Talk:Lung cancer

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lung cancer article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 6 months

	Lung cancer is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 18, 2007, and on July 5, 2023.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 22, 2007 Good article nominee Listed August 10, 2007 Peer review Reviewed September 29, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted May 6, 2023 Featured article review Kept Current status: Featured article

This  level-4 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Medicine: Pulmonology Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Pulmonology task force (assessed as Top-importance). Death Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Lung cancer. PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles) The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine. Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

There is a request, submitted by Catfurball, for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia. The rationale behind the request is: "Important".

Hi, I reverted the following edit so that we can work together to ensure the source and material meets Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). Here is the edit: "According to a study for which results were presented at American Society of Clinical Ontology (ASCO), the patients who underwent removal of their tumors and subsequently took a specific drug on daily basis experienced a remarkable reduction in almost 51 percent of death risks.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Lung Cancer Pill Reduces the Death Risk to Half: Clinical Trial Shows |url=https://www.gcatglance.com/2023/06/lung-cancer-pill-reduces-death-risk-to-half.html |access-date=2023-06-05}}</ref>" JenOttawa (talk) 13:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not, even news orgs such as BBC are not considered reliable for medical information. Besides, according to WP:MEDRES, single medical studies are almost never reliable. Ca ^{talk to me!} 00:45, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The actual edit of 10:55, 5 June 2023 of a now-defunct mirror of what is apparently an Al Jazeera article - not even a specialist medical news source - included interesting information, but was more or less a paraphrase and too vague, the source text title was a bit clickbaity, and was based on a conference presentation, not a peer-reviewed research article. The substance of the article would appear to justify updates (at least) to osimertinib and non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), if there are solid sources and if the wording is appropriate. There is this Nature Communications paper on the role of specific genes and this AAAS paper arguing that by identifying EGFR and p53 genetic mutations, the question of which patients will be effectively treated will be more accurately identified (with apparently having-smoked-NSCLC patients being more likely to be successfully treated, though I just scanned quickly). There's a July 2024 Astrazeneca press release (apparently prepared by a "communications specialist" who doesn't understand URLs and just pointed vaguely to the NEJM home page) about EU approval for tagrisso/osimertinib following FLAURA2 Phase III trial results. Per three related NEJM publications (research paper, editorial, correspondence): this Nov 2023 NEJM editorial says that for advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) that has epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations ... FLAURA was an important third trial that moved osimertinib to the first line of treatment by showing delayed resistance and improved clinical outcomes; progression-free survival was 18.9 months, and overall survival was 38.6 months in the non-paywalled context part of the abstract; the Planchard+2024 research paper itself concludes that First-line treatment with osimertinib–chemotherapy led to significantly longer progression-free survival than osimertinib monotherapy among patients with EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC and followup NEJM correspondence doubt[s] that up-front combination therapy is better than sequential treatment. I would suggest starting with properly worded and sourced edits on osimertinib and non-small-cell lung cancer. Boud (talk) 11:22, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So Wikipedia has numerous articles already converting to a semi-protective format and this one, containing sensitive topics, should be no exception. 172.74.203.83 (talk) 13:40, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IP 172, the page has been semi-protected for the next day. For the future, the place to request protection is WP:RFPP. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:07, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ajpolino can you check these citations? I thought it odd that the page ranges on the two are identical, and wonder if that's a typo?

• Christiani DC, Amos CI (2022). "Lung Cancer: Epidemiology". In Broaddus C, Ernst JD, King TE, et al. (eds.). Murray & Nadel's Textbook of Respiratory Medicine (7th ed.). Elsevier. pp. 1018–1028.
• Massion PP, Lehman JM (2022). "Lung Cancer: Molecular Biology and Targets". In Broaddus C, Ernst JD, King TE, et al. (eds.). Murray & Nadel's Textbook of Respiratory Medicine (7th ed.). Elsevier. pp. 1018–1028.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent eyes! A typo indeed. I'm sure I copied the template to get the book info and forgot to update the page range. Thank you for catching my mistake. Ajpolino (talk) 14:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds jut like something I would do :) bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]