Talk:Wilms' tumor

message: what s normal child?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.77.241 (talk) 19:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Normal'

message: I've moved this from Wilms tumor, as the spelling with the apostroph is the more correct one. Jfdwolff 14:48, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: I've

message: Which has precedence-- medical or common?
====Pubmed (hits)====
*"Wilms"  5784
*nephroblastoma  6851
====Google (hits)====
*"Wilms tumor" 150,000
*nephroblastoma  49,100
I'm not fan of eponyms and think nephroblastoma is a better term 'cause it describes the condition -- nephro - kidney, blastoma - tumor arising from embryonic tissue.  Any thoughts on this... rules? Nephron 23:35, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nephroblastoma vs. Wilms? 

message: *"Wilms tumor" 150,000
*nephroblastoma  49,100
I'm not fan of eponyms and think nephroblastoma is a better term 'cause it describes the condition -- nephro - kidney, blastoma - tumor arising from embryonic tissue.  Any thoughts on this... rules? Nephron 23:35, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Google (hits)

message: My impression was that the apostrophe is not needed or standard.  If others agree, please edit the article appropriately.
:The form with the apostrophe is the original form. It's "Wilms' tumor". The other eponyms associated with Max Wilms are "Wilms' amputation", "Wilms' cones", "WIlms' symptom", and "Wilms' operation".  See Who named it?. There has been a trend toward eliminating possessive eponyms (thus Down's syndrome, the original form, is often "Down syndrome" today, and this is reflected in dictionaries; however, while Merriam Webster's Collegiate has entries for both "Down syndrome" and "Down's syndrome", it has an entry only for "Wilms' tumor", and not "Wilms tumor", so the former, with the apostrophe, is still the standard spelling.  - Nunh-huh 10:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wilms' vs. Wilms 

message: This disease does not need an appostrophe to show ownership as it is named after the scientist who discovered it, his last name was Wilms.  So, it is a Wilms tumor.
:Alois Alzheimer claimed no "ownership" of Alzheimer's disease, either, yet that's how it's known. And exactly for the same reason — that is, having been first described by — Wilms' tumor also does have the apostrophe in the name. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wilms' vs. Wilms 

message: To say 'it is eponymously named after' is a truism! It would be better to say 'it is named after...' or 'it is eponymous to...'
 
:Fixed.  --Una Smith (talk) 18:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: FIXED Eponym

message: The at risk group is larger than children. My father died of it at age 49. My half-brother has been on dialysis since his 40s.
:Fixed. --Una Smith (talk) 18:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FIXED Adult Onset 

message: I have made several edits to the article to address questions here, but there is still more to do.  At present the article is inconsistent re whether Wilms' tumor is always a malignant cancer, or sometimes benign.  Would someone care to research this question and clean up the article? --Una Smith (talk) 18:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Benign or malignant

message: About five hundred new cases each year in the U.S. is "extremely rare" and therefore does not justify an importance rating of "high".  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment

message: Wilms is also present in other syndromes and medical constellations, such as WAGR, Denys-Drash...I am adding them to the See Also. Any objections?Shigaon (talk) 05:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Constellations of Conditions

message: The CT scan on this page shows a tumor in the right kidney, not the left kidney (as stated before).  CT scans are read in cross-sectional slices as if the patient were lying on a bed, feet facing you; therefore, the left side of the image corresponds to the patient's right side.  This orientation is also consistent with the position of the aorta and aortic arch, liver, et cetera in this particular scan.  I have edited the page accordingly.  --shrimppesto (talk) 06:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  CT scan is of right kidney 

message: Direct citation and in text references necessary for survival rates. Particularly because a 4 year survival rate is listed for stage V. Rare at best.
143.111.239.73 (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Survival Rates 

message: If you add them up, you get 104%. How come? -The T-Man (talk) 12:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Percentage numbers for stages 

message: I reverted the addition of the "See Also" link to article Sara Shamsavari - the subject's only connection is that she has Wilms' tumour. I don't think it adds anything to list people with a condition. If others think otherwise, there should be a separate list or some annotation. DavidCh0 (talk) 11:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link removed - not useful 

message: Is the section 'Notable cases' really needed; what value does it add? Firstly, I find it vaguely inappropriate, in a general sense. More to the point, it's also nonsensical, in that this disease almost always affects (young) children, and very few children can be 'notable' yet due to their age, other than by association (celebrity parent, etc.). And while it is inarguably tragic that some famous(ish) person's child has had Wilms' tumour, not to mention perhaps died of it, I fail to see how that makes either the child or the parent 'notable' in this context. And that's to say nothing of how any such listing could only ever be incomplete; case in point: there is currently only one case mentioned. TL;DR = I think this section falls foul of WP:NOTMEMORIAL and should be removed. Thoughts? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed the section, since nobody has objected. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Notable cases'?