Talk:Lung cancer#Cancer

Hi, I reverted the following edit so that we can work together to ensure the source and material meets Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). Here is the edit: "According to a study for which results were presented at American Society of Clinical Ontology (ASCO), the patients who underwent removal of their tumors and subsequently took a specific drug on daily basis experienced a [https://www.gcatglance.com/2023/06/lung-cancer-pill-reduces-death-risk-to-half.html?m=1 remarkable reduction] in almost 51 percent of death risks.{{Cite web |title=Lung Cancer Pill Reduces the Death Risk to Half: Clinical Trial Shows |url=https://www.gcatglance.com/2023/06/lung-cancer-pill-reduces-death-risk-to-half.html |access-date=2023-06-05}}" JenOttawa (talk) 13:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

:Probably not, even news orgs such as BBC are not considered reliable for medical information. Besides, according to WP:MEDRES, single medical studies are almost never reliable. Ca ^{talk to me!} 00:45, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

::The {{diff|Lung cancer|prev|1158649547|actual edit of 10:55, 5 June 2023}} of a [https://web.archive.org/web/20230605105600/https://www.gcatglance.com/2023/06/lung-cancer-pill-reduces-death-risk-to-half.html now-defunct mirror] of what is apparently an Al Jazeera article - not even a specialist medical news source - included interesting information, but was more or less a paraphrase and too vague, the source text title was a bit clickbaity, and was based on a conference presentation, not a peer-reviewed research article. The substance of the article would appear to justify updates (at least) to osimertinib and non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), if there are solid sources and if the wording is appropriate. There is [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-47606-9 this Nature Communications] paper on the role of specific genes and this [https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1047800 AAAS] paper arguing that by identifying EGFR and p53 genetic mutations, the question of which patients will be effectively treated will be more accurately identified (with apparently having-smoked-NSCLC patients being more likely to be successfully treated, though I just scanned quickly). There's a [https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-centre/press-releases/2024/tagrisso-with-the-addition-of-chemotherapy-approved-in-the-eu-as-new-1st-line-treatment-for-patients-with-egfr-mutated-advanced-lung-cancer.html July 2024 Astrazeneca press release] (apparently prepared by a "communications specialist" who doesn't understand URLs and just pointed vaguely to the NEJM home page) about EU approval for tagrisso/osimertinib following FLAURA2 Phase III trial results. Per three related NEJM publications (research paper, editorial, correspondence): [https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2311559 this Nov 2023 NEJM] editorial says that for {{tq|advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that has epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations}} ... {{tq|FLAURA was an important third trial that moved osimertinib to the first line of treatment by showing delayed resistance and improved clinical outcomes; progression-free survival was 18.9 months, and overall survival was 38.6 months}} in the non-paywalled context part of the abstract; the [https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2306434 Planchard+2024 research paper itself] concludes that {{tq|First-line treatment with osimertinib–chemotherapy led to significantly longer progression-free survival than osimertinib monotherapy among patients with EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC}} and [https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2314600 followup NEJM correspondence] {{tq|doubt[s] that up-front combination therapy is better than sequential treatment}}. I would suggest starting with properly worded and sourced edits on osimertinib and non-small-cell lung cancer. Boud (talk) 11:22, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

::I think this study{{Cite journal |last=Kermi |first=Chames |last2=Lau |first2=Lena |last3=Asadi Shahmirzadi |first3=Azar |last4=Classon |first4=Marie |date=2022 |title=Disrupting Mechanisms that Regulate Genomic Repeat Elements to Combat Cancer and Drug Resistance |url=https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9114874/ |journal=Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology |volume=10 |pages=826461 |doi=10.3389/fcell.2022.826461 |issn=2296-634X |pmc=9114874 |pmid=35602594}} might be a useful source for your topic if the studies which also reference this paper are good. Hopefully this helps

::: Signed: [[User:Catcus_DeMeowwy]] (talk) 12:26, 16 May 2025 (UTC) [[User:Catcus_DeMeowwy]] (talk) 12:26, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

Although commonly referred to as 'lung cancer' tumours involving the lung are mostly of bronchial epithelial origin. May I suggest that the term cancer of bronchus be added as an additional name for this topic. Narraburra (talk) 07:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

"Globally, around 8% of men and 6% of women develop lung cancer in their lifetimes.[1]". I checked the article and it doesn't seem like this number is in there. Besides, it is absurdly high.

Mhuben (talk) 13:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

:I can't decipher why you state those numbers are absurdly high (lung cancer incidence varies widely around the world), but I don't have that source; {{u|Ajpolino}}, might you have a look? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

::Pardon the slow response. The source says {{tq|The projected lifetime probability of developing lung cancer is estimated to be ~8% among males and ~6% among females.}} 1 in 12 men developing lung cancer doesn't seem absurd on its face. 1 in 8 men develop prostate cancer. These are the two most common cancers in men. Ajpolino (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

:::That's what I thought ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi! I noticed the well intentioned paragraph on diet and lung cancer risk. I would like to flag this for commentary from the community to ensure that the sources shared are high enough quality for those claims. I also think some of the primary research should be reviewed as per MEDRS. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lung_cancer&diff=1282666905&oldid=1273261855 Pinging {{Ping|Haley275}} as they did all this hard work on the version that is currently shared.

JenOttawa (talk) 22:07, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

:This is a broad overview Featured article which should rely on high-quality sources. The content as written contained some UNDUE content, SYNTH, and used primary sources. I've [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lung_cancer&diff=1282673488&oldid=1282673116 reduced it to what is supported] by secondary sources, but it is not clear that this content should be given weight i this article; ideally, a broad overview of lung cancer would mention dietary factors if the content is to be included. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:37, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

:: As I am sure Jen and Sandy are aware, correlation does not equal causation. Of the major textbooks that discuss diet and lung cancer, only Murray & Nadel's Textbook of Respiratory Medicine describes this correlation at length. This is in chapter 52 of the sixth edition. Case-control and prospective cohort studies have shown a correlation. However randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies investigating beta-carotene treatment have not shown any beneficial effect. The most obvious explanation for these findings is either a confounding factor or selection bias. (My personal opinion is that there is an obvious confounding factor.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:51, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

::: For Wikipedia's article, I think that it is better not to provide information about diet, because this is likely to confuse readers. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:56, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Thx for that Axl; if you haven't already removed the UNDUE content, I will do so. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:04, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello. I just want to say with this new topic that survival ranges (in years, sometimes months) and percentages in the article are talking about 5 years and "20% of people" while in the Oxford Clinical Handbook of Medicine the ranges are 2 years with outlook being not so good. I know it is going into sections about different types of lung cancer and things with that, and the source I am using is only about 1 page in the handbook.

Right now I am looking at lysine and drug-resistance profiles of cancer based on that (and it is not the drugs based off the POV of cancer).

: signed: [[User:Catcus_DeMeowwy]] (talk) 12:23, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

{{u|Axl}} could you review the recent edits? I see {{u|Ajpolino}} hasn't edited in a month, and I am socked in with real life difficulties that are not going to remit any time soon. Bst regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello Wikipedians. I am asking for a review on my edits in: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lung_cancer&oldid=1291040499

Since then, people have contributed to the section. It is good that it is a growing section. The Causes part of this article, in my opinion, needs some work for the reasons that I put in the edit summary of the above edit. Please review my edit summary and help make the article better if you are able to contribute.

: Thank you

signed: [[User:Catcus_DeMeowwy]] (talk) 12:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)