Talk:Brain tumor

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 July 2019 and 3 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Carolyngeraci. Peer reviewers: 2019MMM.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Lancet review article

Primary brain tumours in adults.

Ricard D, Idbaih A, Ducray F, Lahutte M, Hoang-Xuan K, Delattre JY.

Lancet. 2012 May 26;379(9830):1984-96. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61346-9. Epub 2012 Apr 16. Review.

PMID:22510398

--Nbauman (talk) 11:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

which bit of hype should I believe?

• "The most commonly used treatment for brain tumors; the tumor is irradiated with beta, x rays or gamma rays."
• "The primary and most desired course of action described in medical literature is surgical removal."

I can imagine someone consulting this article in a serious way would be somewhat confused by the two statements above. Although I suppose it's vaguely possible that they are both true, I'm not actually sure what these sentences mean. It would be great if someone could clarify (and perhaps add some citations). Arided (talk) 11:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

"Pregnancy with unknown headache"

is an "alarm signal" in the table at "signs & Symptoms". Something missing? Johnbod (talk) 14:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Points from Prof RR talk

Many types, 140+ - remarkable for one organ. All hard to treat. Most occur in glial tissues. G-blastoma, worst, highly dispersive even when very small, resistant to chemo and radio, good at fooling immune system. BBB generally makes chemo difficult. Median survival now c 14 mths - vs 6-8 wks if untreated. Little change since 2008. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 17:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Cancer Research UK review

As with the other reviews listed below, I asked a CRUK specialist to do an initial review, the idea being to sort out basic points out in the article before sending the article for review by other outside specialists. I was hoping this would give the medical editing community enough to go on to start serious work on the article. The reviewer here was the same as for lung cancer (an FA), and she was struck by the much poorer quality and randomness of this in comparison. We agreed that sizeable parts of the article should just be cut, or at the least entirely rewritten. In contrast to User:Axl & lung cancer, the article doesn't seem to have a "primary carer" beyond the indefatigable monitoring of JMH & JDW. In these circumstances, I won't write up the notes here. If anyone wants to help upgrade the article, please let me know, & I can communicate as is most convenient. I think much of it will have to be redone from scratch. The other reviews are at Talk:Lung_cancer#CRUK_review, Talk:Esophageal_cancer#Initial_review_by_CRUK and Talk:Pancreatic_cancer#Initial_review_by_CRUK. Thanks again to everyone who has helped, but there is plenty more to be done. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 16:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Articles

• (see Lancet 2012 above)
• Management of malignant gliomas and primary CNS lymphoma: standard of care and future directions.
• http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2013/08/06/the-fearsome-complexity-of-classifying-brain-tumours/

Wiki CRUK John (talk) 11:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Short and sweet clinical review from Clinical review of brain tumours: diagnosis and management, By Dr Frank Saran et al, The Royal Marsden (NHS and Private Care), July 2014. Not I think MEDRS-compliant - doesn't seem to be peer-reviewed, but handy for up-to-date sources etc. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 11:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

As part of a course on improving Wikipedia's health literature, some of my peers and I are looking to make edits to improve this article. I realize you were looking into this article years ago, however if you still have any ideas on improving the article we'd love to hear them. Silvestc (talk) 19:06, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm. Nothing very useful, I suspect, as the article has changed considerably, and I hope improved, in the intervening 4.5 years. This one rather defeated me, I must say, partly because of the diversity of types made useful general statements hard to pin down. Good luck! Johnbod (talk) 21:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Listing films

IMO is undue weight thus removed

"*Mobilize: A Film About Cell Phone Radiation (2014) documentary film about ongoing research on non-ionizing radiation and certain cancers" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, linked from Mobile phone radiation and health, which is enuf. Johnbod (talk) 12:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

You might want to include this one. J Negat Results Biomed. 2015 Dec 23;14:23. doi: 10.1186/s12952-015-0043-7. Mobile phone use and risk for intracranial tumors. Alexiou GA1, Sioka C2. Free PMC Article. --Nbauman (talk) 21:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

non-cancer tumors

Is it possible for someone to die from a tumor which is not cancerous? Wondering Category:Deaths from brain tumor should necessarily be a subcategory of Category:Deaths from cancer by type or not. Ranze (talk) 03:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:28, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Especially if untreated, but yes. I can't see (to my surprise) that the article actually makes this basic point. I would leave it in the category myself though. Johnbod (talk) 16:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Add info about who discovered brain cancer first.

Sources:

- http://www.answers.com/Q/How_did_gupta_longati_discover_brain_cancer - http://web.archive.org/web/20150225220724/http://discovery.yukozimo.com/who-discovered-brain-cancer/ - http://health.stackexchange.com/questions/1022/when-was-brain-cancer-first-discovered

"It’s not that hard to answer the question of who discovered brain cancer – this breakthrough is credited to Gupta Longati, a Russian scientist, who discovered the disease in 1873."

We need to find the reliable sources and add the entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenorb (talk • contribs) 10:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Anticoagulation and risk of haemorrhage

Cerebral metastases are okay, gliomas not doi:10.1111/jth.13387 JFW | T@lk 16:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Diesel exhaust

Lethal doses of Diesel exhaust, especially by locomotives from living near a train yard, should be placed as a probable cause of brain cancer.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080311075339.htmEssereio (talk) 22:36, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@Essereio: Thanks for finding and sharing this reference! However, I disagree with your conclusions, for two reasons.

First, if you are subjected to "lethal doses of diesel exhaust", you are expected to die fairly directly with a fairly high probability, without having time for the development of brain tumours. (That is the ordinary sense of the term lethal dose.) I think you mix this up a bit. Often, substance exposition or radiation may increase the risks for the development of various forms of cancer at doses far below the "lethal doses", and I suppose that this is what you think also holds for diesel exhausts.

Second, it is possible that in fact there is an increased risk for developing brain tumours, if you are subjected to repeated small (non-lethal) doses of diesel exhausts, but the article you quote does not say this. The experiment described in the article showed that people's EEG changed in manners correlated to whether or not they were exposed to (small) diesel exhaust doses. The quoted scientist guessed that this had to do with nanoparticles from the exhausts passing into the brain. He also speculated about the possibility that this could lead to oxidation processes in the brain, which in their turn are considered to be related to some degenerative diseases. Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases were mentioned; but brain cancer (which is not a degenerative disease of this sort) was not. (The problem with a degenerative disease is that you effectively loose some stuff in the brain, which you do need, because the tissue 'degenerates'. The primary problem with brain tumours is the converse: Some stuff you really do not need is added.) Aside from these speculations, which indeed were just presented as such, there was also one more positive conclusion, namely, that more research into these matters is needed.

Thus, the source cannot be used for any purpose in this article. There might be slightly better reasons to consider it for the Alsheimer and Parkinson articles; but I think that the speculation was too far from conclusions for this particular study to have any relevance there, either. Other investigations about nanoparticles passing the brain barrier might be relevant there, on the other hand. Your source noted in passing that such studies indeed have been conducted. JoergenB (talk) 22:14, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

We need good sources per WP:MEDRS. The source you list is more popular press. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:18, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Journal with impact factor of zero

"Factors associated with a lower than expected rate of brain tumours include allergies, atopic conditions, chickenpox and varicella zoster virus infection. The reason for this below average risk is not known.'"

This claim is also extraordinary. Would want a better source.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:14, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

All the claims are supported by references elsewhere. The negative association with atopy has been known for years. The others I was not aware of until I checked the references. Looks legit Virion123 (talk) 19:37, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Here are two more:

Wang H, Diepgen TL (2006) Atopic dermatitis and cancer risk. Br J Dermatol 154(2):205-210:

Harding NJ, Birch JM, Hepworth SJ, McKinney PA (2008) Atopic dysfunction and risk of central nervous system tumours in children. Eur J Cancer 44(1):92-99

The decreased risk seems low but statistically significant. Hard to know what to make of this but this negative association appears to be real. Virion123 (talk) 19:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Moving classification/types to its own section?

Hi all. The diagnosis section is quite cluttered, and I believe the classification and types subheadings under it should be merged into their own section. It makes more sense to first define the different classifications/types of brain tumors, and then move into how they are diagnosed. Furthermore, the subheading itself is disorganized and missing some information and linking (ie. tumor grading scale?), and would benefit from becoming its own section. I suggest it is placed just before diagnosis. #macbhsc2019 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silvestc (talk • contribs) 16:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Patient-centered editing workplan

Hello everyone, I am a medical student enrolled in the Osmosis Wikipedia editing course for the next month. I plan to improve this article by making the following changes - comments and suggestions are welcome!

General

I intend to focus on the aspects of a brain tumor that would be important to a patient who wants to learn about their disease. I will therefore focus my efforts on the introduction, signs and symptoms, diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment sections. I will edit the entire article for clarity, eliminate/explain unnecessary medical jargon, and add links to other wikipedia pages, and check references for reliability.

Introduction section

elaborate on benign tumors

explain/elaborate on signs and symptoms

explain what a metastatic tumor is

Signs/Symptoms section

edit for clarity, eliminate medical jargon

Cause section

check references for completeness and reliability of sources

Diagnosis section

edit for clarity, eliminate medical jargon

add references and links, especially in imaging and pathology section

Prognosis section

expand beyond medulloblastoma and glioblastoma multiforme

ensure that every type of brain tumor is linked to its appropriate wikipedia page (so patients can click through to learn more about their specific tumor) Carolyngeraci (talk) 04:36, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

The article certainly could do with improvement, but please remember that our medical content is not intended to be specifically patient-centred, but to cater for a wide range of audiences. There are other good cancer sites that are professionally designed for patients or (very often) their relatives, and take them gently though the basic concepts at a length that would not be appropriate here. Much "medical jargon" is necessary, though explaining it can be good. Please also remember you are writing for a global audience, and cannot assume they have access to American healthcare. We could certainly do with more on the less common types of tumours, not all of which seem even to be linked (many don't have articles at all I think). Johnbod (talk) 15:30, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Smoking

Cigarette Smoking should be placed as a risk factor and possible cause of brain cancer. https://www.medicinenet.com/brain_cancer/article.htm#do_cell_phones_cause_brain_cancer https://www.webmd.com/cancer/brain-cancer/brain-cancer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:DD50:8C00:2C5E:46F0:9B20:E4E1 (talk) 10:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Lack of sleep

Is it true that lack of sleep produces brain tumours and, if so, should this be included in the article? 69.165.158.169 (talk) 00:55, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Anybody? Nobody...?69.165.158.169 (talk) 14:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

"Non-fungible organ"?

This sentence in the article summary really threw me, it reads like a non-sequitur:

"Since the brain is the body's only non-fungible organ, surgery carries a risk of the tumor returning."

What is this actually trying to say? My most generous interpretation is something like, "Unlike cancers in other organs where it's possible to prevent the recurrence of a tumor by removing the entire organ, tumors in the brain can only be treated surgically by removing the tumor itself, which may leave cancerous tissue behind, and thus treatment with surgery alone carries the risk of the tumor returning." I'm hesitant to edit the sentence in-place, however, because I don't know the original intent. AffineAffectation (talk) 11:12, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Another non sequitur? "Since they are usually slow-growing tumors, meningiomas can be quite large by the time symptoms appear". How does the rate of growth affect how big the tumour has to be before it gives you symptoms? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.235.146.162 (talk) 20:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• PMRI of Brain Tumor.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:54, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Tumor cells communicate

@1AmNobody24 what is wrong with the topic of "tumor cells communicate"? Wname1 (talk) 08:03, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

@Wname1 There's nothing wrong with the topic. The problem was with the text you added. It was pretty much a word-to-word copy from a text online, which makes it a copyright violation. Nobody (talk) 11:37, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm new editor

Hi, Im student from Uskudar University. I edit this article (brain tumor) as an assignment for my course (Biotechnology in Neurosciences (NEU547/1)). I already completed Wikipedia training modules to be proficient in Wikipedia editing. I would appreciate any support. Best wishes, lenah al dalati. Lenah aldalati (talk) 20:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Causes section

The Causes section makes some pretty heavy and specific claims based on rather flimsy sourcing. "Approximately 4% of brain cancers...are caused by CT-scan radiation": This is cited to a single retrospective, uncontrolled primary study: . I would want to see a review (at least) for such a specific and frankly extreme claim. "Ionizing radiation to the head as part of treatment for other cancers is also a risk factor for developing brain cancer": The source cited makes no such claim, and in fact only mentions radiation as a treatment for brain cancer (I will remove this statement shortly). "the World Health Organization has classified mobile-phone radiation on the IARC scale into Group 2B – possibly carcinogenic." This is a non-sequitur, and anyway is outdated as it is based on guidelines published in 2011 before modern cellular technology was widespread. The whole section reads as if written by an anti-radiation crank, and deserves scrutiny. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:25, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Not much watching here - I'd go ahead & trim as you think right. Johnbod (talk) 00:08, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request: Add neuroimaging workstation asset and resolve citation needed tag in Diagnosis section

Please add an image and resolve a citation gap in the Diagnosis section.

Replace current paragraph: Brain tumors, when compared to tumors in other areas of the body, pose a challenge for diagnosis... Disruption of the BBB is well imaged via MRI or CT scan, and is therefore regarded as the main diagnostic indicator for malignant gliomas, meningiomas, and brain metastases.[41]

With this updated text (including image and verified source):

Brain tumors, when compared to tumors in other areas of the body, pose a challenge for diagnosis. Commonly, radioactive tracers are uptaken in large volumes in tumors due to the high activity of tumor cells, allowing for radioactive imaging of the tumor. However, most of the brain is separated from the blood by the blood–brain barrier (BBB), a membrane that exerts a strict control over what substances are allowed to pass into the brain. Therefore, many tracers that may reach tumors in other areas of the body easily would be unable to reach brain tumors until there was a disruption of the BBB by the tumor.

A clinical neuroradiology acquisition workstation. Disruption of the blood–brain barrier is assessed by imaging contrast enhancement profiles on cross-sectional CT and MRI slices to differentiate tumor margins from normal brain structures.

Disruption of the BBB is well imaged via MRI or CT scan, and is therefore regarded as the main diagnostic indicator for malignant gliomas, meningiomas, and brain metastases. Goleisureintl (talk) 14:19, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: according to the page's protection level, you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. meamemg (talk) 16:57, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

yes done, thanks appreciate Goleisureintl (talk) 09:42, 27 June 2026 (UTC)