Talk:Astrocytoma

message: PXA are designated grade II tumours in the current classificaiton http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00401-007-0243-4/fulltext.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.32.49 (talk) 00:06, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: wrong grade

message: Actually, going back and reading the whole thing - I was stopped dead in my tracks when I got to the 25%-30% this entire article should be deleted and rewritten. Oligodendrocyte (talk) 18:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Just scrap and rewrite

message: As I do not regularly comment on Wikipedia, I will leave the hard editing to the regulars.  That said this is one thing that needs to be addressed: I believe the information regarding the rate of non-anaplastic astrocytomas is grossly inaccurate and at best erroneous.  I would like to point editors/authors toward databases such as the Central Brain Tumor Registry of the United States (CBTRUS)  which provides both a full report and abridged, easy-to-follow links to individual tables (so you don't have to scroll through a couple hundred pages of commentary), specifically Table 8: .  The highest possible circumstance (that is eliminating tumors such as medulloblastoma, choroid plexus, etc.) shows that pilocytic and diffuse astrocytomas(the well differentiated, grades I & II) account for only 7.2% of gliomas (it is unnecessary to say "cerebral").  I think it would also lend more credence to the article to regard the low grade astrocytomas as among primary central nervous system tumors (as they often are in a setting where they are discussed) bringing the percentage to 3.0%: 2.3% pilocytic, 0.7% diffuse - to which this article is concerned, quite a distance from the 25%-30% reported here.  These tumors are known for being RARE!  Also, whoever may initiate it, I don't know how to work this stuff, just my opinion that it would be more cohesive to have grades I-III astrocytomas with appropriate redirects in one article.Oligodendrocyte (talk) 17:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Incidence

message: Concerning cognitive skills and brain tumors, references? Nothing reporting anything of the sort can be found with pubmed, and I have not heard of anything similar during three years in med school, which of course doesn't say that it can't exist, but the patophysiology behind it sounds a bit dubious to say the least - a lack of oxygen and nutrients that results in increased metabolic activity? It sounds quite implausible - if no references can be produced, perhaps that last paragraph under 'Symptoms' should be deleted? 82.182.168.164 14:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In rare cases (0.8% - 0.05% of all cases) the tumor produces metastatic growths into other parts of the brain slowly causing a lack of blood and nutrient supply, and causing the brain to work harder and rrequire a higher percentage of the brain to be used to keep up with the workload. This can present as a perception of flashes of light in vision and increased cognitive skills and extremely higher knowledge recall and problem solving skills.
Almost certainly complete nonsense.  Kept here for further discussion:  We should be especially conservative about removing crap from the medical articles, but if anyone disagrees with the removal, they are welcome to replace the text, including a reference. --Slashme 07:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Boff no doubt. But all the same I came here wondering if the late great Peter Burn's amazing driving skills may have been connected to his cancer in some way.--Timtak (talk) 02:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Increased skills

message: Seems there is little to no information on Wikipedia about anaplastic astrocytomas. Does anyone want to create an article about this kind of tumor? (I would, but I don't feel qualified to...I'm a high school student, not a doctor) User:Lady6String 14:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the beauty of Wikipedia.  You can become qualified by simply reading a bit.  Google about a bit, go to your nearest university library, etc.  I'm not a doctor either, and I feel qualified to edit the article after reading a few journal articles ;-) Be bold and pitch in. If you find some good info, and need help in presenting it, drop me a line and I'll get back to you.  Your edits don't have to be perfect to be useful.  If you just add "Anaplastic astrocytomas are a kind of astrocytomas", you might not have made a grammatically correct edit, and you might not have told anyone much about anaplastic astrocytomas, but you will have made the article slightly more complete.  And don't worry about messing up.  If you mean well, people won't mind cleaning up after you, and you'll learn in the process. --Slashme 09:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Come to think of it, maybe I will write an article on Anaplastic Astrocytoma. It'll have to wait a couple weeks though, I am crazy busy lately. Lady6String 12:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Anaplastic astrocytoma

message: User:Oligodendrocyte had the following to say about this article:
The entry as it is has potential but is largely incorrect in its assertions.  Also, the references are obscure (#4), irrelevant (#1 - C6 cells are an in vitro rat cell model that are now known to have almost no resemblance to astrocytomas), and very out of date (all the references; should not be older than 2000 unless its a fairly profound or high-impact review - such as in J. Neuroscience, PNAS, Nature or Science).  I am willing to provide some reliable references to anyone who is interested, I'll be watching that articles discussion page. Thanks! 
I have just handed in my M.Sc. thesis, and am still finalizing an article that stems from that work, so I don't have any time to work on Wikipedia at the moment.  I had a quick look at the article, and I think he makes valid points.  I would be willing to help with wiki formatting issues, though.
So Oligodendrocyte: feel free to do a hack job on the page.  You can't break anything (the page history is safe, and old versions can be very easily restored). If you can't figure out why your text or references don't look the way they should, feel free to ask me for help.  I don't check my WP talk regularly at the moment, but my "email this user" link works, so that might be a better option. --Slashme (talk) 06:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  User:Oligodendrocyte's comments 

message: I have made some substantial edits by rewriting most of the article and removing non-salvageable, misleading parts - namely diagnosis and references.  Unfortunately my time is limited and I'm not sure how to make the proper citations.  Most of what I have written is deducible from CBTRUS (mentioned and linked in one of my comments above) and can also be found all over primary literature and if preferred for the layperson, Mayo Clinic Proceedings. Oligodendrocyte (talk) 19:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: initial citations added.  Oligodendrocyte (talk) 18:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 11 March 2008 edits

message: please comment on this proposed edit below--DerekvG (talk) 00:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion for the Grading section of Astrocytoma 

message: Diagnosis section is written like a brochure for general brain cancer, the verbiage describing what an MRI is especially makes it seem likely it was an outright copy and paste. PewterPenguin (talk) 01:57, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diagnosis section