Talk:Renal cell carcinoma

message: I'm not sure people reading this article would want to know what "vast improvement" means, but if I were reading
it, I'd probably guess that "vast improvement" means possibly  living long enough to die of some other cause -- say,
at least a few years. I think what we are talking about here is a treatment effect measured in weeks, not months, and
certainly not years. I'm ambivalent about the value of truthfulness here -- but isn't an encyclopedia meant to be be the straight truth?
Anybody in favor of including the detail of how many weeks of disease free progression we are really talking about compared to placebo?
Tombadog (talk) 23:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sunitinib and vast improvement -  Misleading?

message: There's a NEJM review here. Anyone interested? JFW | T@lk 23:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NEJM review

message: I don't think the search term "kidney cancer" should necessarily redirect here, seeing as Nephroblastoma/Wilm's tumor is another fairly common kidney cancer (although it is usally seen in children rather than adults. There are also rhabdoid kidney tumors. Seeing as there are different kinds of kidney cancer, I think the redirect should be changed, perhaps to a disambiguation page. Dylan Slade 01:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kidney cancer now is an article.  --Una Smith (talk) 22:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Kidney Cancer redirect

message: The revision "11:25, 5 March 2007 71.216.118.181" removed the word "gross" from the phrase "gross examination".  I restored the word because its absence significantly alters the meaning of the sentence.  Specifically, gross examination refers to a macroscopic examination, i.e. with the naked eye, as opposed to, for example, microscopic examination or chemical analysis. PHaze 23:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition of "Gross Examination"

message: I submit this with hesitation because I'm new and I know it's important not to behave cluelessly here.  But, I'm a patient with this cancer and I want to contribute, so here I am. Tell me where to go to learn more about editing, if you want.
How do I properly edit the article to handle these items?
1. Furhman is actually Fuhrman (and ought to have its own article). (I figured out the typo myself.)
2. A lot of widely known stats about RCC are obsolete. The ones shown here appear more modern, but they ought to cite their source. How do I add an "attribution needed" mark? --Update: Thanks to Derwig for the tip.
deBronkart 20:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo and citations 

message: If anyone is looking, the Diagnosis section of this article was lifted (plagiarized) word-for-word from a blog. No sources are given either in the blog or in the article, and this information is thus unverified. Since this is a medical article visited by patients, it is CRITICAL that this information be verified with sources or removed. Lives may be at stake. I do not feel qualified to change this information, but if someone here is, please fix this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonfire2384 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  DIAGNOSIS Section 

message: given that 60-70% of rcc pateints experience metastasis,i thought a section devoted entirely to metastatic renal cell cancer was war rented,and added it this morning.i have info on the treatment and symptoms of metastatic renal cell carcinoma,and will be adding more information soon.24.97.164.250 (talk) 22:06, 16 December 2009
agree the new section on metastatic renal cell carcinoma is warrented,but why did you not cite any references?169.244.148.235 (talk) 21:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added section on metastatic disease. 

message: addition of anti-IL2 has no appreciable impact on survival in addition to interferon in those with advanced metastatic disease. JFW | T@lk 10:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: IL2 bad

message: I don't see the point of having a separate article with mainly duplicate information already found in the main article. The main article is not of a length justifying a split.Mikael Häggström (talk) 10:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. but it might be worth separating out metastatic renal cell carcinoma instead given the number and evolution of new treatments. Rod57 (talk) 07:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from [[Treatment and prognosis of renal cell carcinoma]] 

message: Rencarex for ccRCC says mAb girentuximab is in phase III trial for clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Rod57 (talk) 23:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Girentuximab for clear cell RCC 

message: There are many confusions between "renal cell carcinoma" that is indeed a very heterogenous tumoral group and "clear cell renal cell carcinoma". It is better to separate each tumoral entity. patho (talk) 16:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion  

message: I think the tables could do with collapsing; as they may make the article a little too overwhelming for the lay people. Thoughts? Fuse809 (talk) 09:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Tables

message: doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00046-X JFW | T@lk 14:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Sadly needs subscription/payment. What does it say ? - Rod57 (talk) 02:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a broad review, as all these seminars are. JFW | T@lk 23:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lancet seminar 

message: Weighing the Options for Progressive Renal Cancer says "Both cabozantinib and nivolumab were superior to everolimus, regardless of the type of disease.
After a patient with RCC progresses on a TKI, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines give four drugs a category 1 recommendation: cabozantinib (Cometriq, Exelixis), nivolumab (Opdivo, Bristol-Myers Squibb), everolimus (Afinitor, Novartis) and axitinib (Inlyta, Pfizer)." - Rod57 (talk) 02:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  New results from trials on progressive RCC 

message: Review of systemic treatment for metastatic disease doi: 10.1056/NEJMra1601333 JFW | T@lk 23:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: NEJM