Talk:Acute myeloid leukemia

message: Is full of AML reviews this week here JFW | T@lk 12:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good. An editorial and 5 reviews. The last review (Emerging therapeutic drugs for AML) has summary table and discussion including on phase II results of CP-351 (a liposomal formulation of cytarabine and daunorubicin in a 5:1 molar ratio), Volasertib and many others. Has anyone updated the article based on any of these reviews ? - Rod57 (talk) 15:20, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Blood

message: ... can help doi:10.1111/bjh.13926 JFW | T@lk 11:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cord blood transplant 

message: Acute Myeloid Leukemia: Biologic, Prognostic, and Therapeutic Insights. April 2016 (3 pages) says eg "to date only a few of these biomarkers have been incorporated into outcome-risk classifications. The European LeukemiaNet (ELN) classification, for example, incorporates NPM1 and CEBPA mutations and FLT3 internal tandem duplication (ITD) in an integrated cytogenetic-molecular classification that separates AML patients into four genetic groups: favorable, intermediate I, intermediate II, and adverse.[7,8]" .... "The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) treatment guidelines also use KIT mutations." ... "Thus, we take the position that, if possible, all AML patients should first be evaluated for clinical trials involving novel molecularly targeted therapies incorporated into established chemotherapy regimens" and discusses CPX-351, Polo-like kinase inhibitors eg Volasertib, Selinexor (KPT-330). Also MLN4924 has completed phase 1. - Individualizing Therapeutic Strategies in Acute Myeloid Leukemia: Moving Beyond the ‘One-Size-Fits-All’ Approach. (one page Summary/comment on the review)
Has anyone compared the review to the NEJM and Blood reviews above ? Does it require any changes to this article ? - Rod57 (talk) 14:54, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review in April 2016 Oncology Journal 

message: Review in Blood doi:10.1182/blood-2016-03-674127 JFW | T@lk 11:19, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maintenance therapy 

message: doi:10.1182/blood-2016-08-733196 JFW | T@lk 21:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  European LeukemiaNet recommendations 

message: This article is highly outdated and in need of serious overhaul. Over the past 4 years there have 7 new drug approvals and a re-approval, none of these are mentioned. This statement in the article is glaringly wrong "Long-term survival after a relapse is so rare that the only known case was submitted to the Catholic Church as evidence of a miracle attributed to Marie-Marguerite d'Youville.[95]" there are thousands of long term survivors of relapsed AML. FAB subtypes (other than M3 which is now just refered to as APL) are obsolete and don't inform clinical practice.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.191.83.136 (talk) 22:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Overhaul Needed 

message: Hi all, per the discussion at VP's talk let's see if we can assemble a dream team and spruce up this article. My assessment (for what it's worth) is that the bones are good, it just needs an update. The more thorough the update, the more useful the article will be.  offered to start on signs & symptoms.  and  would you like to claim a section to start, or float around looking for problems for now? I'd like to work on a section, but don't have a preference which one, so I'll happily pick after others.  you didn't promise to sink any of your time into this, but since we had this discussion at your talk page, I felt I should ping you here. You're most welcome here, but if you decide to turn your attention elsewhere we won't be offended. I reset this to a level 2 header, so feel free to post comments, concerns, calls-for-help et al. here. Cheers all! Looking forward to cleaning this up. Ajpolino (talk) 15:43, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I've updated the 'classification' section to use the most recent version of the WHO system. In the meantime I noticed that all the ICD-O links are dead. Anyone know if there is another site we can link to? Spicy (talk) 05:57, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:   please let me know what you think (this is my first major edit to an FA), and if there are changes needed to make my source formatting more appropriate (one source was an online-acccessed textbook). I'm happy to assist in other areas if the situation arises.Tom (LT) (talk) 03:56, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

text:  Also, does anyone have access to this Nature Reviews Diseases Primers about AML?  Tom (LT) (talk) 03:56, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi ! I have access to nature through university, so will email you a PDF. Bibeyjj (talk) 11:47, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I'm not sure I have the time to go through this article in details but just want to add it really does need attention. The number of highly dated statements, primary sources, and simply things that are wrong e.g. "as well as ruling out pernicious anemia (Vitamin B12 deficiency), folic acid deficiency and copper deficiency" in diagnosis is quite concerning. Tom (LT) (talk) 01:35, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

text: I'm not a hematologist, but in general I'm sure it's an excellent source for most things. If a more-recent, more-specific/authoritative source has the sames information, we may occasionally swap out a Hoffbrand's ref for that, since it might be more reliable going forward. Also if we start seeing authoritative sources contradict the material in Hoffbrand's we can reconsider, but I don't foresee that being a problem. Nice work so far folks! Pardon the absence on my part, hoping to squeeze in some time this week. Ajpolino (talk) 15:46, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have to admit this article has piqued my interest. I will chip through pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment sections as well. Tom (LT) (talk) 21:04, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

text:  particularly @. All the sources I consult use the WHO guidelines; it's I think UNDUE and confusing (as a reader) to have both WHO and FAB covered in such prominence. What would be the thoughts about (1) moving everything but a paragraph on FAB to the actual article, and (2) inserting a sentence or two in the history section about it? Tom (LT) (talk) 21:04, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You will still sometimes hear people refer to the FAB classifications and I was taught it in school just a few years ago (though I am not a clinician), but yes, it is not really used anymore. I don't know if *all* of the information should be removed but the intro to the 'Diagnosis' section should make this clearer. I had planned to do this earlier but forgot about it, my apologies.  Will take another look at this soon. Spicy (talk) 23:03, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. In that case I'd be strongly in favour of shortening the FAB section to a paragraph or two at most. The rest of the detail should be placed on the FAB article.Tom (LT) (talk) 06:42, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time for an update 

message: *Would I also be able to have (for the epidemiology section):
*#"Epidemiology and Etiology of AML" (G Juliusson, S Lehmann, V Lazarevic (Acute Myeloid Leukemia, 2021) - a book, I think.
*# "Epidemiology of acute myeloid leukemia: recent progress and enduring challenges" (RM Shallis, R Wang, A Davidoff, X Ma, AM Zeidan - Blood reviews, 2019)?
* Hopeful ping to  :).Tom (LT) (talk) 06:42, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Source requests

message: Based on what I found when looking at the query below, I recommend that this article proceed to FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk)  16:28, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi @ I am happy to help out to try and preserve this as an FA but may need some more specific feedback about the article than you have included below. Tom (LT) (talk) 00:38, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think I have the necessary skills to rebuild this article to FA status; I can't understand most of the article, and don't see how we can get there from here without a cancer person on board. We have organization problems, prose problems, datedness and sourcing problems, and jargon beyond what a layperson can digest.  I'm at a loss. SandyGeorgia (Talk)  07:38, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are you still interested in updating this article? While Sandy might not be able to give specific feedback, I noticed that there are numerous failed verification tags and an update needed banner at the top. Can you proceed with addressing those concerns? Z1720 (talk) 01:53, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Z1720 I can address those but I can only promise within the next three months. I am exceedingly busy off wikipedia at the moment. Tom (LT) (talk) 09:50, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's fine. I just wanted to know if someone was still going to work on this. I won't bring it to FAR and in a couple months I'll ping again if there aren't any edits to the article. Z1720 (talk) 14:54, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Specifically, the Diagnosis section could go to a sub-article and be summarized back to here in plain English.  Updates are needed throughout.  And jargon is a problem; most sections can be written in plain English (recognizing that some sections are very technical by necessity).  My 18-yo niece was diagnosed and died of AML on Thanksgiving Day, during and while I could still get nothing useful from this article to understand the why or how or what was happening to her. Hence, I find this article very hard to comment on without emotion. If not for that, I would take it straight to FAR, actually; we shouldn't be giving leeway on out-of-compliance medical content, and I doubt this article will be restored unless someone can entice  to look in again, or get  and  to bring their clear language talents on board.  Personally, I have too much grief to try to read through the jargon, dated information and unnecessarily complicated tables. SandyGeorgia (Talk)  15:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proceed to FAR 

message: Sorry, probably a dumb question, but at least easily answered: “YK, Canada, Australia and Sweden” - is YK a typo for UK (United Kingdom), or am I unaware of a common abbreviation? I was going to just go “fix it” but wanted to be careful. Remarksman (talk) 15:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a dumb question at all; the Epidemiology section is quite a jumble.  I did a small bit of copyediting, but the section needs to be rewritten.  Thanks for noting that.  SandyGeorgia (Talk)  16:23, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  YK? 

message: In 2022 ELN European LeukemiaNet Released a revised classification by DÖNHER et, al. Please refer to the research article. Dev8174077 (talk) 16:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  ELN Classification of Leukemia