Talk:Acute lymphoblastic leukemia

message: A roblox developer known as Lizzy_Winkle passed away due to Leukemia. She'll forever be in our hearts. </3  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C7:4300:1E10:1A:1947:F2DC:713F (talk) 13:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: RIP

message: Thanks to User:EC, this page took off. I have taken some time to copyedit it, as there was a lot of redundancy (e.g. the side-effects of chemotherapy are general enough to go under chemotherapy and not here). Nevertheless, this is a very good article. JFW | T@lk 11:48, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Thanks

message: leukemia is very scary to have — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.254.226.59 (talk) 15:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  leukemia 

message: - ALL patients are relatively prone to thrombosis. This study looks into why and whether preventative treatment is needed. JFW | T@lk 23:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thrombosis 

message: Will somebody PLEASE clean up the little summary thing before the table of contents?
Dancanm 19:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Oh God!

message: My cousin had ALL. In early October she went to the doctor and they found some cells they had never seen before.  Doctors said ALL does not mutate, but for an unknown reason - hers had. Does ALL mutate into other forms of leukemia? Look at the October 9th and Oct. 15th entry of the link provided. Documentation of cell mutation
San Antonio Guytalk 01:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ALL mutation?

message: I have edited this with Maarten van der Weijden. He was diagnosed with ALL in 2001. He won a gold medal in the 2008 Summer Olympics. Because I derive hope from this I wanted to share this with the community! If anyone takes offense or grief, please remove the reference!!!!!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Soomers (talk • contribs) 19:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: See also

message: I marked the ACOR link as being dead because I can't get it to open.  "Server not responding."  Can someone else try again, maybe tomorrow?
Additionally, 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 internet chat boards and e-mail discussion groups. Because I realize that most normal editors haven't spent much time with these policies, please let me provide specific information from the guidelines:
* This page, which applies to all articles in the entire encyclopedia, says that links "to social networking sites (such as MySpace or Fan sites), discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), USENET newsgroups or e-mail lists" are to be avoided.
* This page deprecates ""helpful" external links, such as forums, self-help groups and local charities."
* This medical-specific page reinforces the pan-Wiki rules, with a note that "All links must meet Wikipedia's external links guidelines, which in particular exclude discussion forums."
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and while it may occasionally be useful to patients or their families, it is not an advertising opportunity for support groups.  So if this ACOR link takes us to a page that has no content, it needs to be deleted entirely, even if it starts working again.  If it leads to a page with information about ALL, then that's great.  
Any editor, BTW, is welcome to read all of the rules and perform an "audit" in the remaining links.  Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: Not suitable for the article, but this is a somewhat curious study. Picked it up from a correspondence while browsing NEJM. II | (t - c) 20:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Usually, the "fluorescent lights cause cancer" story is attributed to people staying inside (lack of sunshine) or staying up late at night (disrupted light/dark cycles).  There's no good data on the subject, just weak speculation.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fluorescent lights contribute to ALL? 

message: I'm not sure about this edit, but it seems unlikely to be correct.  Once you have ALL, you can't get ALL as a secondary malignancy.  But perhaps it's supposed to refer to getting ALL secondary to something else (e.g., treatment for a solid tumor)?  Does anyone have a source that settles this one way or the other?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secondary ALL 

message: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3088882
From that link:
Abstract
High-resolution chromosome banding studies were carried out on leukemic cells from a young patient with acute nonlymphocytic leukemia (ANLL), M2 of the FAB classification. A new chromosomal abnormality involving a translocation between chromosomes 3 and 21 was observed, i.e., t(3;21)(p14;q22). A complete remission was never obtained in spite of aggressive chemotherapy and the patient died 8 months after diagnosis.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.38.75.52 (talk) 11:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is t(3;21)(p14;q22) relevant? 

message: There is a contradiction in the 2 tables on this page. Under the heading 'Cytogenetics' it says in the table that the translocation t(8;14)(q24.1;q32) has a poor prognosis, but under 'Prognosis' another table says that rearrangements of 8q24 are intermediate. Being the father of a T-ALL patient with t(8;14) I'd be particularly interested in expert clarification. Thanks in advance.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.249.12.50 (talk) 13:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prognosis of t(8;14) 

message: Suggest adding consolidation in parenthesis next to intensification as they mean the same thing with regard to chemo treatment. Source: 
cancer.org
--Ymarker (talk) 20:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion: Intensification = consolidation 

message: Article should summarise current R&D or refer back to leukemia ? Rod57 (talk) 19:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  No hint of any current R and D 

message: The FAB material should be condensed and the newer classification expanded, including the cross-referencing to Burkitt's  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.153.51.220 (talk) 09:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but Wikipedia is pretty constipated. Even in the face of a rational nudge like this, we might leave things until almost a decade has elapsed. FeatherPluma (talk) 20:47, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  WHO 'proposed' were adopted in 2008 

message: The acute should refer to the fact that the cells does not progress pass the blast stage and not about time.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingdarm (talk • contribs) 05:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Acute' 

message: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2812%2962187-4/abstract
The Lancet, 
Early Online Publication, 22 March 2013
doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)62187-4
Acute lymphoblastic leukaemia
Dr Hiroto Inaba MD a Corresponding Author, Prof Mel Greaves PhD c, Charles G Mullighan MD b
--Nbauman (talk) 02:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lancet review article 

message: Can someone add the immunophenotype (like CD10+, CD20+, CD3+ etc..) of pre-B and pre-T ALL? In this moment, there are only undefinied "T, B cell associate antigen", it isn't very useful..
Thank you, although still a good article!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.192.119.9 (talk) 11:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Immunophenotype 

message: Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: doi:10.1111/bjh.13215 Use of antibodies in the treatment. JFW | T@lk 09:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

text: doi:10.1111/bjh.13896 Br J Haem advances in the management of Ph+ALL in childhood. JFW | T@lk 11:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Review

message: The Treatment/immunotherapy section only seems to mention Chimeric antigen receptor but isn't clear if the CAR treatment is approved for ALL or what clinical trials have started/reported, even if it has been tried in animals. - Rod57 (talk) 16:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  What results from immunotherapy - any clinical trials 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080323074708/http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_4_3X_How_Is_Acute_Lymphocytic_Leukemia_Classified.asp?rnav=cri to http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_4_3X_How_Is_Acute_Lymphocytic_Leukemia_Classified.asp?rnav=cri
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi, y'all. This article has unsourced statements going back five years! Anybody up to remedying that? Having fun! Cheers!  {Talk} 03:49, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced statements going back 60 months 

message: Hello Wikipedians. We are three fourth year medical students at UCSF who will be improving this article over the next four weeks as part of the Expanding Wikiproject Medicine elective. Our usernames are Jeffyang13, Joshuanoel, and Wendi.gu. Pleased to meet you! We plan on using the acute myeloid leukemia article as an exemplar and will adhere to the wikiproject medicine manual of style. We will improve the entire article, updating it with the latest information and adjusting the language to make it more accessible to a lay audience while preserving the detail that makes it useful for students and others with a background or interest in the sciences. We welcome all recommendations and critiques and look forward to working with anyone who has an interest in improving this article.
Project timeline:
* week 1 (11/20-26) - division of labor, collection of sources
* week 2 (11/27 - 12/3) - reading, beginning offline edits
* week 3 (12/4-10) - complete offline edits early in the week, transfer edits to user-facing page by Thursday for peer review
* week 4 (12/11-15) - solicit and respond to peer feedback, make revisions
Each of us have taken ownership of editing the following sections:
* Wikibox (Joshuanoel)
* Lead (Joshuanoel)
* Signs/symptoms (Jeffyang13)
* Cause/Pathophysiology (Joshuanoel)
** These sections will likely be combined, with pathophysiology as a subheading of cause.
* Diagnosis (Jeffyang13)
* Treatment (Wendi.gu)
* Prognosis (Wendi.gu)
* Epidemiology (Jeffyang13)
Again, let us know if you have any recommendations or requests off the bat (we see the request from a few days ago for improved sourcing of statements – will do). Otherwise, watch this space for updates and more details about this project. Thanks! – Joshuanoel (talk) 22:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Rewrote the lead and the infobox. Please let me know if anyone has any questions/concerns/suggestions. Thanks. Joshuanoel (talk) 06:53, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, Joshuanoel! Welcome to Wikipedia! Overall, I like the rewrite of the infobox but have a couple of suggestions/questions. First, I would recommend using the term bleeding instead of hemorrhage and pale appearance instead of pallor, especially in the infobox and/or in the lead since Wikipedia encyclopedia articles are meant for a general audience (the goal is to get it as close as possible to an eighth grade reading level). It's difficult but keeping medical jargon to a minimum is one of our goals. Second, I was unclear why weight loss was removed from the infobox. Can you clarify why you made that change, please? Thanks, and again, welcome to Wikipedia! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 08:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, & agree with your recommendations, and it seems that Doc James already made those edits. Re: weight loss – I was the one who originally added that in. I then found a source that had a helpful table listing prevalence of symptoms at diagnosis (although with just an n = 100). Weight loss was only present in only 10%, the other listed symptoms were more common. The table is on p. 21 of the cited source – but can also be found in this article (http://www.danmedj.dk/portal/page/portal/danmedj.dk/dmj_forside/PAST_ISSUE/2014/DMJ_2014_08/A4883#Table%201) Joshuanoel (talk) 19:28, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Joshuanoel! Consider rewording 'Disease underlying mechanism is DNA mutations that result in high numbers of lymphoblasts in the bone marrow.' in the lead as it is confusing. Are you trying to say 'The mechanism underlying the disease are DNA mutations that result in high numbers of lymphoblasts in the bone marrow.'? Davidhaase10 (talk) 22:12, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks David. I agree it's unclear or maybe just awkwardly worded. We've been going back and forth with that paragraph (see section below this one). Will probably take another look at the lead and that paragraph in particular tomorrow. Let me know if anything else is unclear, especially in the cause section. Had a tough time deciding in how much depth to go and how to keep it simple. Thanks again, & hope your and Jon's interviews went well. Joshuanoel (talk) 00:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

text: Took another stab at that section today. Edited the sentence you referenced. Joshuanoel (talk) 18:31, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

text: I think the lead does a great job of catering to a general audience presenting it in an easily understandable way. I also appreciate how it is structured in the same order as the rest of the article. No grammatical errors. The wiki box is also well laid out and concise for such a broad topic. Keep it up!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidhaase10 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

text: Thanks everyone for your contributions and feedback. Our course now over but there's still some work I want to do here, so I expect to be back from time to time to work on it. Joshuanoel (talk) 20:25, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  UCSF Expanding Wikiproject Medicine Elective 

message: We tend to use cause to mean risk factors and triggers. This may include inherited generic mutations or genetic syndromes.
For ALL the build up of genetic mutations such that an increase number of lymphoblasts occur in the bone marrow is the mechanism. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for explaining your reasoning. I'll consider clarifying edits with that in mind. Joshuanoel (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

text: I made some edits to the lead. I wrote "can lead to" instead of "cause" at the beginning of the second paragraph since I felt "cause" was too strong without qualifiers explaining that the cause of disease still isn't well known. "Lead to" sounded less deterministic and more appropriate to me, tho I might be splitting hairs and we can substitute "cause" for "lead to" if others want to. I avoided "mechanism" because I'm not convinced this is a clearly understood metaphor among the public for stepwise progression of disease, and stylistically the word is a bit ugly. Again, not a strongly held position, we can put it in if the style manual suggests it or for other good reasons. Thanks Joshuanoel (talk) 18:27, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

text: Based on your comments, decided would be better to break the cause section back into two parts (cause and mechanism). Kept the word 'mechanism' as the section heading per style guide. Will likely add more pathophys to the end of this section.Joshuanoel (talk) 22:56, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Mechanism versus cause

message: Hi all!
Overall, the article is great. 
-I liked how the Signs and Symptoms section was very readable for the average person. 
-I liked how the lead paragraph summarized the major portions of the article. 
-After looking through the edits, I really liked how the cytogenetics  section was expanded. It's super complicated, but I think that a med student looking at that information would find it very helpful. 
-I noticed is that the lead paragraph is still fairly technical in nature, and I think it could do with even more simplification of the language. 
-I know your group was thinking of simplifying some of the tables, especially the treatment/chemo table, which I think would be a great idea (but also difficult). 
I hope that helps! Great job, everyone!
Ashleigh.lauran (talk) 16:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiproject Medicine Peer Review 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :A L L. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 15#A L L until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 10:19, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "A L L" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: "a liver one can feel (64%), a spleen one can feel (61%)" I tried to search this in dictionary but found nothing. 114.10.27.35 (talk) 02:37, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does "One can feel" mean? 

message: I pray that one day when my time comes, it is NOT from leukemia. Imagine your own blood, the fluid flowing inside of you, turning against you and killing you. Also, it seems really, really, painful. This looks like a sad way to go, and I respect all who pass away from this horrible disease. AlikaHall (talk) 18:15, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  holy god leukemia is scary