Talk:Neuroblastoma

message: Just included some info on n-myc amplification. I believe this can occur in up to 80% of cases so it should be included.Hoganpc (talk) 14:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: N-myc

message: - recent Lancet review JFW | T@lk 12:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Review

message: I'm wondering what people think about creating a new page for discussion of the 3F8 antibody.   Space could also be dedicated to discussion of Dr. Cheung's hu3F8.  I suppose that a section could be added to this page, instead.  Thoughts?
MeredithParmer (talk) 07:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is a great idea! By the way, I did mention the humanized 3F8 effort, and spent a fair amount of time looking for a good reference. Since I could not find any, I took it back out. Can you supply a reference? Thanks for the excellent work! DMLudwinski (talk) 15:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've created a stub for 3F8. --Arcadian (talk) 00:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 3F8

message: Changed "prevention" section to "etiology" and provided some up to date links to peer reviewed journals. Previous link was to a tabloid article that reported a beneficial effect of taking multivitamins, when the study was funded by a (you guessed it!) multivitamin company. Nor did it appear in peer reviewed journal. Apologies for number of separate page edits, but this was my first go.  
Ironick 10:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Etiology (Aetiology)

message: "The diagnosis is usually confirmed by a surgical pathologist, taking into account the clinical presentation, microscopic findings, and other laboratory tests. On microscopy, the tumor cells are typically described as small, round and blue, and rosette patterns (Homer-Wright pseudo-rosettes) may be seen. A variety of immunohistochemical stains are used by pathologists to distinguish neuroblastomas from histological mimics, such as rhabdomyosarcoma, Ewing's sarcoma, lymphoma and Wilms' tumor. The N-myc amplification is characteristic, and sometimes electron microscopy is also required."
This contribution of mine was removed without discussion. I am a pathologist but have written it with the intelligent layman in mind. The present reference to neuron-specific enolase is wrong, and the whole paragraph was deleted without discussion. I would find it helpful if people explained their need to remove great slabs of info.
Would fellow users care to comment?
Hovea 22:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the second instance of the duplicated text. --Arcadian (talk) 19:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diagnosis 

message: I think this section should be changed to reflect the new INRG plan (ref Lancet June 2007 Maris et al). The stages will be called L1, L2, M and MS, and 12-18 month olds without N-myc amplification will be no longer considered high-risk (moved to intermediate risk).
This change in classification with 12-18 month olds (N-myc non-amp) started in the COG May 2004.
This material was also presented at the 2007 ASCO meeting, and virtual presentations are viewable online at ASCO Pediatric Cancers (Neuroblastoma Pediatric Cancer I and Neuroblastoma---Recent Advances in Biology and Therapy Education session) see Dr S Cohn abstract 9503
Thanks for the excellent work on this page! I would personally like to see a LOT more on pathology!
DMLudwinski (talk) 23:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added a brief reference to this, but since you are familiar with the subject, I encourage you to expand it. (If possible, it would be more sustainable to cite the journal articles, rather than citing the videos.) --Arcadian (talk) 16:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to risk assignment and staging 

message: Arcadian, the image is great (as are other improvements to the article)! I noticed the image added is ganglioneuroblastoma, and checking the NCI link, there is a image of neuroblastoma also, showing the distinctive rosettes. Would that be a better image to include? Or both--since ganglioneuroblastoma is treated similarly to neuroblastoma (depending on the age and stage and risk assignment)? Thanks! I do not know how to add images (I am very slowly getting up to speed for editing, but plan to help here!)
DMLudwinski (talk) 15:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, let me commend you for your edits. You're learning quickly. Per the images: I'm not sure which image you're proposing to upload -- can you provide a URL? The image I added was from the German wiki page, so it was already in Wikimedia, and didn't need to be uploaded, just copied over to the English version. In most cases, works of the US government are public domain, but there are some exceptions (see Copyright status of work by the U.S. government, and Wikipedia:Uploading images).  You may also want to ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions -- the users there specialize in these issues. --Arcadian (talk) 04:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I got it--I uploaded the neuroblastoma rosettes image from NCI and replaced the image of  ganglioneuroblastoma which is wrongly labeled as "neuroblastoma.jpg" on the German wiki page. DMLudwinski (talk) 20:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nicely done. --Arcadian (talk) 22:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pathology image 

message: I'll probably read through in detail tomorrow, but a first speed read suggests careful copyediting and checking for readability would be helpful. Just a quick read suggests MoS issues - eg ref numbers should follow punctuation with no space, and there are some places where glosses would help. The very last sentence, which looks odd, starting with a lower-case letter, would be much improved as "The protein p53...". There are places where a gloss for meaning might be helpful, esp if the phrase is a red-link. Jimfbleak (talk) 09:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The items listed by Jimfbleak for the good article review have now (I believe) been addressed. --Arcadian (talk) 18:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Per the items listed by 208.123.11.69 -- if you can bring PMIDs or URLs to this talk page, I would be happy to help in the reference formatting. --Arcadian (talk) 18:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: THANKS, will do! Having trouble with my login as well, now fixed I think. DMLudwinski (talk) 19:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GA review

message: Thanks for the offer of help with references Arcadian. Below is an accumulation of information on clinical trials with external links. It may be too much and I have no problem with it being greatly simplified or ignored altogether. There is a little more to be said about efforts with anti-GD2 antibodies which I can add later.
DMLudwinski (talk) 16:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I did notice the reference for #34 ^ "Painkiller Helps Against Child Cancer", medicalnewstoday.com, February 8, 2007, accessed March 8, 2007 (source apparently is a press release from the Karolinska Institutet in Sweden) didn't list the PMID http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17289900?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum 
DMLudwinski (talk) 18:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: One more thing! Opsoclonus myoclonus syndrome should be included under diagnosis or symptoms DMLudwinski (talk) 18:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Current clinical trials (frontline therapy) for high-risk neuroblastoma

message: Pwallroth asked this question via email:
:Would you have a problem with reorganizing the "Clinical trials for refractory and relapsed neuroblastoma" section so that the most recent treatments are first and the less recent are listed after?
Any thoughts? Since the other section (clinical trials for frontline therapy) is listed chronologically, I would think that section would also have to be rewritten in reverse chronological order.DMLudwinski (talk) 12:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chronology of relapse/refractory clinical trials 

message: The Childrens Neuroblastoma Cancer Foundation
There is hope.
http://www.nbhope.org/  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.235.188.214 (talk) 20:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help Find a Cure 

message: The page doesn't explain what is meant by refactory neuroblastoma. I'm not a clinician, and haven't heard this use. If someone could clarify?
 
I'm not sure whther sections 5.2 and 5.3 should be distinct? Perhaps they could be merged and cut down slightly? Perhaps restrict these sections to current trials rather than a history of neauroblastoma treatment. I think these parts are too long, and perhaps should be referenced for the very interested rather than included on a general page? 
Ironick (talk) 09:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Refactory & Clinical Trials

message: I removed 2 lines at the end of the introduction. No objection to reinclusion, but they should be cited. Especially the spontaneous regression part. 
I definately think the clinical trials for new treatments should be moved to a new page something like "Treatment of Neuroblastoma" and linked to other treatments etc. I also remember there being a history of treatment as well, which could be included there. I think this page should be a detailed introduction, I feel this information is too specific. Thoughts?
Ironick (talk) 10:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: New Points April 2009

message: #Does not follow WP:LEAD
#some issues with prose eg. "Its solid tumors, which take the form of a lump or mass, commonly begin in one of the adrenal glands, though they can also develop in nerve tissues in the neck, chest, abdomen, or pelvis."
#how frequent and what are the typical presentations need to be discussed
#no section on the history of this condition
--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the review--all items have been addressed (including some other updates and clean up) with the exception of the history--I found a couple of good resources and will add that ASAP. Thanks again for keeping the bar high! DMLud (talk) 22:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Review

message: The incidence rates quoted in the first sentence lack context.  The number of cases per year should be given in per capita rather than absolute terms, especially since the statement is made that it is the most common cancer in infancy. 121.45.223.193 (talk) 12:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incidence rates 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Neuroblastoma. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060925060348/http://www.curesearch.org/our_research/index_sub.aspx?id=1767 to http://www.curesearch.org/our_research/index_sub.aspx?id=1767
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101221225339/http://www.cancer.gov/ncicancerbulletin/051909/page2 to http://www.cancer.gov/ncicancerbulletin/051909/page2
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150208003706/http://www.cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/search/view?cdrid=576571&version=HealthProfessional&protocolsearchid=8771802 to http://www.cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/search/view?cdrid=576571&version=HealthProfessional&protocolsearchid=8771802
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The word "baby" in this sentence is obviously not correct: "Occasionally it may be found in a baby by ultrasound during pregnancy." I tried to correct it to "fetus" instead, but got reverted. Someone else may want to fix this. SilverCobweb (talk) 23:18, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes "baby" in the common usage of the word is correct. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:32, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence says it's during a pregnancy, so it's a fetus. The sentence should be corrected. SilverCobweb (talk) 02:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It is appropriate to use common English much of the time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccurate Word 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Neuroblastoma. 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  tag to http://meeting.ascopubs.org/cgi/content/abstract/25/18_suppl/9503
*Added  tag to http://meeting.ascopubs.org/cgi/content/abstract/25/18_suppl/9505
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130113023927/http://meeting.ascopubs.org/cgi/content/abstract/25/18_suppl/9504 to http://meeting.ascopubs.org/cgi/content/abstract/25/18_suppl/9504
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) 14:08, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018)