Talk:Endometrial cancer

In premenopausal women who are not on birth control, the cause of endometrial cancer is overwhelmingly most likely to be lack of periods -- either significantly fewer periods than normal or completely absent periods. This causes a buildup of the uterine lining (endometrium) over time, and is known as endometrial hyperplasia. You first need to have endometrial hyperplasia to get endometrial cancer, yet most cases of endometrial hyperplasia will not become cancerous. Is this correct? 2601:98A:480:C080:289C:A68F:6403:3EFF (talk) 06:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Refs over one line or many

Most people prefer them over one line thus I would request that User:Headbomb revert his edits here [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Belated points

• The Sasa et al 2011 BMJ review says "Two investigations are mandatory in women with suspected endometrial cancer: a transvaginal ultrasound scan and an endometrial biopsy." Article currently says "Transvaginal ultrasound to examine the endometrial thickness in women with postmenopausal bleeding is increasingly being used to aid in the diagnosis of endometrial cancer." which is rather different. If this a national difference between guidelines we should indicate so.
  • Yep, that appears to be a trans-Atlantic thing, since Hoffman et al. is an American textbook (as far as I can tell). I've clarified the difference in the text now. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 00:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Done Wiki CRUK John (talk) 10:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
• Sasa et al sets out a trans-Atlantic difference re surgery. Article: "Lymphadenectomy, or removal of pelvic and para-aortic lymph nodes, is performed for tumors of grade II or above." Sasa (in FIGO stage 1): "The subject of pelvic lymphadenectomy is disputed across the Atlantic. In the UK, pelvic lymphadenectomy is not routinely performed along with total abdominal hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy in women with stage I disease. This stance is supported by a Cochrane Collaboration review, ... In the United States, however, the opposite applies and pelvic lymphadenectomy is routinely performed alongside total abdominal hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. A large retrospective observational study ....". Is Sasa out of date? Maybe expand coverage somewhat?
  • @Wiki CRUK John: I think part of the issue here is that that particular sentence is referring to the histologic grade of the tumor instead of the stage. I've added a sentence about the trans-Atlantic difference between pelvic lymphadenectomy as it relates to staging, in any case. Does that look okay? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 00:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, mixed the 2 up, not for the first time. Your changes cover this point & the last point nicely. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 11:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• The ESMO Guidelines (Colombo, Preti et al) apparently were revised in 2013, see here, beyond the 2011 version now cited. Don't know what changes.

@Wiki CRUK John: Hey, so I incorporated all the new information from the 2013 version, but there were two pieces of information included in the previous one that weren't in the latest version. Do you think they can stay, or should I remove them? Thanks, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 02:44, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

• I could rewrite the epidemiology section from the latest World Cancer Report 2014, which has more info, but I'm reluctance to mix and match with what is there - eg the WCR uses "North America" not US, and so on.

@Wiki CRUK John: Hi again, I incorporated all this information. It's not terribly well written yet but that will happen soon. :) Thanks for all these comments! Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

More later, plus I hope soon by others here (these are just me). Wiki CRUK John (talk) 14:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Lead image

The "c blausen" needs to be removed from the image Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

@Jmh649: Unfortunately, I have approximately 0 photoshop skills.... I could give it a shot but it would probably involve MS Paint... Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 15:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

My dad loves doing this sort of stuff. Let me see if I can convince him. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I managed to do it with paint. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Jmh649: You are fantastic! Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 13:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

CRUK review

I have had the feedback on this now, and have a marked-up print out. In general it was thought pretty good, and these are relatively minor points. I think I'll just make the smaller changes re wording etc myself now, but do say if there are any you have problems with. Then I'll list more complex things here. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 15:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

• Ok, done that here -[2]
• "Risk factors" - was thought too short - [me] I think this means not enough on age, but this is below in the epidemiology section, as we usually do it. I wonder if it might be better to move it up to here though -seems more logical.
  • Hmm, I've heard both sides - epidemiology AND risk factors. I don't know what the standard is and I don't want to be repetitive, do you have an idea for how to deal with that?
• "A 1-2 year course of tamoxifen approximately doubles the risk of endometrial cancer, and a 5-year course of therapy quadruples that risk" - true but thought a bit scary for tamoxifen-takers - basic risk is fairly low. Ideally start this section with what overall risk is.
  • Done - lifetime risk of 2-3% is now the lead sentence.
• Pathophysiology was not checked, nor I think Epidemiology
• "Diagnosis" - mention blood tests for CA125"
  • Done.
• "Add-on therapy" (is this a common term?) Take Chemo/radio etc bits a bit slower to make the different options rather clearer: single/combined, before/after. Maybe divide up the section.
  • It's technically called "adjuvant therapy" but we tried to simplify the language a little. I've added both names and cleaned up the pacing a little. Better?
• "Mutations in mismatch repair genes can lead to resistance against platins." - explain this means chemo won't work for those with certain genetics.
  • Done.
• "high-risk" & "early-stage" could be explained
  • I glossed the first instances of both, should I explain it every time?
• Para beginning "Hormonal therapy is" reads as a bit contradictory, though factually correct: "most cases" vs. "25%". Maybe reword.
  • I've beat on it a little, and I think it sucks less.
• PARP inhibitors are new, and not often used in UK.
  • Yeah they are, I've added some more information from recent reviews.
• "Research" could do with expanding - there are other things mentioned on the CRUK page.
  • I've incorporated all of that! Thanks for pointing me there!

That's it. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 16:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Technically term is "adjunctive therapy". I have heard it referred to as "add on therapy" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you SO MUCH for this review! I could not be more grateful. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Endometrial cancer/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kirill Lokshin (talk · contribs) 11:03, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The prose is good, but a bit dense in places, although this is to be expected for a topic of this nature. The statistics in the fourth paragraph in the "Pathophysiology" section (beginning with "Type I and type II cancers...") are difficult to follow in prose form; perhaps moving them to a table would improve the flow?
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	No issues with any of the style guidelines.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Appropriate references are provided, all of which appear to meet the requirements of WP:MEDRS.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Good use of citations throughout. The citation density varies significantly between sections (for example, while most sections average one citation per 1–3 sentences, the "Endometrioid adenocarcinoma" section has one citation per paragraph); while this is not necessarily a problem, it's unclear whether it was done deliberately.
	2c. it contains no original research.	All of the material appears to be appropriately derived from reliable secondary sources.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Good coverage of the various elements of the topic. I note that an expert review by CRUK has not identified any significant deficiencies in coverage.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Generally well-focused, although certain sections ("Risk factors", "Pathophysiology") go into greater detail than others ("Classification").
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No neutrality issues.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No stability issues.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images appear to be appropriately tagged; no fair-use images are present.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Good use of images throughout. Some of the image alignments behave oddly on lower screen resolutions, particularly in the "Staging" section; I would suggest not mixing gallery and floating image alignments within the same section.
	7. Overall assessment.	Overall, an excellent article that covers the topic well and is understandable by someone without a medical background. I recommend focusing on prose quality and flow, as well as expanding some of the shorter sections, to further enhance the article before a potential FAC.

Hiding refs in the lead

Not sure why? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

@Jmh649: Discussion with reviewers at FAC, they said it was intimidating. I don't have strong feelings either way. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 14:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you provide a link? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

@Jmh649: here, I thought that was just a proposal for MEDMOS for now? Or has that changed? I can't keep up with all of this.... Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 18:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

See also section

1. These are not recommended in high quality articles per WP:MEDMOS
2. Terms that are already in an article should not be in a see also section per WP:SEE ALSO

Thus removed this section. Let me know if I have missed anything.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Endometrial cancer for Today's Featured Article

I've set-up Endometrial cancer as a blurb for the Today's Featured Article requests process.

You can see it at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Endometrial cancer.

However, as I myself have nominated a bunch of other articles lately, I won't actually transclude it at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests.

If anyone else wishes to do so, they can follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests, and then a discussion will start as to the article's consideration for the Main Page.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 01:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Primary sources

Have moved this here "Heart disease is the most common cause of death among endometrial cancer survivors . Obesity does not seem to play a role in prognosis of early stage endometrial cancer survivors ."

As it is supported by primary sources.

This secondary source disagrees that obesity does not affect prognosis in survivors.[3] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:33, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

@Doc James: Hey, thanks for picking up on that. I don't remember adding that, but I also have only consumed one coffee this morning. Since the secondary source is from 2009 and the research is from 2012, I could put that sentence in #Research as something like "2012 research showed that heart disease was the most common cause of death among endometrial cancer survivors, though this relationship has not been confirmed." How does that sound? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 15:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Wasn't your edit. Have added back a bit of it. Feel free to remove that two though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

References

Review by SandyGeorgia

Sourcing

Resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I don't want to litter an FA with tags, but book sources need page numbers. This source is cited dozens of times, with no page nos. Hoffman, BL; Schorge, JO; Schaffer, JI; Halvorson, LM; Bradshaw, KD; Cunningham, FG, eds. (2012). "Endometrial Cancer". Williams Gynecology (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill. ISBN 978-0-07-171672-7. I mentioned this on the other page but I had been using an electronic copy that doesn't have page numbers; I just bought the hard copy and will be adding pages this afternoon (final paper due today, after that's done). Keilana|Parlez ici 16:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC) Just to clarify, I know this goes up in like 8 hours and I will have page numbers before then. Paper is due in an hour and a half and I need to go finish that. I'll check back then. Keilana|Parlez ici 16:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC) Keilana I am not suggesting you must do it before TFA (just concerned generally that things like this are getting though FAC). Please focus on your paper first! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC) Paper is done (8 whole minutes before the deadline!) and no more exams today so I do have time to get this finished. :) Keilana|Parlez ici 18:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC) This citation (and other web sources) is incomplete (date, volume, accessdate, etc) Committee on Health Care for Underserved Women (December 2011). "Health Care for Transgender Individuals". American Committee for Obstetrics and Gynecology. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC) It's got a date (December 2011) and I hadn't realized it had a PMID. Should be better now. Keilana|Parlez ici 16:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Prose

Done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In the United States, white women have a higher survival rate than Black women, who tend to develop more aggressive forms of the disease. Not sure why white is lower case, Black upper, and should the term African American be used instead? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC) White was a typo, and since the source said "Black", I'm hesitant to assume African-American women only; that could include Caribbean-American women etc. They didn't specify what constituted "Black". Keilana|Parlez ici 16:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

LEAD

Done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
See Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/December 9, 2014 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC) Working on the blurb now. I'd add this query about the fourth para of the lead: " It is more common in the developed world[4] and is the most common cancers of the female reproductive tract in developed countries." Is there a missing word ("one of the most common cancers) or should it be "the most common cancer"? BencherliteTalk 16:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC) @Bencherlite: That's a typo, it's the most common cancer. Keilana|Parlez ici 16:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC) Are we done here now? If so, please feel free to hat/hab? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Birth control clarification

Done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:07, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The lead says: Whereas taking estrogen alone increases the risk of endometrial cancer, taking both estrogen and progesterone in combination, as in most birth control pills, decreases the risk. I cannot find that in the first citation given, and the second is not an online source. The body of the article says: Progestin is present in the combined oral contraceptive pill and the hormonal intrauterine device (IUD). Combined oral contraceptives reduce risk more the longer they are taken: by 56% after 4 years, 67% after 8 years, and 72% after 12 years. This risk reduction continues for at least 15 years after contraceptive use has been stopped. And the sources given for this section are different than those used in the lead. One says: Risk factors include postmenopausal estrogen therapy, ... and nothing about 15 years, and nothing about combined vs. solo therapy, and nothing with those risk numbers at all. (That is, the text doesn't seem to be cited, doesn't seem to agree with the lead). This stands out to me because combo therapy is controversial; some ob/gyns and endocrinologists give progesterone and estrogen separately. This needs to be sorted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC) So in the NCI PDQ summary, it says this: "Based on solid evidence, at least 1 year’s use of oral contraceptives containing estrogen and progesterone decreases endometrial cancer risk, proportionate to duration of use. This benefit lasts at least 15 years after cessation.[1,2] Magnitude of Effect: Use of oral contraceptives for 4 years reduced risk by 56%, 8 years by 67%, and 12 years by 72%.". That's where the 15 years is coming from and it seems to be cited to the correct page in the article. And since it says "containing estrogen and progesterone", I think that clarifies the combined therapy. Combo therapy is not really controversial, you can give separate estrogen and progesterone pills or have them in the same pill, what matters for endometrial cancer is whether the estrogen therapy is unopposed by progesterone or not. I think we covered the "most birth control pills" thing elsewhere. Keilana|Parlez ici 16:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC) OK, that info clears it up, but ... I'm not getting that text at all from the link given in the citation.[4] I have now found it, and it looks like you meant to link to page 2 ?? [5] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC) Yep, definitely meant to link it to page 2. Should be sorted now. Keilana|Parlez ici 18:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Another (related) matter

Done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Probably best taken up at WT:MED, but I don't know why the FA menstrual cycle is linked nowhere in this article, relative to the c-class menstruation, which is linked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 8 December 2014 (UTC) Never mind, found it and fixed the link to avoid redirect. (There is a toolbox on FACs to check for redirects.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC) Could you show me that tool? I'm not familiar with it and it sounds super useful. Keilana|Parlez ici 18:43, 8 December 2014 (UTC) I've installed them at the top of this page (you can use them on any article), but I suspect that all of the tools in the box aren't working as they used to. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC) That's nifty! It's not showing any more weird redirects, just what redirects to this article. Thank you! Keilana|Parlez ici 19:23, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Endometriosis

This is at endometriosis:

• Despite similarities in their name and location, endometriosis bears no relationship to endometrial cancer.

Is it worthy of mention here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I think this is adequately addressed with the section on endometrial hyperplasia but I wouldn't be opposed to a hatnote or something. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 16:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

References

Should we choose a less disturbing image for the Main Page?

See also: WP:NOTCENSORED and the Main Page

I was somewhat nauseated by the appearance of this bloody medical photograph, which appears as the first image on the main page today. Should we display a different image from this article on the Main Page? Jarble (talk) 06:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I would choose a micrograph. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't really see an issue with the current picture. --Guerillero | My Talk 07:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Accuracy is great, but I agree - maybe a little too real — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.88.35.154 (talk) 08:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I believe in drawing people to an article, not driving them away with disturbing imagery. I'm a cancer survivor so I know how ugly this disease can be but many people are going to be unsettled by the bloody image and it seems a poor choice.Rob Banzai (talk) 19:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes we should have done for the main age, and probably should still change it. Apart from anything else, like most such images it doesn't really convey anything much to those not medically trained. I don't believe in micrographs as lead pics either, for the same reason; these only convey anything to pathologists etc, and we rarely explain them at all. In a case like this a diagram showing where the endometrium is (not exactly common knowledge) is usually the best choice. But I have some potential COI, as many of such images are CRUK releases, though far from all. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 14:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot we have a very decent Blausen diagram as the actual lead pic in the article. It was a mistake not to use that or similar on the TFA blub. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 14:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Moved this here

"Neither endometrial biopsy nor dilation and curettage is sufficiently accurate to rule out endometrial carcinoma."

I have read parts of the paper and unable to find the bit that supports this?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@Doc James: I don't remember adding this, since I don't format citations like that. I think whoever added that was looking at: "Several methods of endometrial sampling are used in the different studies and over time. Although some authors have reported similar diagnostic capability of different techniques,47 other authors found that the risk of cancer for women who had a biopsy was different to those who had a dilation and curettage 14,48 or hysteroscopic resection.", "In this study, patients with AEH who had a biopsy rather than hysterectomy showed a benign outcome." Williams Gyn says "As an alternative to sonography, Pipelle office biopsy or outpatient dilatation and curettage (D&C) may be initially selected for evaluation of abnormal bleeding (Merisio, 2005). Grossly, hyperplastic endometrium is not distinctive, and thus, direct visual identification using hysteroscopy is inaccurate (Garuti, 2006)." and "Office Pipelle biopsy is preferred for the initial evaluation of women with bleeding suspicious for malignancy (Feldman, 1993). However, if sampling techniques fail to provide sufficient diagnostic information or if abnormal bleeding persists, D&C may be required to clarify the diagnosis (Gordon, 1999)."

Since the source given doesn't really support the statement (I read the whole study, very interesting), as it really just says that rates of carcinoma found on hysterectomy after a biopsy finds abnormal endometrial hyperplasia, I've removed that sentence. Thanks for pointing this out! Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 18:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes was added here [6] Waiting for User:Akram1988 to justify the addition. Doc James (talk · contribs · email)

User:Akram1988 the ref says that in those with a precancerous lesion these do not exclude cancer. It does not say they do not exclude cancer in those with no precancerous lesion. Also please use secondary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Thombocytosis and hyperglycaemia

The new NICE guideline for suspected cancer (http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/NG12, page 160-166 of the full guideline) discusses warning signs for endometrial cancer and when to perform gynaecological ultrasound. In women over 55 USS is suggested in those with unexplained vaginal discharge (when presenting de novo or if associated with thrombocytosis or hyperglycaemia) or those with haematuria (associated with either anaemia or thrombocytosis or hyperglycaemia). This is largely based on doi:10.3399/bjgp13X671632 which itself is a primary source. Worth discussing the relevance of these features? JFW | T@lk 14:03, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Lancet seminar

doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00130-0 Might be useful to match this with the current content. JFW | T@lk 13:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Endometrial cancer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091011041843/http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/CRI_2_3x.asp?dt=11 to http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/CRI_2_3x.asp?dt=11

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)