Talk:Hodgkin lymphoma

message: I noticed that "Hodgkin lymphoma" is redirected to "Hodgkin's lymphoma".  Really, everything should redirect to "Hodgkin Lymphoma".  The WHO classification system has followed a general trend in medicine of removing the possessive form of eponymous names (Dr. Hodgkin did not create the disease, or even suffer from it).  Although many people still use terms such as Hodgkin's lymphoma or Burkitt's lymphoma, these are properly referred to as Hodgkin or Burkitt lymphoma.  Also, in parts of the article it is called "Hodgkin's Disease".  This is a term that was popularized before it was established with certainty that Hodgkin lymphoma was, in fact, a lymphoma (only recently has a marker been developed that consistently classifies this disease as a B-cell lymphoma).  If we're going for accuracy here, we should always call it Hodgkin lymphoma.  User:Anonymous 18 October 2008  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.88.150.157 (talk) 06:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are various opinions here, and we are not required to follow the WHO's choice.  Generally, Wikipedia leaves articles wherever the original author chose to put them.  The redirects take people directly to the page no matter which version they search for, so it's really, really unimportant.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: By that rationale, why not call the main page Hodgkin's Disease?  Or Lymphosarcoma?  It's not about the redirect, it's about where the redirects actually redirect.  If the convention is to call it Hodgkin Lymphoma by experts in Hodgkin lymphoma, then why shouldn't we do that?  Don't we want it to be as accurate as possible?  User:Anonymous 18:50 19 October 2008  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.88.150.157 (talk) 22:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The current name agrees with current identification of the condition by most people worldwide.  Hodgkin Lymphoma would not. -- Mikebar (talk) 07:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: First source when using either Hodgkin's or Hodgkin on google yields 1st result, wikipedia with Hodgkin's, 2nd result Hodgkin Lymphoma Home Page - National Cancer Institute.  I would agree with the OP.  Jabberwockgee (talk) 23:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The correct name of this disease is Hodgkin lymphoma. Agree with OP that the page should be re-titled to Hodgkin lymphoma and everything redirected accordingly. And a note should be added about how Hodgkin's lymphoma is incorrect. Disagree with Mikebar--if people call the disease colloquially by the wrong name, Wikipedia should allow them to find the information, but should explain why the colloquial name is incorrect and show the correct name. Every authoritative cancer web site lists it as Hodgkin lymphoma - here is the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society's page: http://www.lls.org/diseaseinformation/lymphoma/hodgkinlymphoma/ Presto8 (talk) 02:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed here as well.  Don't know why the lede doesn't match the article name, even now two years later. TricksterWolf (talk) 21:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not a debate it has been settled.  Having the incorrect name looks bad for Wiki in general.  I tried the move the page but it is beyond my skill level.  What is the process the make this happen WidowCrankey (talk) 21:48, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirection

message: Obviously, an encyclopedia entry will not help you much in looking for information for you or your loved one if they have cancer.  I suggest you consider going to the reference websites at the bottom of the article.  Also, contact a charitable organization in your country to ask for information.  A directory of lymphoma information by country is at http://www.lymphomainfo.net/info/org.html but there are others, even in your phone book.  Ask the associations to mail you information.  Mikebar 04:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Those looking for help and information

message: The article doesn't seem to flow well with the "Celebrity diagnoses" section. I would suggest removing it because it doesn't seem pertinent to the article.Pnswmr 12:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Celebrity diagnoses 

message: Wikipedia's external links policy and the specific guidelines for medicine-related articles do not permit the inclusion of external links to non-encyclopedic material, particularly including:  patient support groups, personal experience/survivor stories, internet chat boards, e-mail discussion groups, recruiters for clinical trials, healthcare providers, fundraisers, or similar pages.  
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an advertising opportunity or a support group for patients or their families.  Please do not re-insert links that do not conform to the standard rules.  
External links are not required in Wikipedia articles.  They are permitted in limited numbers and in accordance with the policies linked above.  If you want to include one or more external links in this article, please link directly to a webpage that provides detailed, encyclopedic information about the disease. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I second this - the growing list of people who want to link their personal sites to wikipedia articles is taking away from making good articles. Mikebar (talk) 06:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: The study referenced was a European study done without accurately following the Stanford protocol. For instance, a large number of patients in the suspect study never received radiotherapy, a key component of Stanford V.  The bad study was superseded later by studies, some in Europe, following Stanford V accurately and those studies closely matched the results of the Stanford trials.  This oft-quoted bad study is in my opinion an example of regional bias in patient treatment options. I will identify one or two of the counter studies this weekend and update the article to correct the effect of the biased study, unless I see reasonable objection here. Curious Violet (talk) 07:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have an opinion about whether the cited Stanford V trial was a 'bad' study.  However, I agree that, as written, the Table seems to take sides with the viewpoint that BEACOPP is a superior treatment.  Its not really appropriate for Wikipedia entries to take sides in a controversial area in medicine, except to state that there are differences of opinion amongst experts or that there are regional differences in the standard treatment. It is not possible for a small table to cover all of the issues such as rates of progression free survival, overall survival, treatment related mortality, other complications, and the development of refractory disease of each and every clinical trial. Preferable would be a general description of the regimens and citations of relevant medical review articles. --mattelfesso (talk) 23:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Stanford V was inferior..." study 

message: This paragraph was clogging up the redirect. I moved it here for conservational reasons. More of a curiosity. -- megA (talk) 13:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk contribution moved from Hodgkin's Disease redirect page 

message: I'm sure you've all noticed the recent efforts of the new editor to promote a specific lymphoma-related charity.  I assume that the editor is probably an employee or fundraising volunteer.  I've been meaning to say for months now that the "charities" subsection of ==External links== is just spambait.  We can't list them all -- there are dozens of good, legitimate charities in this area -- and it's not really fair to pick our favorites.  Furthermore, the point is to provide information, not "please donate!" or "look, charities exist!" links.  I firmly believe that our readers are smart enough to "Ask Mr Google" if they want to find an appropriate charity.  
Would anyone mind if we just remove all the general lymphoma-related charity links (but not those pointing to a particularly informative page that just happens to be hosted by a charity)?  This would also make this article follow the pattern set at Leukemia, which lists no charities. I've made the same proposal at Lymphoma.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Support. --Arcadian (talk) 00:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spam 

message: "More recent trials are showing much higher five-year survival rates than have previously been seen, often on the order of 98% for many patients.[1]"
I think the phrase "on the order of 98% for many patients" makes no sense at all. How can a patient show 98% survival?  A population of patients may show 98% survival. Since this isn't my area of expertise, I don't want to make a change. 
However, I would recommend that the sentence simply be:
"More recent trials are showing much higher five-year survival rates than have previously been seen, often on the order of 98%.[1]"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lingle.chris (talk • contribs) 00:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "On the order of" is entirely inappropriate in this context.  The five-year survival rates are not somewhere between 9.8% and 980%.  I will atttempt to correct the problem.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Line in introductory paragraph 

message: Would Josh Lam meet the notability criteria for an article of his own?  If so, then he should be in the list.  If he "barely misses the cut" then it's a tough call.  If he's "nowhere close" then he should not be in the list.  Traditionally, only notable people are in the list.  There's some leeway for people who are famous but only for one event - they are IMHO valid to include in a list like this but not valid for an article about themselves.  For example, a mayor of a medium-sized city, or a CEO of a fortune-1000 but not -500 company  may not warrant his own article but he might warrant being in a "notable alumni" section of his alma mater.  davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No matter what, we need a published, reliable source.  Publicizing private medical information is not okay, and violates our major policies on privacy.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

text: David, the problem with Josh Lam is that he is not famous in any way, he's a medical student. Without a reliable source proving he's more than just a medical student, then we can't include him. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 19:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for confirming my strong suspicions of non-notability. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Josh Lam 

message: How do you pronounce Hodgkin? hogkin or Hawkin ? --Challiyan (talk) 16:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I might describe it as "Hawdj-kin."  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: But you would not be describing North American pronunciation. The only pronunciation I have ever heard is "hodge-kin" (rhymes with "lodge kin". 159.14.242.252 (talk) 19:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Aren't those exactly the same thing?– DroEsperanto(t / c) 05:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No. --Giftiger wunsch (talk) 12:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: pronounce

message: Do we really need to restate the 90% remission rate three times in the opening description? Jon (talk) 02:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to .  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Do

message: Am I the only one who totally doesn't understand it?  Jabberwockgee (talk) 23:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

text: This pathogenesis figure should be deleted and replaced by text which explains its main points with proper links to other Wikipedia subjects as well as citation of its source material.  As a figure it is not easily edited and therefore defeats the purpose of a Wiki.  It looks like a cryptic treasure map and is unlikely to provide any insights to the casual reader.  What does a solid line mean?  What does a dotted line mean?  What does a plus or a minus mean?  The middle block pertains to NFkB.  This could be summed up in a couple of sentences. --mattelfesso (talk) 23:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please feel free to do that.  If you can cite a couple of high-quality reviews or medical textbooks when doing so, then that would be even better.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pathogenesis  

message: I can't believe "Good Hodgkins" actually redirects here. Kudos to the square. Wikipedia never ceases to amaze me.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.178.153.188 (talk) 12:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Larry David 

message: I have never before looked up the illness which I had just over 20 years ago (before the days of the internet!) but today for some reason I did and I noticed a glaring absence of stories of hope from the huge number of people (I noticed over 90%) who do survive Hodgkins and hope that this may be of help to those who are currently searching for answers - like I was as a 20 year old student in the late 1980's wanting some sort of reasurance about matters of fertility and all that. At the time the doctors were super, very optimistic that I would get better following treatment - but unable to answer any of my questions about the future. 
I underwent radiotherapy and chemotherapy - neither of which were very pleasant, but sure enough I got better and have been fine ever since. I have also had 3 very healthy children (when I was 27, 29 and 32) which were conceived with suprising ease and swiftness. My oldest is now 14 and a big strapping national swimmer - so I must have passed on some strong healthy genes - which were not effected in any way by the treatment.
So, I hope that as I sit and write this as a lady of 42, and also for whom the experience seems a long long time ago, it offers some comfort to those who are currently facing the nightmare and shock of diagnosis and the 100 unanswerable questions you may have.
SallyT68 (talk) 23:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survivors 

message: The NEJM for 11 March 2010 has a new article linking the number of macrophages found in the tumor to its treatment resistance. 
* 
The PMID is still in process. User:LeadSongDog come howl 20:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, just noticed this. No CD68+ve cells predicts 100% survival, while increased numbers worsens prognosis substantially. JFW | T@lk 21:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Macrophage counts presage treatment resistance 

message: Excuse me but I think that the classification is wrong. From my information the classification has to be like this:
 1.Lymphocyte predominance
 2.Classical subtypes:   
  a.nodular sclerosis
  b.lymphocytes rich
  c.mixed cellularity
  d.lymphocyte depleted
Kekkorasta (talk) 18:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classification 

message: I've noticed this page has been very frequently vandalised by anonymous users recently (or perhaps for a while, I only put it on my watchlist recently). Perhaps it should be made semi-protected to stop unregistered users editing it? I don't edit wikipedia particularly often so I'm not sure what the process is for that, so just throwing it out there. --Giftiger wunsch (talk) 12:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: I would like to see a discussion of the pleomorphic theory of Hodgkin's Disease. This theory seldom gets mentioned, yet, if true, could lead to much more tolerable and effective treatments. It can also be disproven quite easily, if any researchers ever bother to test it. 
70.164.238.220 (talk) 01:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pleomorphic Theory 

message: In Julian Barnes' book Nothing to be Frightened of, he talks about his parents' approach to the illness. His father had it, but was not particularly interested. About his mother, he writes "Whether or not she had also been warned that Hodgkin's was then invariably fatal, I have no means of knowing." The phrase "invariably fatal" contrasts with this article's "survival rate is generally 90% or higher", which I assume applies today. Does anyone know if it really was invariably fatal in the past? If so, how far back in time could that be? Could it be that Julian Barnes had misunderstood the survival rate? --Mlewan (talk) 18:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I doubt that it was actually "invariably fatal", because spontaneous remissions rarely occur.  But until radiation treatment became widely available (1960s, maybe?), that description probably wasn't too far off the mark.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survival rate in the past? 

message: I'm pretty sure it is "Hodgkin Lymphoma" not "Hodgkin's" although most people call it "Hodgkin's" (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by M015094 (talk • contribs)  
There is a World Health Organization publication called "Classification of tumours of haematopoietic and lymphoid origin", which is widely considered the definiitive classification of blood cancers, including lymphoma - this uses Hodgkin lymphoma. 
At one time there was wide disagreement whether the condition was primarily infectious in nature or was a tumour (malignant or benign); at this time the condition was known as Hodgkin's disease. There is now agreement that Hodgkin Lymphoma is a malignant neoplasm - the term Hodgkin's disease should only be used in direct quotation of historical sources and Hodgkin Lymphoma should be used as standard, wtih Hodgkin's Lymphoma as an outdated alternative version.
Leukaemia-ken (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 09:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: So, should we rename the page to Hodgkin lymphoma and remove all apostrophes (redirecting searches with the apostrophe)? Myoglobin (talk) 16:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  a suggestion has been made on the WikiProjectMed talk page (link to thread). If you want to give input it would be appreciated! JenOttawa (talk) 17:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: Brentuximab vedotin has had good results for refractory HL in a phase II clinical trial. Should we not mention in the main article treatments showing promise in late stage clinical trials - in a section or subsection called Clinical Research ? Not sure if  there are any recent reviews of HL clinical research. - Rod57 (talk) 10:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Late stage clinical trials 

message: :The 10-year overall survival rate is more than 90% for any stages, early stage may help more (stage I or II) Hodgkin's lymphoma. 
I have a vague idea what this might mean, but not more. AxelBoldt (talk) 21:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear sentence from intro 

message: In the CT image shown with the following tagline:
-- begin --
CT image of a 46-year-old patient with Hodgkin's lymphoma, image at neck height. On the left side of the patient's neck enlarged lymph nodes are visible (marked in red).
-- end --
the "enlarged lymph nodes" marked in red appear in the image on the right side (not on the left side as indicated in the above tagline).  Is it meant that they are on the patient's right side and the image is mirrored so that they appear in the image on the left side, or are they truly on the left side and the tagline is simply incorrect?
Martianpackets (talk) 06:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that "left" should be corrected to "right". The patient's chest (front) is facing upward in this image. I would also change "red" to "pink". PaoloDM (talk) 10:09, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion in Image in Staging Section 

message: On prognostication: doi:10.1111/bjh.12759 JFW | T@lk 16:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review 

message: By the British Committee of Standards in Haematology: doi:10.1111/bjh.12878 JFW | T@lk 13:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guideline 

message: Is it a synonym? a subtype or supertype of this condition? 81.159.93.150 (talk) 16:38, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Lymphomatosis (i.e. formation of multiple lymphomas in the body) should be probably re-targeted to Lymphoma. Ruslik_Zero 19:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Changed the redirect. JFW | T@lk 15:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does "Lymphomatosis" redirect here? 

message: doi:10.1111/bjh.13441 - interval PET is not yet ready for prime time. JFW | T@lk 15:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Interval FDG-PET

message: Are these cells always present? Per the ref it appears they are just unusually present per "Reed-Sternberg cells are common in classical Hodgkin lymphoma." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Also confirmed by this  Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Reed-Sternberg cells

message: "In 2015 about 574,000 people had Hodgkin's lymphoma, and 23,900 died."
Where did the people have the lymphoma? Did they die of the lymphoma or of complications?
2001:569:701D:8B00:E89D:E786:4B36:667E (talk) 04:49, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what you mean? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:50, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odd language 

message: There is an ongoing talk about this article's renaming to drop the possessive form, at: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Changing_the_Title_of_the_Hodgkin's_lymphoma_Article. --Signimu (talk) 14:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article renaming 

message: Hello, we are a group of medical students from Queen's University. We are working to improve this article over the next month and will be posting our planned changes on this talk page. We look forward to working with the existing Wikipedia medical editing community to improve this article and share evidence. We welcome feedback and suggestions as we learn to edit. Thank you Millsa7052 (talk) 20:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for sharing this. Can you please include the page #(s) that you found the info in the text book? JenOttawa (talk) 13:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for sharing this. I noticed that PMID 20588274 is a primary study ("record-linkage study"). Has the been reviewed elsewhere in a more recent review article or systematic review? If so, please use the secondary source review in place of the primary citation as per WP:MEDRS. Looking on PubMed, I see that this article is cited 75 times on Medline and many look like review articles. JenOttawa (talk) 13:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you please add both citations into your proposed article improvements (i.e.: after each sentence if possible) so we can see what the Wikipedia edit will look like. I can help you with the citation tool in class on the 25th as well. Thank you!JenOttawa (talk) 13:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

text: Hi, this may have happened when transferring from your sandbox to the talk page (and with the code based editing versus visual editing). Can you please add this textbook with the ISBN into the citation tool to autopopulate the citation fields? Please include page #s as well of where you found the information in your citation. JenOttawa (talk) 13:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

text: Thanks. I added your textbook using the citation tool and ISBN. When you edit the actual Wikipedia article please use the tool. Also, can you please add in the page #s into the citation of where you found the info? Great work so far!JenOttawa (talk) 13:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

text: Similar to the comments above, please add your ref using the tool, the same way we practiced in class on the 11th. I can help as well during our in class session on the 25th. If all of this info came from the same reference, please "reuse" your citation after each sentence in case another editor comes onto Wikipedia late to make further improvements and truncates your paragraph.JenOttawa (talk) 13:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medical Students Editing