Template talk:Tumors

	This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Medicine: Hematology-oncology This template is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles This template is supported by the Hematology-oncology task force.

Because a malignant tumor may be invasive or metastatic, and metastatic is the more severe condition, the term metastasis is not redundant. Una Smith 23:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now the term metastasis is now on the top row and the bottom row. That needs to be addressed. --Arcadian 00:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. A related small problem: the bottom ("misc") row includes staging/grading, which belongs on the top row with other terms concerning progression. Una Smith 02:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support moving them to the top row. --Arcadian 13:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The title "progression" for the top row is a bit misleading. First, "benign" tumors are not typically part of a "progression" to malignancy (with rare / controversial exceptions). The next term, "premalignant" is not a well-defined biological concept, but it generally includes all the steps in neoplastic progession up until invasive carcinoma, including "carcinoma in situ". Probably a better term for a "premalignant" epithelial neoplasm which is not yet CIS is "dysplasia" - this term is biologically more specific, but at the same time can apply to non-epithelial neoplasms as well (e.g. a dysplastic nevus) (note that I recently proposed the page premalignant to be merged into dysplasia). Obviously "carcinoma in situ" is specific to carcinomas, but I think that is unavoidable & it is an important concept. The next obvious step in the progression would be "invasive cancer" or "invasive malignancy". Why not just link to the familiar term "cancer"? It's a far better developed page than "malignancy", which seems redundant to me, and we could replace cancer in the title with the more general term "neoplasia" (note that not all tumors are neoplasms, and not all neoplasms are tumors, but together, the two terms cover all of the biological entities on this page). Obviously, "metastasis" is the appropriate last step.

So my proposal for the title and first two lines:

Pathology: Tumors, neoplasms, and oncology (C00-D48)

Benign tumors: Hyperplasia - Cyst - Hamartoma - Pseudocyst - Benign neoplasm

Malignant progression: Dysplasia - Carcinoma in situ - Invasive cancer - Metastasis

I think we can remove the wastebasket line "structures", since we'd be taking most of the important terms out of it (polyp and nodule are biologically non-specific terms which seem dispensible to me). If there is a strong desire to leave them in, we could keep the category "structures", including those two terms and the terms I've placed in "Benign tumors" above.-Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 18:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable to me. --Arcadian 19:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template currently protected. Once unprotected, please add vagina to the list of locations. --Una Smith (talk) 16:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Arcadian (talk) 03:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find small italics very hard to read. How about making the subheadings bold instead? Eg, other systems instead of other systems? --Una Smith (talk) 16:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is somewhat of a mismatch between this template and the linked Uterine cancer page. That page lists three general categories of uterine cancers, namely cervical cancer, endometrial cancer, and uterine sarcomas, plus non-cancerous uterine fibroids. However, cervical and endometrial cancers are separately linked from this template. I sought to resolve the issue by changing the link on the template from uterine cancer to uterine sarcoma, but this was reverted. I am happy to concede that I am no expert in this field, so perhaps someone else can suggest a better way of reconciling the two pages. (Also, the editor who noted that uterine cancer looks more like a list than a disambiguation page makes a good point, and should feel free to edit that page accordingly.) --Russ (talk) 11:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, work is needed here, but the correct solution is to expand Uterine cancer, plus remove text about cervical and endometrial cancers. Care to take a stab at it, Russ? --Una Smith (talk) 14:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I suggested above, I am no expert in this area. If I tried to take a stab at it, I would probably do more harm than good. --Russ (talk) 14:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, be bold. For instance, it should not be a disambig page at all. Second, there are other kinds of uterine tumor, not mentioned. Searching PubMed will identify some of them. Third, you can look at some of the other location tumor pages for models to follow. --Una Smith (talk) 14:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template is increasingly not a navbox to tumors by location. Should we trim it back, or expand it (and possibly change its title)? --Una Smith (talk) 16:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's good to have some overview of all similar pages on topic, i added page on Dukes clasification. (SašoM (talk) 15:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]