Talk:Breast cancer/Archive 1

message: Does anyone have any idea why this particular cancer is so emphasised in the news?
: Presumably because, as well as being a very common cancer, it's a very visible cancer (or at least the surgical treatment - mastectomy - is). 81.156.18.164 23:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  One word. Feminists.--68.13.59.58 22:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sexist comments aside, it's the most common cancer in females. Prostate cancer would also get this much publicity, if men were more comfortable talking about it. Unlike other diseases such as lung cancer etc, breast cancer occurs in anybody (well, almost any female) so there is no one to 'blame' and people see it as 'unfair'. Serrin 00:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Publicity Query 

message: This article badly needs a rewrite, and some of these "risk factors" seem really dodgy, at least the way they're explained.
: They may sound dodgy, but those (early menarche, late menopause, late childbirth, late first child, hormone replacement) are well established factors that increase risk of developing breast cancer. Alex.tan 07:21, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  They are just risk factors, they are associated, and they are not necessarily causally associated.  They are dodgy if you think of causality in a risk factor, rather than a chain of causation and association.  What country you live in, how many 1st degree relatives with breast cancer are strong risk factors, but are likely confounders (themselves associated) witht the unknown, underlying cause.  Bcameron54 21:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  rewrite 

message: "Overall, it has been estimated that women have about a 1 in 10 lifetime risk of developing breast cancer."
I do not understand this 1 in 10 lifetime risk. Does it not contradict these stats from http://www.breastcancer.org/cmn_who_indrisk.html
*From birth to age 39, 1 woman in 231 will get breast cancer (<0.5% risk).
*From ages 40?59, the chance is 1 in 25 (4% risk).
*From ages 60?79, the chance is 1 in 15 (nearly 7%).
I am not very good with stats so I won't dare edit.
: Well, if you sum up those odds, you get a total of a bit more than 10% for the lifetime risk for a woman aged 79. That isn't too far from 10% given that not all women live to that age. Therefore, there is no contradiction. Alex.tan 17:26, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, I am sorry but you can not add percentages up. In fact you can intuitively see that the odds will never go above 7% on an average. The odds for someone 79 years old are already given: 7%, they won't be more then that. In fact these stats make more sense with risk against age - Hence I EDIT. I add I am not good with stats but the change is more clarifying. ank 06:12, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you should go read up your mathematics book again. The same article you quote says - "The chance of getting breast cancer over the course of an entire lifetime, assuming you live to age 90, is one in 8, with an overall lifetime risk of 12.5%." - which means, obviously, that the overall lifetime risk is 12.5%. How much more intuitive can you get than that? Alex.tan 06:54, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: No, not exactly. It would be saying the same thing twice given the assumption that there are exactly equal numbers of males and females and that they both have the same life expectancies. It's a given that this is pretty much what actually happens usually but it's not always the case. --Alex.tan 02:36, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  aa 

message: Pete attempted to merge the inflammatory breast cancer article, but ended up pasting its whole content. I reverted; while this info certainly belongs in this article, it should be interwoven with the regular breast cancer information. Staging, for example, is no different. JFW | T@lk 23:58, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inflammatory breast cancer 

message: The clinical TNM staging system is listed here. But operative treatment, adjuvant therapy and prognosis depend on the pathological tumor staging (pTNM). This differs from the clinical TNM system in the N (node) category. To avoid confusion with the rather complicated definitions of clinical and pathological TNM, I would suggest that only stage groups are listed, like here: http://www.usnews.com/usnews/health/cancer/breast/bcancer.test.stage.htm
00:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Staging systems 

message: InvictaHOG has repeatedly removed an external link, and I have repeatedly added it back, to Keeping Abreast: Dedicated to providing only the most interesting Breast Cancer News links and sumaries. There is no good reason for removing it. This is a legitimate news blog and is quite helpful. It was very helpful to my wife, and many of the breast cancer patients and survivors she interacts with on her BC forums have commented on its quality and relevance.
InvictaHOG initially removed the link with the comment "First page of blog link has article about the mistletoe cure. I'd rather not have this here." That is not only terribly biased, it is reactionary. Yes, that article appeared as the most current post (top of the page) -- on Christmas Day, which added somewhat of a "cute" flavor to it -- but it linked to a legitimate news story, not to some website that offered weird alternative cures or something. Had InvictaHOG read the article, s/he would have seen that. And had InvictaHOG actually looked through a fair sampling of the other news items on the front page and in the archives, s/he would have seen that that article was not in any way common for this blog.
I am adding the link back now, and InvictaHOG will need to provide a reasoned explanation here to convince me not to do so again.
InvictaHOG, I do appreciate your vast contributions to Wikipedia. That is not somehing I can claim for myself. But I think you are being very unreasonable, reactionary, and biased here.  - TaintedAzure  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.243.210.226 (talk • contribs) .
: There is an ongoing debate about whether or not blogs should be included in the external link section; see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Clinical_medicine.  In general, the onus is on the editor to prove that a particular blog is noteworthy.  Andrew73 20:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not doing this to be spiteful or mean. There are literally hundreds of breast cancer websites out there that people find helpful or interesting. Keeping Abreast is not particularly well-done or insightful. Yes, I did read through the article and I have seen many other popular press articles this holiday season touting mistletoe cures for many other diseases, none with evidence. I read other, better articles on the site but feel that as a whole it was not compelling. I am a relative inclusionist, but it not reactionary to see that not every blog or website needs or deserves to be linked here. This article would benefit from more attention, but not more links. A hundred more well-intentioned links (I know that your goal is to make the article better!) will not make this article more encyclopedic. I hope that you see my side of this! InvictaHOG 23:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

text: How about linking to a link directory like http://dmoz.org/Health/Conditions_and_Diseases/Cancer/Breast/ instead? It has lots of links to good websites, support organisations and also personal blogs. --WS 15:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No need to keep removing link to the "Keeping Abreast" news blog! 

message: Does anyone know if the ICD-10 code C50 includes both female and male breast cancers? (unsigned comment, 1/3/2005)
:Yes. Per this source, under "Differences in ICD-10 neoplasm codes and/or how they are applied", item #4 is "Breast cancer: (C500 - C509) ICD-10 codes for breast cancer are not gender specific." --Arcadian 14:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of us are, but this page is for discussing the article.Mikereichold 03:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  male breast cancer 

message: The current section for Adjuvant treatment seems to be a bit dificult to follow.  The section almost reads as if some of the treatments (chemo and hormonal) are mutually exclusive.  The second statement almost seems to imply that chemo isn't waranted in cases where lymph nodes weren't positive, however my understanding is that chemo depends on the size of the tumor as well as lymph node status.  As I am not a doctor I'd like some input before editing this section.  A possible rearrangement might include the following changes:
*Rename the section from Adjuvant treatment to Systemic treatments.  Reason: Chemotherapy can be given as both neo-adjuvant to shrink a tumor and adjuvant to lower the risk of recurrence.
*Add 3 subsections for Hormonal (to discuss tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitors), immune system treatments (Herceptin), and Chemotherapy.  
*Put a statement at the top of the reorganized section stating that any combination of these can be used in treating breast cancer. 
*Move the first paragraph "At present, the treatment recommendations after surgery (adjuvant therapy) follow a pattern. This pattern may be adapted as every two years a worldwide conference takes place in St. Gallen, Switzerland to discuss the actual results of worldwide multi-center studies. Depending on clinical criteria (age, type of cancer, size, metastasis) patients are roughly divided to high risk and low risk cases which follow different rules for therapy." to the start of the treatment section since it appears to refer to all types of treatment.
Enterkin 01:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead, be bold. JFW | T@lk 07:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Treatment section 

message: Presently, the abortion article (Abortion#Breast_cancer) has a section about breast cancer.  That and an entire article Abortion-breast_cancer_hypothesis could use some context from breast cancer Wikipedians as opposed to people simply seeking to promote their abortion POV.
I set up talk space for it Talk:Abortion#Breast_Cancer_bias, but feel free to rewrite away.--Pro-Lick 21:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Update:  It's improving very slowly, but still in great need of more cancer experts and fewer anti-abortion campaigners.  I'd like to do more, but I can only revert so often.  The main problem is that the article overemphasizes a single study that has long been considered inferior to studies done after it.--Pro-Lick 04:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

text: And RoyBoy is transparently an anti-abortion POV warrior.  Where does that leave us?  Apparently for RoyBoy, it leaves us at name-calling instead of article content verification and WP:RS.--Pro-Lick 16:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's wrong, but that hasn't stopped you yet. Pity. If you would like sources on that – take the time to do the research yourself – preferably before you comment and/or edit articles of an encyclopedia. - RoyBoy 800 16:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: And if I was into name-calling I could have labelled you "Pro-Abortion";  but I'll leave it to you to not assume good faith and skip the "Pro-Life" label and go for the extreme. At least you're consistent on going for extremes. - RoyBoy 800 16:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The linkage between abortion and breast cancer is controversial, and while the evidence does not support the association, it's worth mentioning given that this issue has been raised in the lay press.  141.154.227.12 04:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point; this indeed has come up in the press and simply cannot be ignored. - RoyBoy 800 18:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abortion 

message: Hiya Andrew73. Thanks for your edits there, but I don't agree with them. 
*Firstly, to promote one source as robust is a little POV. I understand it has been present as such by some organizations; but to examine its robustness is an issue that should be handled in the ABC article rather than a one sided mention here. Moreover what you unintentionally did was promote a study over others. Unless it is the most important and highly regarded study (that would be the Melbye (Denmark) study in 1997) we shouldn't be referring to it outside the ABC article. But even then that would require a back and forth analysis that would bloat the ABC mention; and repeat material already in the ABC article.
*As to "medical community in general feels abortion link not robust"; I entirely agree... but that is why I described it as "unestablished and controversial" and we could go a step further and expand the name of the article. (that way "hypothesis" would be seen right away by the reader, I see you put hypothesized in the article, that's good too)
*"Based on the observation that early full-term pregnancy is associated with a reduced risk of breast cancer"... that implies the ABC hypothesis is an increased risk in relation to having children. The increased risk in scientific studies is almost always relative to women of same parity (child bearing). So that is misleading and likely factually incorrect on how the ABC issue was first hypothesized; and it is certainly incorrect on how it is currently presented.
*"subsequently"... subsequently to what? That is confusing.
Also expanding the ABC mention itself in this article; makes it seem more important than it currently is. If we go back to my version, it is a minor side note. Maybe changing unestablished to hypothesized would be best. Is that alright with you? - RoyBoy 800 03:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tweaked out the misleading and confusing parts. I'm okay with this version. - RoyBoy 800 05:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looks better.  I guess the specifics in terms of the studies are better amplified in a separate article, rather than in the main breast cancer article.  Andrew73 18:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we need to add a section like "Breast Cancer Myths" in which we list various causes/links/effects that are known to be false or very weak.  Combining ABC in a section with other confirmed causes/links seems misleading and potentially even dangerous if it's taken as a sign that the section can be used to add anything that has had 15 minutes of breast cancer fame.--Pro-Lick 16:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ABC has been around longer than you. I've added a section, unproven. - RoyBoy 800 02:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Indeed, it was simply vandalism that feel through the cracks. Good catch. - RoyBoy 800 00:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robustness of study and ABC hypothesis 

message: It has been said on an online forum (via email) that breast cancer is caused by exposure artificial light. True or false?-- 陈鼎翔   说!贡献 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 10:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a speculative theory, the proposed mechanism is that artificial lights confuse the body clock and alter the hormonal balance.  Increased artificial light might also be correlated with other behaviors, such as LESS exposure to sunlight.  There is also a theory that the potent vitamin D from sunlight is particularly good a preventing cancer.  The proponents of this theory argue that while sunlight increases the risk of skin cancer, that increase is far outweighed by all the other cancer mortality it prevents.Technicaltechy 17:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Artificial Light a cause? 

message: The new prevention section for high risk patients, reminded me that some high risk patients even opt for propholactic mastectomy.  If someone knows a good reference, it might add to the completeness of the article.--Technicaltechy 20:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  prevention? 

message: See WP:V, WP:CITE and WP:RS. Yesterday I putted a "unreferenced" tag which was immediately deleted. So, this is supposed to be a scientific article addressing a wide audience. We certainly need references for statistics and for almost everything. Since I'm sure pretty much of the editors here have a scientific background, this shouldn't be too difficult to provide. And it would make the article something on which we could rely on. If references are not introduced, than just any crack-head can put whatever he want, and we will just have to trust other editors struggles against silly or outlandish claims. I don't trust Wikipedia on sight, so I do think this article is totally unreferenced. Furthermore, without moving the passage here, I find this quite strange:
 "Some ethnic groups have a higher risk of developing breast cancer - notably, women of European and African descent have been noted to have a higher rate of breast cancer than women of Asian origin  figures from breastcancer.org .  However, these apparent racial differences diminish when geography is altered, as Asian women migrating to the western world, gradually acquire risk approaching that of western women." 
I assume that this means that it is wrong than Asian ethnic groups have a higher risk of cancer! So why put it in the first place? Isn't it rather about food diet and such different mores, that are lost when they live in an Western environment? Then we could write this. Sorry for asking for sources, but if you look at political articles or even things like the Chernobyl disaster, you will see how sources are provided. I remind you that if no sources is provided, any editor, including me, has the right under Wikipedia policy to delete it on sight. Why should I believe things on race, alcohol, or percentages that come out of thin air? Unreferenced statistics is just... too much! Lapaz 17:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  unreferenced article and contradictory passage 

message: I changed the citation tag to the fact that it was backing up, and therefore put this strange and contradictory passage here, till source provide back-up and explanation (see also comments on section immediately above):
"Some ethnic groups have a higher risk of developing breast cancer - notably, women of European and African descent have been noted to have a higher rate of breast cancer than women of Asian origin.  However, these apparent racial differences diminish when geography is altered, as Asian women migrating to the western world, gradually acquire risk approaching that of western women."
This means that it is wrong than Asian ethnic groups have a higher risk of cancer! isn't it rather about food diet and such different mores, that are lost when they live in an Western environment? In any cases, either this is true, and source can be found, either it's whatever, and i don't think whatever goes about race issues. Lapaz 01:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved paragraph on race issue 

message: I was looking for some history remarks on the diagnosis, treatment, and discoveries for breast cancer. For example, the earliest known cases of breast cancer I know of is from the Etruscans who used votives to ask the gods for mercy on health issues. They formed body parts from terracotta illustrating the health problem, and many breasts, complete with visible tumors, were found in votive pits (I saw these at the Allard Pearson Museum in Amsterdam) Jane 20:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of breast cancer 

message: This nomination is on hold for 7 days for these issues: Reference section is ABOVE two article text sections, references are not properly formatted--they need to be in a single (cite php) format, refernces are a mix of external jumps and inline citations--all should be in inline citations, and the citation tags need to be taken care of with proper references. Rlevse 21:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA nomination 

message: There see to be quite a lot.  Any that are particularly valuable per the guideline? - brenneman {L} 11:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: it's not exactly "preclinical"--please note that the research being done in toronto is not "nutritional prevention"--what they are finding is that flax has treatment potential, as it not only shrinks extant tumor tissue but enhances effect of tamoxifen. 
Cindery 21:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with treatment potential.  However, most of the papers though mention its effect in vitro and only one of the papers talks about using it in people and tumor markers.  Andrew73 22:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  flax 

message: At the top of the article, it states the incidence as "one out of twelve or thirteen".  Under "Age", it states it as "one in seven".  In both places, it says that this statistics is for women who live to be 90.  I have added a contradiction tag to the "Age" section.  --Strait 23:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  One in 7?  12? (13?) 

message: This statistic seems like one make to try to confuse and distort the truth. First off percentages are much more common than fractions and easier to understand and why does it only count women that reach 90 in the western world?. I also checked the reference and it does not seem to support this statistic either.
Worldwide, it is the most common form of cancer in females, affecting, at some time in their lives, approximately one out of nine to thirteen women who reach age ninety in the Western world.
This statistic is just bad, why not make it 100% of women and men that get breast cancer get breast cancer?
--222.152.90.4 22:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  bad statistic that should not be in wikipedia 

message: I have moved the following from the section on male breast cancer: Since the psychological effects of this surgery are just as great for males as for females, experimental surgery has been started to introduce the lumpectomy for males.  This looks highly doubtful. The psychological relevance of the breasts is very different among the sexes. Unless properly referenced, this should not stay. 91.64.30.198 12:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved from the article 

message: ---BREAST CANCER---
breast cancer is a really bad thing.If you havr breast cancer and you don't go to a doctor you may died or something migth happend to you.the way that you will know if you are in risk of breast cancer if you are around 62 years old,if you are a women(men are still able to get breast cancer), if you are a tall women,and if you are an alcohol person.A way to prebent breast cancer is by not being over weight.this a lot of stuff you can know about breast cancer if what to know more information you can go to yahoo,google,wikipedia,or to ask.com and they will answer all your questions.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.165.217.197 (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  breast cancer 

message: Why does it say gaining weight after menopause can increase a woman or man's risk of contracting breast cancer? Surely men don't go through menopause...
:checked the study referenced and fixed this Sfmammamia 18:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obesity 

message: I don't want to get into an edit war over mentions of breast cancer in men. I removed the phrase "which can occur in both men and women" in the article's first sentence, and it was re-inserted. I have left it there, but changed the order to "women and men". There have been numerous additions to this article over time mentioning breast cancer in men--some of these have clearly been vandalism, others were likely well-meaning, but were removed because they appeared to over-emphasize or over-state the risk and prevalence in men. If anyone disagrees, could we please discuss it here before making wholesale changes? Sfmammamia 23:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the main focus of the article should be female breast cancer.--Dr.michael.benjamin 06:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? Is female breast cancer differant than male breast cancer? Is it necessary to focus primarily on one? What is really being said here? That all information pertaining to females should be included and that informaion about men should only be included sparingly? Does one subtract from the other? I can't help but wonder how this discussion would go if someone were trying to focus on men and was deleting referances to the fact that women can get a certain type of cancer. I think it's ridiculous that this is even being disscussed who cares if it says "men and women" or "women and men"? Is breast cancers womens turf now? If someone vandalises the page then delete it. But otherwise what is the problem with recognizing that both sexes can suffer from this cancer? How will women seeking information about breast cancer sufer more if information about men is included? I can't see how they would unless the concern is that they may have to sift through a few sections or sentances that mention scenarios unique to men suffering with breast cancer. But don't men have just as much a right to be able to find info about breast cancer and how it may affect them? really, what is going on here?--Matt D 16:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Matt D, if you see a problem with the current version of the article and how it deals with breast cancer occurrence in men, please make suggestions here to improve it or a bold edit in the article. My concern is with the article's overall accuracy, lack of bias, and credibility.  If the article were to over-state or over-emphasize the risk of breast cancer in men, that could introduce inaccuracy and bias and could jeopardize the entire article's credibility for all readers. -- Sfmammamia 16:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As of Oct 21, 2007, there is absolutely no recognition or reference to the fact that men can also have breast cancer in the article at all. I see this as a major problem because people are often mislead to believe that breast cancer can only happen to women, which is no the case at all. The fact that men can also have breast cancer should at least be mentioned in the beginning of the article without going into the specifics or better yet, have a seperate section about it in the artcle. --Stoppedcode12 07:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Several sections of this article which had grown too large were split out on there own recently, including Epidemiology and etiology. This detailed risk factors including but not limited to sex. While this is not addressed in detail at the moment, it is mentioned in the line "The primary risk factors that have been identified are sex, age, childbearing, hormones, a high-fat diet, alcohol intake, obesity, and environmental factors such as tobacco use and radiation.". Several sections of the article still need rewrites to include the data, while not being as lengthy and detailed as before. Feel free to make edits in Wikipedia mainspace and actually correct this yourself. - Optigan13 07:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stoppedcode12, did you miss the last sentence of the lead?  It does exactly what you said and includes a reference: "Because the breast is composed of identical tissues in males and females, breast cancer also occurs in males, though it is less common."  --Sfmammamia 20:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, according to the definition of rare disease cited in Wikipedia, breast cancer in men IS rare. Rare is defined  here as less than 5 cases per 10,000. ACS statistics indicate that the incidence rate for breast cancer in the U.S. is 1.08 per 100,000 population, or .1 per 10,000, and the ACS calls it a rare disease. Expanding treatment in the overview article, to me, would clearly be a case of  undue weight.  Perhaps treatment in the article on Epidemiology and etiology of breast cancer could be expanded with global statistics, if any are available. --Sfmammamia (talk) 18:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just wanted to make a comment about it being a "rare" disease, note that the definition you are using refers to prevalence, as in less than 5 people per 10,000 have the disease, which is different than the incidence, as is how many new people get the disease each year. TKuca (talk) 04:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia isn't exactly known for objectivity. People are actively trying to keep policy from changing in a way that would prevent them from furthering their own agendas. I find that most people actually mean well but there are the few bad apples that keep any real progress from happening. The people in charge need to take lead and stop hiding behind "community consensus" and make the necessary changes or else somebody will do it for them and wikipedia will fall to the sideline. Biofase flame| stalk  03:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

text: I'm not an active editor in this article, but I noted the question about neutrality and so I read through the article. I think it's properly balanced.  Men are mentioned in appropriate places, and the language is quite appropriate in making it clear that most of the statistics (and knowledge) address women, in part because so little is know about male breast cancer.  So, I disagree with the claim that this article suffers from a non-neutral point of view.  For what it's worth, I'm a man, and have substantial professional experience with cancer.  --Scray (talk) 12:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Just to make this clear the NPOV tag was added after a threat (non-legal) made here. I have already removed it once as it is clear to me this IP is furthering an anti-abortion agenda and not providing any support for the claim. I do not think the article suffers from any overall neutrality issue atm. Biofase flame| stalk  17:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  mentions of men 

message: I excised this portion from the epidemiology:genetics section.  It's too technical for this article.
A recent publication in the Journal of Nucleic Acids Research shows that the ’BRCA1 and ’NBR2’’’ genes are directly connected by a bi-directional promoter. The promoter is found in a CpG island that is constitutively methylated as a means to silence the gene(s).  In addition to being methylated, these genes have specific methyl binding domain proteins that they are associated with - namely MBD2.  Through Western blots, ChIP analyses, and siRNA knockdowns, it was determined that MBD2 binds specifically to the BRCA1-NBR2 locus.  In addition, if MBD2 is removed and unable to bind to the BRCA1-NBR2 promoter, no other methyl binding domain proteins will bind to this locus.  There is no "rescue" by other MBD proteins.  The high fidelity of binding and the specificity of MBD proteins have important implications in understanding the mechanism of breast cancer, and subsequent treatment approaches. 
--Dr.michael.benjamin 06:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NBR2 

message: I cut this section off the main page.  It appears to have been written by this breastcancerfund.org, and is POV and unsubstantiated.  It should live on the discussion page, if at all, or consider a separate page entirely.
----
Fewer than 20 percent of breast cancers are genetic. When all known risk factors and characteristics are added together, including family history, genetics, smoking and obesity, more than 50 percent of breast cancer cases remain unexplained.Madigan MP, Zielgler RG, Benichou J, Bryne C, Hoover RN (1995). Proportion of breast cancer cases in the United States explained by well-established risk factors. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 87: 1681-85. According to State of the Evidence 2006 - What Is the Connection Between the Environment and Breast Cancer?”, a report which reviews and analyzes nearly 350 journal-published scientific studies on environmental links to breast cancer: 
*Over 100,000 synthetic chemicals are registered for use today in the United States, with an additional 1,000 new chemicals added each year, yet less than 10 percent of these chemicals have been tested for their effects on human health. Large numbers of these chemicals are found in products we come into contact with every day and compelling scientific evidence points to these chemicals as contributing to the development of breast cancer, either by altering hormone function or gene expression
*Many toxic chemicals are now credibly linked to serious chronic diseases including breast cancer.  Furthermore, new science demonstrates that even very small amounts of some chemicals can have adverse health effects, particularly in pregnant mothers, infants and small children. (See State of the Evidence)
The Breast Cancer Fund suggests the following environmental prevention methods:
*Practice Healthy Purchasing: Don’t bring toxic chemicals home from the store. Choose chlorine-free paper products to reduce dioxin, a carcinogen released when chlorinated products are incinerated. Read food labels, and choose pesticide-free, organic produce and hormone-free meats and dairy products. Replace harmful household cleaners that contain bleach with cheaper, nontoxic alternatives like baking soda, borax soap and vinegar. Look for alternatives to chemical weed and bug killers— many contain toxic chemicals that accumulate in our bodies.
*Use Caution with Plastics: Some plastics leach hormone-disrupting chemicals called phthalates into the substances they touch. Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastics release carcinogens into our air and water during the production process. PVC plastics are especially dangerous in toys that children put in their mouths, so keep an eye out for nontoxic toys. Further, never put plastic or plastic wrap in the microwave, as this can release phthalates into food and beverages.
*Advocate for Clean Air: The soot and fumes released by factories, automobiles, diesel trucks and tobacco products contain chemicals called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) that are linked to breast cancer. Indeed, breathing these compounds from secondhand tobacco smoke may increase your risk for breast cancer more than active smoking. Stay away from secondhand smoke, and advocate for stronger clean air protections.
*Avoid Unnecessary Radiation: Ionizing radiation is a known cause of breast cancer. Radiation damage to genes is cumulative over a lifetime—thus many low doses may have the same effect as a single high dose. Mammograms, other X-rays and CT scans expose you to radiation. While mammography screening may benefit postmenopausal women, mammography for women in their 30s and 40s remains controversial. Whenever you have an X-ray or scan, request a lead shield to protect the areas of your body not being X-rayed.
*Explore Alternatives to Artificial Estrogens: Women who have prolonged exposure to estrogens are at higher risk for breast cancer, and major studies continue to show an increased risk when postmenopausal women use hormone replacement therapy (HRT). Women who use both birth control pills and—later in life—HRT face an even greater risk of breast cancer than those who use neither. Explore your options with healthcare professionals.
*Advocate for Safe Cosmetics: Chemicals linked to cancer and birth defects do not belong in cosmetics, period. However, some popular brands of shampoo, deodorant, face cream and other everyday products contain these dangerous chemicals. The Breast Cancer Fund demands safer products and smarter laws by letting cosmetics companies know they need a makeover. The public can join BCF in asking cosmetic companies to sign the Compact for Safe Cosmetics, a pledge to substitute chemicals linked to birth defects, infertility, cancer, brain damage and other serious health consequences with safer alternatives.Campaign for Safe Cosmetics
----
--Dr.michael.benjamin 20:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prevention of environmental causes 

message: I beefed up the symptoms section and took out the "expand-me" tag.  The symptoms section is exhaustive now, but not all that relevant, since probably 90% of breast cancers are diagnosed by mammography at this point, not symptoms.--Dr.michael.benjamin 04:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Symptoms 

message: Please don't post linkspam in the links section.  This article should be based on evidence based medicine, not quackery.--Dr.michael.benjamin 04:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linkspam 

message: The Table of Contents of this article is quite large and rambling, with some stubby sections; it may be instructive to review WP:MEDMOS and recent featured articles like Tuberculosis, Influenza, and Tourette syndrome.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to re-organize the article to be a little less difficult. See my diff for the changes. I tried to follow the both the medical and general manual of style as well as the Prostate cancer article for guidelines. I tagged of the more lengthy sections for splitting. Also for splitting I saw that there is a Breast cancer chemotherapy stub. Would someone please review where I moved the sections to make sure they fall under the corrected subheadings. Also the diet, soy intake, and folic acid intake are all spread across multiple sectiosn which causes some overlap. I didn't change that since I couldn't make up my mind on how to characterize them as either a risk or a preventative factor. I also did some citation and other more minor changes as part of this edit. Optigan13 02:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I've split some major sections out and created a navigation template so they don't get lost. So the article may read disconnected now because large sections are out on their own. I've left the recently revised tag on and left this comment to make sure no one misses these edits. Optigan13 08:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually this article is still light on references. The main problem is that it is unevenly referenced. Medical articles need to be heavy with references, or "dense". See the Medical Manual of Style section on citing sources. Medical articles need to be careful especially since people may come to this for personal medical questions, even though they shouldn't. It also provides verifiability and protects against copyright violations. - Optigan13 23:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TOC and MEDMOS 

message: While it is recognised that a healthy diet may prevent breast cancer, this study finds that once cancer has developed, adopting such a diet does not alter prognosis. JFW | T@lk 21:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diet in secondary prevention 

message: I addded the technical tag to this article because, a couple of sections in particular are quite dense. Selective Estrogen receptors under prevention is quite bad, and shows that it was pulled from very technical sources, and doesn't give context for a broad audience. Treatment also has several sections that become quite dense. For example, under indications for radiation the lines Patients with <4 LN involved, but extension out of the substance of a LN and Inadequate numbers of axillary LN sampled are quite difficult. Optigan13 02:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technical sections 

message: I read an interesting interview with an artist who had a mastectomy in an online magazine. Her way of dealing with this was to not have reconstructive surgery but to have a tattoo where the breast was removed. It is an extremely touching story. lovely magazine I thought about posting this to external links but did not want to do so without the ok from the group. The issue has other breast cancer stories in it as well. Markco1  —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 22:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't include that in external links, instead you should check out that and other articles about the psychological and social impacts of mastectomy, then rewrite the Prognosis section including that as well as other information about breast prosthesis and other responses to Breast cancer. - Optigan13 23:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting interview 

message: Optigan13 has done some very good work bringing this article down to a manageable length.  I'm starting a discussion session to encourage further comment on the article's current state.  My own comments:  Regarding further splits, I don't think it's necessary to split the Classification section, as it's fairly short. Ditto the Staging section -- this is pretty basic information for a cancer article and is pretty compact.  I think the Screening section, now that the split has been done, could benefit from further summarizing and condensing in this overview article.  Other comments? -- Sfmammamia 18:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the splits were either going from size or what sub-pages Prostate cancer has. After the split it is noticeable how many sections need a full rewrite, because they are both unreferenced and very technical. The page still needs some restructuring to make it more manageable, so take a look at the medical manual of style for that. I haven't been able to properly rephrase treatment so it is still a duplicate of the subpage, so that and its subpage should be first up. Also with respect to the words sex vs gender, the article should use sex since their is a technical difference between the two. I understand what you were trying to accomplish by changing it, but I think we should just stick to reverting, and possibly having the sites blacklisted if the same articles are added. Also some of the language this article uses will inevitably attracts vandals, but it is still more important to be direct then to tiptoe around. - Optigan13 23:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there should be more detail in the staging section.  People are interested in learning more about the staging, and it has a place in a reference piece.--Dr.michael.benjamin 16:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current article status and splits 

message: I think this would fit better in the Epidemiology and etiology of Breast cancer article, but could we at least keep one sentence in this main article? futurebird 19:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does deserve a mention in the article in both risk factors in treatment epidemiological risk factors and in treatment, since race does play a factor in treatment in a addition to being a risk factor. So yeah please refactor the section to go into the sub-articles, and to get a mention in the main one (this article). The other problem is that it isn't only race, but also culture, socio-economic status, and a myriad of other factors that create health disparities. Check out the National Cancer Institute's articles on women of color. That one has several studies across multiple populations cited. The other problem is that this is still focusing on an American audience. So we need some way to  expand on race as a factor, while still keeping it global. - Optigan13 21:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section isn't about "risk factors" it's about racism in the way people are screened and diagnosed. Take a look at Race and health, there may be some info there on race being a risk factor... although that article is also US focused. futurebird 21:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I meant to say it deserves a mention in both risk factors and in treatment. When I say risk factors, I'm talking about epidemiological risk factors, and referring to the epidemiology and etiology section. The race and health article does covers this in general. But that article also mentions what I'm talking about in that direct racism isn't the only factor affecting treatment. The section right now just mentions direct racism towards African-American women in treatment. It needs to include how the other factors mentioned in the race and health articles 3rd line that begins with Many explanations for such differences affect risk (epidemiology), screening, and treatment. I'm favoring a line in those three sections and a section in each one's article. Saying that direct racism is the only factor is too narrow a focus. It also doesn't give examples of how race affects treatment (such as higher rates of full mastectomy). It doesn't mention any other women of color. I'm not arguing against including race in treatment, it just needs to be part of a broader look at race and how it relates to breast cancer. - Optigan13 22:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I think the section is relevant to a general article on breast cancer.  I also thought the section was very poorly worded and documented, so I fixed a few things and added some references.  There was a lot of POV, and I corrected that.  The disparity issue is either related to cultural or biological factors, or both.  There is active research (i.e., over 200 PubMed citations) on both of these factors.--Dr.michael.benjamin 06:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I am continuing to remove the POV quote in the section by the scholar in Wisconsin, as I think it's too inflammatory, and not really supported by the substantial literature suggesting that there is a possible biological reason why breast cancer disproportionately affects the African American community, not just racism.--Dr.michael.benjamin 01:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you about the quote, but in the process of getting rid of it, you removed other changes that had made the section clearer and more neutral. I'm restoring those changes. --Sfmammamia 01:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't disagree with Dr. Brawley; while I was at Emory he and I wrote a paper about the racial disparity issue in multiple myeloma, which I reference in the breast cancer disparity section.  I think the problem has a largely social explanation, but there are researchers who, even now, are trying to discover a biological explanation for the disparity issue.  The fact that it is being studied at all is worthy of mention.  I think the Brawley citation should be included as a standard reference.--Dr.michael.benjamin 04:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge: Racism in diagnosis and treatment section 

message: Targeted review on the origins and evolution of breast cancer:  JFW | T@lk 00:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  JCI 

message: Can I ask why the segment about breast cancer in men was deleted, it should remain in the article because it is a fact. --88.108.100.139 (talk) 02:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I explained in the edit summary, the addition was completely uncited. Also, this degree of detail needs to be added to the main article, Epidemiology and etiology of Breast cancer, not here.  We need to keep this article a summary level, because it is already too long.  This article already mentions men further down in the lead and in a couple other places.  There's no consensus for increasing the emphasis. --Sfmammamia (talk) 02:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breast Cancer in men 

message: it is known by all with some form of intelligence that prostate cancer kills more men a year than breast cancer kills women..so why does the page state that it is the fifth most common cause of cancer death .. breast cancer is not exclusive to women so we simply cant make this page exclusive no matter what the statistics.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by PotentiallyMensa (talk • contribs) 16:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the cited source, the World Health Organization, breast cancer ranks fifth globally in total cancer deaths, inclusive of both men and women. Do you have a reliable source that states otherwise? --Sfmammamia (talk) 17:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  death numbers 

message: I think this section should be pruned. Some of it isn’t relevant or specific to breast cancer. — NRen2k5, 20:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Breast_cancer#Psychological_aspects_of_diagnosis_and_treatment|Psychological aspects]] 

message: :Image:BCtimeline.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. The source listed is http://carcin.oxfordjournals.org/, but no specific journal is listed. I tagged it as possibly needing to be converted to an SVG, which is why someone noticed the licensing issue. In order to create a new image without it being a pure reproduction of that image. Can anyone provide similar images or references so if someone creates a new image that isn't derivative of that specific work alone. I've done a quick try on google, but haven't done an exhaustive search myself.
Also, reliable overview references for some sections of this article would probably help for citations and to trim more language back out into the sub-topic articles. I had initially planned to do a proper lit review for overview sources to help reduce the screening article into something of an abstract of the sub-article, and also to better source the treatment section and its article, but I've yet to follow through with that. I think the longer these two spend without the short sections here the higher the chance of differing data/information. -Optigan13 (talk) 18:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problems with Image:BCtimeline.jpg  (Sources for new pic please) 

message: I posted this comment on the Talk:Epidemiology and etiology of breast cancer page a couple of days ago, but no one responded.  So, I thought I'd try this page.
One very plausible theory that explains the world-wide epidemiology of breast cancer has to do with the use of bras.  Please see this link as well as the long discussion on the brassiere talk page.  I know this is controversial but I think it deserves to be mentioned in the article.  --Jonathan108 (talk) 01:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've responded at Talk:Epidemiology and etiology of breast cancer. -Optigan13 (talk) 00:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bras and Breast Cancer 

message: The Subsection "Pathological types" of the "Classification section is too long, inappropriate and misleading. It is not in fact a list of pathological types of breast cancer; rather it is a list of breast tumours. Tumour means any sort of lump and this term includes breast cancers (malignant breast tumours), or non cancerous lumps (benign breast tumours such as fibroadenomas). This list also includes  benign and malignant tumours or cancers which are not particularly unique to the breast and which are more likely to occur elsewhere in the body such as most sarcomas, leimyomas( more often found in stomach or intestine), neurofibromas(usually in skin or spine) and lipomas(found almost anywhere). I suggest it be replaced by a list including only cancers (malignant tumours) which are either unique to the breast or more commonly found in the breast than elsewhere. I suggest a short list such as at Cancer Reasearch UK or at US National Cancer Institute.--Kenneth Cooke (talk) 11:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classification - Pathological types. 

message: User:Smg2008 has done nothing but create an article DVS: Dose verification system, about a proprietary system by Sicel Technologies. See Special:Contributions/Smg2008.
Shortly after, Special:Contributions/96.234.60.75 linked to DVS: Dose verification system from Breast cancer and prostate cancer. 
DVS: Dose verification system doesn't cite a single published study, or even a meeting report; it merely links to the company's web site, which gives preliminary data from a non-published study which doesn't even identify a single investigator. The rest of the entry is padded with generic bullshit about breast and prostate cancer. 
I would bet money that DVS: Dose verification system was created by someone with the company (the tipoff is the ® sign; company lawyers require companies with registered products to use the registration mark every time they mention the name). 
DVS is a clever device, but it has no clinical use right now. It certainly doesn't belong in a general article about breast cancer for the non-specialist. I wonder why DVS: Dose verification system belongs in Wikipedia at all. I don't think it meets WP:NOTABLE, unless every clever gadget is notable. 
I don't want to piss on somebody else's parade, but I am annoyed at the covert way they created an article in apparent violation of WP:COI and several other WP good-faith rules. We've had enough of that lately. 
My first inclination is that  DVS: Dose verification system is about a non-notable product, created by the company itself, and should be deleted, along with the references to it in Breast cancer and Prostate cancer. How do other people feel about it? Nbauman (talk) 00:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely agree. --Sfmammamia (talk) 00:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree emphatically.  I've removed what amounts to ad copy from the prostate cancer and breast cancer articles, and I've {prod}ed the article on the DVS device itself.  At best, it's a tool (or part of a class of tools) that ought to be mentioned in our article on dosimetry. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  DVS: Dose verification system 

message: I see that someone has proposed merging inflammatory breast cancer into this article.  I would tend to argue against such a merger.  This (main) article should offer an overview of breast cancer (diagnosis, types, treatments, etc.), and subarticles should exist – or be created – to expand on concepts introduced here.  (See Wikipedia:Summary style).  In the same way that we have subarticles on topics like ductal carcinomas, inflammatory breast cancer is a reasonable, interesting, and well-documented type of breast cancer on which we ought to (continue to) grow a separate, more-detailed article. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah that was me, I had initially hoped to follow up on some restructuring and splitting of topics I did, only to stall. I've removed the tag as I haven't followed and their doesn't seem to be any interest at this time. This article, especially the screening section still needs to be summarized, merged, but the tag doesn't need to be there. -Optigan13 (talk) 02:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merger of inflammatory breast cancer 

message: Why is there little or no mention of this, it's supposed to be an encyclopaedic article so it should mention more about the thousands of men that get diagnosed worldwide with it. In any case- the article should be better gender neutralised. I myself am male and had a breast cancer scare 2 years ago and finding this article in this state is very demeening to the men that are suffering from it - please sort it out.  --88.108.34.230 (talk) 22:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breast Cancer in men 

message: Breast cancer staging would be better in its own article, particularly as is is comprised mostly of lists. Have a look at non-small cell lung carcinoma staging. Ditto pathological sub-types. Axl (talk) 13:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Staging 

message: There is misleading information......    In the US, both incidence and death rates for breast cancer have been declining in the last few years.[10][9] Nevertheless, a US study conducted in 2005 by the Society for Women's Health Research indicated that breast cancer remains the most feared disease,[11] even though heart disease is a much more common cause of death among women.[12] 
It states that there is a decrease in incidence and death rates etc. in the last few years. But the article to back it up only covers (or atleast to my attention span) American Indians and Alaska Natives. Not for nothing the sources states American Indians? To my understanding its Native Americas.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikesta21 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad Infomation