Talk:Lipoma

message: Suggested template for Orthopaedic Conditions (see Talk:Orthopedic surgery) is 
Name
Definition
Synonyms
Incidence
Pathogenesis
Pathology
Stages
Classification
Natural History/Untreated Prognosis
Clinical Features
Investigation
Non-Operative Treatment
Risks of Non-Operative Treatment
Prognosis following Non-Operative Treatment
Operative Treatment (Note that each operations should have its own wiki entry)
Risks of Operative Treatment
Prognosis Post Operation
Complications
Management
Prevention 
History
--Mylesclough 05:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template suggestion 

message: The page states that it can be cancerous; however, various trusted sources state that it cannot become cancerous. It can, though, be confused with cancerous growths similar in appearance if not properly diagnosed. Are many people in the medical field (i.e. doctors and registered nurses) and I incorrect in this belief, or is the page incorrect?
-1,000,000 Stars (talk) 06:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, those "trusted" sources are incorrect.  --David Broadfoot (talk) 21:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I just added a cite re malignant transformation being possible.  --David from Downunder (talk) 14:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cancerous or not? 

message: Lipomatosis is not synonymous with Lipoma. Can someone who's more knowledgeable than I remove the redirect. 85.178.51.102 (talk) 21:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not synonymous, but the redirect is still valid. I moved the definition of lipomatosis up to the into and bolded the term - that is the accepted Wikipedia convention in the circumstances: there are two definitions in the one article (lipoma & lipomatosis.)  --David from Downunder (talk) 05:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Still seems confusing. There are now two articles, Lipoma and Lipomatosis (which is good). However, the definition of the latter may be too restrictive in stating it is AD (see comments in this github ticket). It seems to be confusing the more generic lipomatosis with "Familial multiple lipomatosis", which is usually AD? Also the redirects are confusing, with many of the specific forms of lipomatosis pointing to lipoma rather than lipomatosis Cmungall (talk) 02:21, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lipomatosis vs. Lipoma 

message: Cases of lipomas that have transformed to liposarcomas are extremely rare, with only scattered case reports appearing the in the literature.  Even these case reports are thought to be an underdiagnosis of an atypical lipomatous tumor as a lipoma.  Lipomas and liposarcomas do not arise in the same locations, which one would expect if liposarcomas transformed into lipomas.  Lipomas and liposarcomas show enterely different cytogenetic profiles, which one would also not expect if one arose from the other.  Although it may be easy to think of liposarcoma as arising from a lipoma, this has not been shown to occur with confidence.  For this reason, I removed that sentence.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.35.79.70 (talk) 20:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that it is rare for it to happen, and that is what the article stated in the sentence that you deleted: that it is rare. The article never suggested that liposarcomas arise from lipomas (in general), merely that it can happen in rare cases. I will have a go at re-wording it again. P.S. please start new sections at the bottom of the talk page, and please sign your posts with four tildes.  --David from Downunder (talk) 04:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, but it's not just rare.  Most likely, it never happens.  User 1,000,000 Stars came here and was dead on correct, but then was mislead by the page.  Though, perhaps the page was different when that user came here. 66.61.25.164 (talk) 11:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lipomas that have transformed to liposarcomas 

message: Re other conditions related only by virtue of also presenting lipomas... we now have both lipomatosis and Dercum's mentioned in the lede. They could arguably be put in "See also" but I think they belong at least in the body of the article (perhaps in a new section called "Related conditions"?) so that their relationship to "Lipoma" can be made made clear.
Does anyone know about "Familial Multiple Lipomatosis" (FML)? Is that the same as what is meant by "Lipomatosis"? The Lipomatosis article needs work - it is just a stub.
FML is interesting because doctors invariably state that the cause is unknown, and there are numerous reliable sources that state that the cause is unknown. However, several specific mutations have been identified that cause FML (that's why I earlier added that fact to this article though I didn't cite it.)
Could I be correct in supposing that the same genetic mutation that causes FML also causes single lipomas if arising as a random mutation in a single cell?  --David from Downunder (talk) 01:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd suspect that lipomas are much like other cancers and the transformation process involves a sequence of mutations in several different genes. Some of these targets could be common to all lipomas, and having them "pre-existing" in a hereditary form could speed up the process, but it is almost certainly a set of mutations, rather then a single hit on a single gene. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A new "Related conditions" section would probably be worth starting to separate them out but keep them at their current importance. Schu1321 (talk) 01:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As for the classification of lipomatosis, I would guess that lipomatosis is probably more accurately a general term for multiple lipomas, but should be differentiated for different causes (Familial, Benign symmetric). The current "lipomatosis" should probably be changed to FML. Schu1321 (talk) 02:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that an FML article is needed in addition to the lipomatosis article: note that there is a pelvic lipomatosis article already linked under lipomatosis.  --David from Downunder (talk) 02:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Depending on how much info is available, would it be better to merge pelvic lipomatosis into the general lipomatosis article, and give them individual headings rather than their own articles? Schu1321 (talk) 02:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes sense to me. So FML and lelvic lipomatosis, etc should all appear in the lipomatosis article (unless any of them get too large and need to be spun out into their own article.) Does anyone disagree? --David from Downunder (talk) 05:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other conditions 

message: I'll stick this here so we don't just go back and forth on the main page. How does this look for a rewrite of the causes section:
:The tendency to develop a lipoma is not necessarily hereditary, although it is in a syndrome like familial multiple lipomatosis (where more than one lipoma develops over time.)[11] Hereditary lipomatosis is an autosomal dominant disorder and is a rare condition.[12] Genetic studies in mice have also shown a correlation between the HMG I-C gene (previously identified as a gene related to obesity) and lipoma development. These studies support prior epidemiologic data in humans showing a correlation between HMG I-C and mesenchymal tumors.[2]
:Cases have been reported where minor injuries are alleged to have triggered the growth of a lipoma, called "posttraumatic lipomas".[13] However, the link between trauma and the development of lipomas is controversial.[14] Obesity has not been shown to cause lipoma in humans.[ref from page]  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schu1321 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The whole paragraph about lipomatosis should be moved to the lipomatosis article. However, I'd like to see retained here a simple note that lipomatosis has hereditary and genetic factors. You may as well edit in place so it's easier to see what changes you made, and be able to click on the cites to check. Sometimes it's better to have the discussion in the edit comments. Please just change what you don't like of mine, and I'll do the same to you - we only need to discuss it here if we have a deadlock. If you want to change that text and move it to lipomatosis, please do it in two steps: move & edit, so it can be tracked. Thanks. --David from Downunder (talk) 05:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Causes 

message: Comment/question:  I've noticed this in a few other entries too.  Does the picture have to be so dark?
:It doesn't seem dark to me.  Perhaps it's a setting on your computer?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  General Comments 

message: I have removed the following text from the Treatment section:
Another method being developed is the use of ultrasound waves to destroy the lipoma. This can be compared with the removal of kidney stones where ultrasound is used to pulverize the stones.
My reasons for removal:
* There is no citation for this claim.
* It really does need substantiation. The parallel with lithotripsy is erroneous, since kidney stones are hard and brittle, and hence will break when exposed to very high amplitude sound waves, while lipomas are very soft and hence will not break even when exposed to the highest practicable sound waves.
* It might be thought that ultrasonic cavitation resulting from lithotripsy might be effective, but such mechanical disturbance is unlikely to penetrate inside a lipoma due to its higher density than surrounding tissues, its elasticity, and its ductility. Cavitation created by ultrasound may be expected to damage surrounding tissues before it would substantially effect a lipoma. David spector (talk) 16:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed ultrasound claim 

message: "New methods under development are supposed to remove the lipomas without scarring." How are we to interpret "are supposed to" here - as "are said/claimed to", or as "are intended/meant to"? "Supposed to" can mean either of these, and should surely be replaced by something less ambiguous.213.127.210.95 (talk) 15:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambiguous use of "are supposed to" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lipoma. 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/20050426184455/http://www.hms.harvard.edu/news/pressreleases/Schepens/0400ObesityGene.html to http://www.hms.harvard.edu/news/pressreleases/Schepens/0400ObesityGene.html
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) 16:14, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The "Epidemiology" section includes the sentence "Approximately one percent of the general population has a lipoma", but the introductory section says that 2% of people are affected. These figures appear to conflict.188.230.240.75 (talk) 09:54, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure and fixed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:44, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflicting figures on prevalence