilstriver@hanmail.net

reference

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome#Human_chromosomes

2. Levene P, (01 December 1919). "The structure of yeast nucleic acid". J Biol Chem 40 (2): 415–24. http://www.jbc.org/cgi/reprint/40/2/415.

3. Tsuyotoshi Tsuji, Yoshihiro Sasaki, Masanori Tanaka, et al: Microvessel Morphology and Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Expression in Human Colonic Carcinoma With or Without Metastasis. Lab Invest 2002, 82:555–562

4. M.Stucker, V. Baier, T. Reuther, et al. Capillary Blood Cell Velocity in human skin capillaries located perpendiculary to the skin surface: Measured by a New Laser doppler anemometer. Microvascular research 52, 188-192(1996)

5. Jihye Yun, Carlo Rago, Ian Cheong, et al. Glucose Deprivation Contributes to the Development of KRAS Pathway Mutations in Tumor Cells. Science DOI: 10.1126/science.1174229

6. Noel Weidner. Intratumor Microvessel Density as a Prognostic Factor in Cancer. American Journal ofPathology, Vol. 147, No. 1, July 1995

7. WC Willett: Diet, nutrition, and avoidable cancer. Environmental Health Perspectives 103:165-170, 1995 (suppl 8)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Evilstriver (talk • contribs) 08:21, 23 September 2009‎

Primary sourced content

I've just removed a large amount of primary-sourced content from the Epigenetics section. I have copied it here in case anyone can find anything useful. Sunrise (talk) 07:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content
  • [Sporadic cancers] For example, when 113 colorectal cancers were examined in sequence, only four had a missense mutation in the DNA repair gene MGMT, while the majority had reduced MGMT expression due to methylation of the MGMT promoter region (an epigenetic alteration).[1] Five different studies found that between 40% and 90% of colorectal cancers have reduced MGMT expression due to methylation of the MGMT promoter region.[2][3][4][5][6]
Similarly, out of 119 cases of mismatch repair-deficient colorectal cancers that lacked DNA repair gene PMS2 expression, PMS2 was deficient in 6 due to mutations in the PMS2 gene, while in 103 cases PMS2 expression was deficient because its pairing partner MLH1 was repressed due to promoter methylation (PMS2 protein is unstable in the absence of MLH1).[7] In the other 10 cases, loss of PMS2 expression was likely due to epigenetic overexpression of the microRNA, miR-155, which down-regulates MLH1.[8]
In further examples, tabulated in the article Epigenetics, epigenetic defects were found at frequencies of between 13%-100% for the DNA repair genes BRCA1, WRN, FANCB, FANCF, MGMT, MLH1, MSH2, MSH4, ERCC1, XPF, NEIL1 and ATM in cancers including those in breast, ovarian, colorectal, and head and neck. In particular, two or more epigenetic deficiencies in expression of ERCC1, XPF and/or PMS2 occurred simultaneously in the majority of the 49 colon cancers evaluated by Facista et al.[9]
  • [Colon cancer] Colon cancers were also found to have an average of 17 duplicated segments of chromosomes, 28 deleted segments of chromosomes and up to 10 translocations.[21] However, by comparison, epigenetic alterations appear to be more frequent in colon cancers. There are large numbers of hypermethylated genes in colon cancer, as discussed above.[22]
  • [miRNAs] For instance, epigenetic increase in CpG island methylation of the DNA sequence encoding miR-137 reduces its expression and is a frequent early epigenetic event in colorectal carcinogenesis, occurring in 81% of colon cancers and in 14% of the normal appearing colonic mucosa adjacent to the cancers. Silencing of miR-137 can affect expression of over 400 genes, the targets of this miRNA.[23] Changes in the level of miR-137 expression cause altered mRNA expression of the target genes by 2 to 20-fold and corresponding, though often smaller, changes in expression of the protein products of the genes. Other microRNAs, with likely comparable numbers of target genes, are even more frequently epigenetically altered in colonic field defects and in the colon cancers that arise from them. These include miR-124a, miR-34b/c and miR-342 which are silenced by CpG island methylation of their encoding DNA sequences in primary tumors at rates of 99%, 93% and 86%, respectively, and in the adjacent normal appearing mucosa at rates of 59%, 26% and 56%, respectively.[24][25] Thus, epigenetic alterations are a major source of changes in gene expression, important in cancer.
  1. ^ Halford S, Rowan A, Sawyer E, Talbot I, Tomlinson I (June 2005). "O(6)-methylguanine methyltransferase in colorectal cancers: detection of mutations, loss of expression, and weak association with G:C>A:T transitions". Gut. 54 (6): 797–802. doi:10.1136/gut.2004.059535. PMC 1774551. PMID 15888787.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  2. ^ Shen, L; Kondo, Y; Rosner, GL; Xiao, L; Hernandez, NS; Vilaythong, J; Houlihan, PS; Krouse, RS; Prasad, AR; Einspahr, JG; Buckmeier, J; Alberts, DS; Hamilton, SR; Issa, JP (2005). "MGMT promoter methylation and field defect in sporadic colorectal cancer". Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 97 (18): 1330–8. doi:10.1093/jnci/dji275. PMID 16174854.
  3. ^ Psofaki, V; Kalogera, C; Tzambouras, N; Stephanou, D; Tsianos, E; Seferiadis, K; Kolios, G (2010). "Promoter methylation status of hMLH1, MGMT, and CDKN2A/p16 in colorectal adenomas". World journal of gastroenterology : WJG. 16 (28): 3553–60. doi:10.3748/wjg.v16.i28.3553. PMC 2909555. PMID 20653064.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  4. ^ Lee, KH; Lee, JS; Nam, JH; Choi, C; Lee, MC; Park, CS; Juhng, SW; Lee, JH (2011). "Promoter methylation status of hMLH1, hMSH2, and MGMT genes in colorectal cancer associated with adenoma-carcinoma sequence". Langenbeck's archives of surgery / Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Chirurgie. 396 (7): 1017–26. doi:10.1007/s00423-011-0812-9. PMID 21706233.
  5. ^ Amatu, A; Sartore-Bianchi, A; Moutinho, C; Belotti, A; Bencardino, K; Chirico, G; Cassingena, A; Rusconi, F; Esposito, A; Nichelatti, M; Esteller, M; Siena, S (2013). "Promoter CpG island hypermethylation of the DNA repair enzyme MGMT predicts clinical response to dacarbazine in a phase II study for metastatic colorectal cancer". Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research. 19 (8): 2265–72. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-12-3518. PMID 23422094.
  6. ^ Mokarram, P; Zamani, M; Kavousipour, S; Naghibalhossaini, F; Irajie, C; Moradi Sarabi, M; Hosseini, SV (2013). "Different patterns of DNA methylation of the two distinct O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (O6-MGMT) promoter regions in colorectal cancer". Molecular biology reports. 40 (5): 3851–7. doi:10.1007/s11033-012-2465-3. PMID 23271133.
  7. ^ Truninger, K; Menigatti, M; Luz, J; Russell, A; Haider, R; Gebbers, JO; Bannwart, F; Yurtsever, H; Neuweiler, J; Riehle, HM; Cattaruzza, MS; Heinimann, K; Schär, P; Jiricny, J; Marra, G (2005). "Immunohistochemical analysis reveals high frequency of PMS2 defects in colorectal cancer". Gastroenterology. 128 (5): 1160–71. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2005.01.056. PMID 15887099.
  8. ^ Valeri, N; Gasparini, P; Fabbri, M; Braconi, C; Veronese, A; Lovat, F; Adair, B; Vannini, I; Fanini, F; Bottoni, A; Costinean, S; Sandhu, SK; Nuovo, GJ; Alder, H; Gafa, R; Calore, F; Ferracin, M; Lanza, G; Volinia, S; Negrini, M; McIlhatton, MA; Amadori, D; Fishel, R; Croce, CM (2010). "Modulation of mismatch repair and genomic stability by miR-155". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 107 (15): 6982–7. doi:10.1073/pnas.1002472107. PMC 2872463. PMID 20351277.
  9. ^ Facista, A; Nguyen, H; Lewis, C; Prasad, AR; Ramsey, L; Zaitlin, B; Nfonsam, V; Krouse, RS; Bernstein, H; Payne, CM; Stern, S; Oatman, N; Banerjee, B; Bernstein, C (2012). "Deficient expression of DNA repair enzymes in early progression to sporadic colon cancer". Genome integrity. 3 (1): 3. doi:10.1186/2041-9414-3-3. PMC 3351028. PMID 22494821.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  10. ^ Roy, M; Sinha, D; Mukherjee, S; Biswas, J (2011). "Curcumin prevents DNA damage and enhances the repair potential in a chronically arsenic-exposed human population in West Bengal, India". European journal of cancer prevention : the official journal of the European Cancer Prevention Organisation (ECP). 20 (2): 123–31. doi:10.1097/CEJ.0b013e328341017a. PMID 21332098.
  11. ^ Qin, XJ; Liu, W; Li, YN; Sun, X; Hai, CX; Hudson, LG; Liu, KJ (2012). "Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase-1 inhibition by arsenite promotes the survival of cells with unrepaired DNA lesions induced by UV exposure". Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology. 127 (1): 120–9. doi:10.1093/toxsci/kfs099. PMC 3327874. PMID 22387748.
  12. ^ Ebert, F; Weiss, A; Bültemeyer, M; Hamann, I; Hartwig, A; Schwerdtle, T (2011). "Arsenicals affect base excision repair by several mechanisms". Mutation research. 715 (1–2): 32–41. doi:10.1016/j.mrfmmm.2011.07.004. PMID 21782832.
  13. ^ Andrew, AS; Karagas, MR; Hamilton, JW (2003). "Decreased DNA repair gene expression among individuals exposed to arsenic in United States drinking water". International Journal of Cancer. Journal International Du Cancer. 104 (3): 263–8. doi:10.1002/ijc.10968. PMID 12569548.
  14. ^ Nollen, M; Ebert, F; Moser, J; Mullenders, LH; Hartwig, A; Schwerdtle, T (2009). "Impact of arsenic on nucleotide excision repair: XPC function, protein level, and gene expression". Molecular nutrition & food research. 53 (5): 572–82. doi:10.1002/mnfr.200800480. PMID 19382146.
  15. ^ Shen, S; Lee, J; Weinfeld, M; Le, XC (2008). "Attenuation of DNA damage-induced p53 expression by arsenic: A possible mechanism for arsenic co-carcinogenesis". Molecular carcinogenesis. 47 (7): 508–18. doi:10.1002/mc.20406. PMID 18085531.
  16. ^ Zhou, ZH; Lei, YX; Wang, CX (2012). "Analysis of aberrant methylation in DNA repair genes during malignant transformation of human bronchial epithelial cells induced by cadmium". Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology. 125 (2): 412–7. doi:10.1093/toxsci/kfr320. PMID 22112500.
  17. ^ Wieland, M; Levin, MK; Hingorani, KS; Biro, FN; Hingorani, MM (2009). "Mechanism of cadmium-mediated inhibition of Msh2-Msh6 function in DNA mismatch repair". Biochemistry. 48 (40): 9492–502. doi:10.1021/bi9001248. PMID 19320425.
  18. ^ Bravard, A; Vacher, M; Gouget, B; Coutant, A; De Boisferon, FH; Marsin, S; Chevillard, S; Radicella, JP (2006). "Redox regulation of human OGG1 activity in response to cellular oxidative stress". Molecular and Cellular Biology. 26 (20): 7430–6. doi:10.1128/MCB.00624-06. PMC 1636869. PMID 16923968.
  19. ^ Viau, M; Gastaldo, J; Bencokova, Z; Joubert, A; Foray, N (2008). "Cadmium inhibits non-homologous end-joining and over-activates the MRE11-dependent repair pathway". Mutation research. 654 (1): 13–21. doi:10.1016/j.mrgentox.2008.04.009. PMID 18539077.
  20. ^ Schwerdtle, T; Ebert, F; Thuy, C; Richter, C; Mullenders, LH; Hartwig, A (2010). "Genotoxicity of soluble and particulate cadmium compounds: Impact on oxidative DNA damage and nucleotide excision repair". Chemical research in toxicology. 23 (2): 432–42. doi:10.1021/tx900444w. PMID 20092276.
  21. ^ Muzny, Donna M.; Bainbridge, Matthew N.; Chang, Kyle; Dinh, Huyen H.; Drummond, Jennifer A.; Fowler, Gerald; Kovar, Christie L.; Lewis, Lora R.; Morgan, Margaret B.; Newsham, Irene F.; Reid, Jeffrey G.; Santibanez, Jireh; Shinbrot, Eve; Trevino, Lisa R.; Wu, Yuan-Qing; Wang, Min; Gunaratne, Preethi; Donehower, Lawrence A.; Creighton, Chad J.; Wheeler, David A.; Gibbs, Richard A.; Lawrence, Michael S.; Voet, Douglas; Jing, Rui; Cibulskis, Kristian; Sivachenko, Andrey; Stojanov, Petar; McKenna, Aaron; Lander, Eric S.; Gabriel, Stacey (2012). "Comprehensive molecular characterization of human colon and rectal cancer". Nature. 487 (7407): 330–7. doi:10.1038/nature11252. PMC 3401966. PMID 22810696. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |displayauthors= ignored (|display-authors= suggested) (help)
  22. ^ Cite error: The named reference Sch was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  23. ^ Balaguer F, Link A, Lozano JJ; et al. (August 2010). "Epigenetic silencing of miR-137 is an early event in colorectal carcinogenesis". Cancer Res. 70 (16): 6609–18. doi:10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-10-0622. PMC 2922409. PMID 20682795. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  24. ^ Deng, G; Kakar, S; Kim, YS (2011). "MicroRNA-124a and microRNA-34b/c are frequently methylated in all histological types of colorectal cancer and polyps, and in the adjacent normal mucosa". Oncology letters. 2 (1): 175–180. doi:10.3892/ol.2010.222. PMC 3412539. PMID 22870149.
  25. ^ Grady, WM; Parkin, RK; Mitchell, PS; Lee, JH; Kim, YH; Tsuchiya, KD; Washington, MK; Paraskeva, C; Willson, JK; Kaz, AM; Kroh, EM; Allen, A; Fritz, BR; Markowitz, SD; Tewari, M (2008). "Epigenetic silencing of the intronic microRNA hsa-miR-342 and its host gene EVL in colorectal cancer". Oncogene. 27 (27): 3880–8. doi:10.1038/onc.2008.10. PMID 18264139.

Treatment versus management

IMO management is a better term when it comes to cancer as most cases of cancer are not simply treated with a 7 day course of anything. While the two terms mean more or less the same management implies greater difficulty which is the cause. Others thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My first reaction on seeing the section was that "management" in this context is a euphemism similar to "living with," and should be replaced under WP:W2W.
I agree that it implies greater difficulty to an extent, but to me it carries a greater implication that any treatments are ineffective, which is a major problem (we need trust and compliance from patients in order to cure them, after all). For myself, that is a more important issue - as per my edit summaries, I'm fine with any number of compromises that address this (like splitting Management and Treatment into different sections) rather than being interested in making any precise distinction between the two.
In terms of definition, it seems to me that you think the term "treatment" either requires or implies that the patient is cured (or has a reasonable expectation of a cure), as in your comment above and your edit summary here - is that correct? That's contrary to my experience though - there is prophylactic treatment, chronic treatment, etc. Sunrise (talk) 07:18, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to start a RfC regarding which to use I would have no concerns. We seem to understand the meaning of the word differently. I am against creating two sections with each term naming one. I support management, but if there is a majority that prefer treatment we can move it to that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:26, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think "management" is entirely appropriate, and I agree with James that it is much better for the complex and multifacetted approach than just "treatment". A lot of cancer is "managed" by watchful waiting, and that ain't treatment. Prophylaxis is also not treatment (is a contradiction in terms). I don't see "management" as a euphemism for "living with" at all; "I'm managing" is not the same as "[my disease] is being managed". JFW | T@lk 14:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that the choice is very important. Management implies a reasonably permanent need for medical attention; treatment implies that it's over and done with at some point. Some cancers (e.g., non-invasive skin cancer) is definitively treated. Others (e.g., pretty much stage 4 anything) are "managed". Probably half the cases are best described by the one term and the other half are best described by the other. As far as I'm concerned, we could flip a coin. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I won't bother taking up everyone's time with an RfC. :-) Sunrise (talk) 03:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever we call the section, there is nothing here on drug therapies of the various kinds covered in the sub-article Management of cancer. Johnbod (talk) 13:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Malignant progression

Actually I added that as the beginning of a section about malignant progression, a term which appears in at least 20 cancer related articles and has no term of its own. Then opted out, because of lack of time. I'm happy you reinstated it, after removing it. Your right, no need for caps. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 12:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Half of the Truth

The article is incomplete if it does not mention major news about therapies. Like current research it is omitting secured knowledge about the potential of oncolytical virus therapies. Just a start about this topic: Google Scholar about Viral Therapies There should not be any "we" for authors of Wikipedia and especially no "I" who feels entitled to decide about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.6.11.18 (talk) 08:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:MEDRS. We don't cover much of what falls under "news", but I agree the research section needs improving. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 12:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We have whole articles where details like that would be appropriate: Experimental cancer treatment, Oncolytic virus, and Management of cancer. This very general article shouldn't be stuffed with every possible detail. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:26, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Minor change to last paragraph of opening

I think that this sentence in the last paragraph of the opening should be changed.

Cancer is usually treated with chemotherapy, radiation therapy and surgery. Changed to: Cancer is usually treated with chemotherapy, radiation therapy and/or surgery. Every cancer treated is not treated by all three methods! Rainbowkey (talk) 18:20, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Thanks for the heads-up. Quercus solaris (talk) 20:02, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Causes of cancer

The current redirect is to Carcinogenesis (viz. Cancer#Pathophysiology). I think a redirect here to Cancer#Causes would be more appropriate. 109.156.204.159 (talk) 12:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I've noted at my project that Obesity and cancer is missing, unlike baccy and alcohol. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 13:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. 109.156.204.159 (talk) 14:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cancer#Causes

The Causes section currently begins:

Cancers are primarily an environmental disease (currently unlinked) with 90–95% of cases attributed to environmental factors and 5–10% due to genetics.

Apart from a slightly pedantic concern that this is arguably an inappropriate reflection of the source [1], which does not explicitly state that cancer is principally an environmental disease, I'm concerned that this important statement about cancer preventability is open to simplistic misinterpretation by many readers. To start a section on Causes, wouldn't it a good idea to explain first that cancer etiology is generally multifactorial (genetic predisposition → environmental triggers, etc)? 109.156.204.159 (talk) 14:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I don't like that - and HS says "absolute rubbish". Every word in "attributed to environmental factors and 5–10% due to genetics" opens a large question this glides over. I'd just cut for now. Very obscure journal too. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 17:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the source is far from ideal. When a disease can be shown to be attributable to a given risk factor in a percentage of patients, it's ok [2] to say that the disease is due to that factor in those patients. However, the environmental disease claim is complicated [3] ... and I'm certainly going there now (the page is protected anyway, lol). Imo, the best place to start is with the multifactorial concept, as in the CRUK vademecum. I guess this section provides a further example of the sort of key area where skilled/expert CRUK input could really help improve our medical content in a genuinely NPOV way. 109.156.204.159 (talk) 19:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think a lay wikipedian could be forgiven for suspecting a deliberate POV split between this page and Carcinogenesis:

I think this apparent contradiction needs to be addressed, perhaps starting from the parent page here. 109.156.204.159 (talk) 12:40, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cancer&oldid=616780972"