Talk:Carcinogenesis

message: Well, it's a good thing that this article is a MCOTW, because it sure needs a lot of work. I'd like to hear people's ideas about how to structure this article, since we don't have a neat template for this sort of topic, like we would for a disease. This is a very rough idea of a structure just off the top of my head. Feel free to tear it apart:
*Introduction - layman's definition of the process, summary of causes leading to oncogenesis
*Properties of malignant cells 
:Highlight the differences between malignant and normal cells, and how this can lead to disease and death
::Include scanning electron micrograph of transformed cancerous cell vs. normal cell
*Mechanisms of carcinogenesis
:Basic genetic mechanisms - two hit hypothesis
::Discussion of oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes
:::Basic overview of normal cell cycle control, and how this is disrupted in cancer.
:::How much detail? The amount of research on this is staggering.
:::This section could use a nice clear schematic illustrating the "two hit" hypothesis.
*Causes of carcinogenesis
:Discussion of factors that can contribute to cancer: random mutation from DNA synthesis (cancer occurs more often in frequently dividing cells), carcinogenic chemicals, diet, ultraviolet light, etc. etc.
::This is an important section to get down right. There are many, many myths out there. 
*Current research
:A more dynamic section, pretty flexible
Let me know what you think. Mr.Bip 00:44, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a great source!  On the images front, we probably ought to have some histology images; one or more illustrative H&E sections would be great.  Ideally I'd suggest a normal section for comparison, plus something aggresive and a carcinoma in situ to show different degrees of invasiveness. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:25, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Structure

message: The article could do with a few references, although most information is just an amalgam of what can be gleaned from textbooks and other resources. Are there any original/classical references we ought to cite? JFW | T@lk 00:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Added some references, mainly reviews. --WS 17:59, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Peer review is a process that ensures quality in scientific articles. For peer review to have meaning we have to be able to trust the "peers" which is generally selected by the journal. In other words, we also have to trust the journal. In a self-published work, this has no meaning. Who selects the "peers" for a peer review? If the author does, that violates the very premise of an unbiased peer review. And clearly the publisher printing agent cannot do so in this case. This is a publisher printing agent who also publishes prints a book that teaches you "God's foods" that cure AIDS, cancer, etc. and books that purport Flaxseed oil cure cancer by hardening on the cell wall of cancer cells and causing cancer starvation. A self-published book just has no credibility.--DocJohnny 21:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Encore! Some brilliant sleuthing there! JFW | T@lk 18:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Corrected! Nevertheless, the message is unchanged. A self-published book has no credibility. --DocJohnny 19:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review 

message: The commentary below is quite negative & blunt, no offence is intended and I do genuinely look forward to further research & development in the understanding of nutrition :-)
*Whilst the "anti-oxidant" vitamins may remove free radicals that are known to be able to inflict tissue damage, and certainly vitamin deficiencies are separately associated with a range of diseases, the arguments generally given of: "vitamins having a role to play in cancer formation and thus vitamin supplementation has a role for prevention" is poorly thought out logical jumps.  The problem is that whilst a deficiency of a nutritional substance may cause illness, so might its excess.  With regard to the vitamin issue, it has been suggested that the body's own mechanisms to dealing with abnormal cells may require the use of free-radicals to effect the elimination of these pre-cancerous cells.  e.g. see "Both suboptimal and elevated vitamin intake increase intestinal neoplasia and alter crypt fission in the ApcMin/+ mouse" 1 and this comes from the journal Carcinogenesis !  Also “The Ambiguity Of Molecular Cancer Chemopreventive Strategies” 2
**The issues are contentious and under continuing research, but that should not grant them equal acceptance to the current understanding of a subject.
*This is not the place to discuss the issue of usage of multivitamin dosages in general (e.g. Vitamin C and the common cold), but the general accepted scientific (i.e. peer-reviewed journals, double-blind trials etc) and thus medical opinion, is that most of this is plain alternative pseudo-science.  Such issues are interesting for their sociological commentary and thus worthy of inclusion in WP on that basis, but not for forming substantive equal-prominence within scientific factual articles.
*As JFW points out above, a single source is rarely sufficient for general acceptance of a scientific theory, and "evidence" published in a book rather than peer-reviewed journal is likely never so.  The assumption of unimportance is usually correct (think of how many fad-books on dieting there have been)
*Yes the title of the book referred to, "Cancer: Nutrition and Survival", is automatically going to be considered by doctors at best suspicious, and any ideas arising from it as likely to be alternative medicine.  
*It is of course important for Doctors to remain generally abreast of developments in medical research and react positively to these for the benefit of their patients. As important, is to react negatively to the large numbers of "latest ideas" one hears about from single individuals, self-promoting books/websites/articles in the media for the prevention of harm to their patients.
**Doctors tend therefore to be seen as quite conservative or cynical in their rejection of the latest fashionable theories, but have tended to “have seen it all before”.
*So any article making reference to how free-radicals form a better understanding of cancer and its prevention is going to be seen with extreme healthy suspicion.  Whether the idea develops into something more substantive (a start would be some experimental data published for peer-review and then repeated by other researchers) remains to be seen, but this does not make the idea one that is generally accepted, indeed must currently be seen as a minority opinion. WP is not about publishing the results of all underdeveloped propositions, and certainly not in the POV manner that this section has. I'ld agree with JFW's "unscientific" feeling  that the topic sounds interesting, but that does not necessarily make it so.
*Vote to Move - This section therefore should be reduced to a link to the full topic, which for the time being must be considered as alternative-medicine. davidruben 06:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well said, Dr Ruben. A link to an alternative hypotheses page would be reasonable, but there is no reason for a direct link to microevolution from carcinogenesis. It is one of very many alternative hypotheses relating to cancer. Vigorous promotion on wikipedia by some enthusiasts does not qualify microevolution for any form of direct recognition from a subject which has a very extensive and rigorous scientific base.Jellytussle 06:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Can we please lose the paragraph to the microevolution cancer theory. It is incorrect to say that it has anything to do with the orthodox biological idea called microevolution.Jellytussle 01:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vitamins & Cancer

message: The disambiguation page Induction has one meaning "Carcinogenesis" (with link to this article), but the term "Induction" is not found in this article. Can this please be added? Badagnani (talk) 03:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: have removed from disambig page as no explanation found. Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 01:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is "induction" not mentioned in this article? 

message: Propose to merge oncogenesis with this page.
Reasons:
* they are either 100% synonyms or no clean distinct definitions can be found
* both need some work
** the definition given in carcinogenesis is too narrow
** more focus on systemic aspects like tumor formation, metabolism, angiogenesis, endocrine and imune system mechanisms, metastasis
** explain oncogenic paradox, Peto's paradox
** more comprehensive overview of evolutionary, alternative, complementary theories
Having 2 articles with nearly identical content is a waste effort and difficult to keep up to date.
Please whoever feels like doing it do it, I am not experienced with merges and do not have admin rights. Richiez (talk) 10:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Support Admin rights are not needed to merge articles.  First we should decide on which name we should go with.  A google scholar search gives that "carcinogenesis" is used more frequently thus this seems like the reasonable choice.  Also it seems like the more common lay term. If you wish to begin I can keep an eye on your progress.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

text: Support merge. "Carcinogenesis" is the more widely used term. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

text: That sounds reasonable.  It may be time for a more systematic review of the articles in this area, to see where we have duplications, contradictions, or gaps.  We should probably look at (for example) articles like malignant transformation as well, to see if they should be better tied in or merged as well. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Have begun the merge.  If others wish to join in. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: I don't think there is any scientist who doesn't believe that chemical and physical mutagens and carcinogens are some of the prime driving forces of carcinogenesis (they cause mutations that can give rise to cancer), but there is so little mention of them and how they produce mutation in an article supposedly about the process of carcinogenesis.   And what's mentioned, radiation and chemical mutagens, are placed under viral subsection?  The shortest possible mention of chemical mutagens/carcinogens and radiation, instead we have a long passage on atavism.   Then the only place where reactive oxygen species being mentioned as a cause of carcinogenesis is in the non-mainstream theories section. I don't think there is any scientist who doesn't believe that reactive oxygen species can be a cause of cancer.  Are there any scientist contributing to this article? Hzh (talk) 13:23, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Have moved section on cause up. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure if that helps, non-mainstream ideas should not be near the top (should be at the bottom).  One way of describing carcinogenesis would be initiation, promotion and tumor progression (there are other ways of describing it), so a multi-stage description should be in the mechanism section in the right order.  This might be multiple mutations (although some cancers appears to involve only one single mutation event), and there should be a section on carcinogen/mutation/mutagenesis for the initiation part.  A bit more on non-mutagenic carcinogens is necessary I think.  The organization of various sections needs to be improved.  I'm not sure for example, why there are 2 clonal evolution subsections (the first one should be deleted or merge into the later one).  I also would not use the word "natural selection" because it is a different idea. Hzh (talk) 18:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm surprised to see no mention on this page at all of the multistage model proposed by Armitage & Doll (1954). I had come to this page to learn more about the model's relevance to the current interpretation of carcinogenesis, and am none the wiser. I would like to make these edits myself but know rather little about the details of either the reception of the Armitage-Doll model or how it relates to modern hypotheses on carcinogenesis.Jimjamjak (talk) 14:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just a very unsatisfactory article.  The multi-stage model must be mentioned, and there are quite a few things needed to be done.  The problem with this is that it requires a massive rewrite, and I don't have the time to do it at the moment.  Someone with the time and inclination can perhaps make a start and I can contribute later if I have the time. Hzh (talk) 22:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  What a bizarre article 

message: inflammation seems to play an important role in the process of cancer development. See for example the following article:
"Recent data have expanded the concept that inflammation is a critical component of tumour progression. Many cancers arise from sites of infection, chronic irritation and inflammation. It is now becoming clear that the tumour microenvironment, which is largely orchestrated by inflammatory cells, is an indispensable participant in the neoplastic process, fostering proliferation, survival and migration. In addition, tumour cells have co-opted some of the signalling molecules of the innate immune system, such as selectins, chemokines and their receptors for invasion, migration and metastasis. These insights are fostering new anti-inflammatory therapeutic approaches to cancer development." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12490959
Or this article:
"A new study shows how inflammation can help cause cancer. Chronic inflammation due to infection or to conditions such as chronic inflammatory bowel disease is associated with up to 25 percent of all cancers." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110419091159.htm and http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1101795108  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.199.39.228 (talk) 17:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inflammation and cancer 

message: I'm moving the content of this edit to the talk page, per WP:UNDUE (I think), as a search term, "blebbishield" currently gets just 8 hits on Google Scholar.
Cellular transformation is essentially sphere formation of cancer cells. Recent findings demonstrates that cancer stem cells can form spheres (transformation) after undergoing morphological and biochemical apoptosis by evoking blebbishield emergency program.Jinesh GG, Choi W, Shah JB, Lee EK, Willis DL, Kamat AM. Blebbishields, the emergency program for cancer stem cells: sphere formation and tumorigenesis after apoptosis. Cell Death Differ. 2013 Mar;20(3):382-95.
109.158.8.201 (talk) 22:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blebbishield emergency program, etc 

message: Substituted at 10:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:22, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion