Talk:Cancer staging

I was referred here from staging (pathology). Important to include a bit about staging non-malignant conditions, such as autoimmune disease. Staging does not only apply to cancer. People redirected here when their doctor talks about staging may be misled into thinking they have cancer. Medgeek (talk) 05:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

I think the principle article should be staging (pathology) with a subsection on its role in cancer (which will obviously be large). Medgeek (talk) 05:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

I withdraw my remark Mikebar 08:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

The TNM system is currently listed twice - should probably be consolidated Mikebar 07:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

It still is. Needs fixing.—MDCollins (talk) 00:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

What about bone cancers? They aren't listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.254.153.2 (talk) 00:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

hello my name is .... I do not have cancer at this time but I did have melanoma cancer 3 years ago.I was staged at level 3-4. But I am not writing today about me. My mother,had a chest x-ray about 4 weeks ago, and they saw a mass in one of her lungs. They then did a bronch test and it came out negative. Our Doctor thank god choose to do a PET scan which lit the mass up in her lung. She is set to have a CT Biopsy this coming up Wednesday. Yesterday, since I work in the Radiology Department, I had one of the Radiologist set down with me and we looked over X-ray in my mothers file. The tummor is about the size of a golfball and it looks bad, Even tho I know that nothing is in postive till we get the path report back from the biopsy. Anyway we are now starting now the path of being a cancer survior for my mother. I would like to have support so please write me.

yes, i think they should be merged —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.164.160.4 (talk) 23:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

“a cancer may also be designated as recurrent, meaning that it has appeared again after being ❶in remission or after ❷all visible tumor has been eliminated”
What's the difference between the ❶ and the ❷? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaborgulya (talk • contribs) 07:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cancer staging. 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/20120731073425/http://choosingwisely.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/5things_12_factsheet_Amer_Soc_Clin_Onc.pdf to http://choosingwisely.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/5things_12_factsheet_Amer_Soc_Clin_Onc.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100718150647/http://chorus.rad.mcw.edu/doc/00955.html to http://chorus.rad.mcw.edu/doc/00955.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 04:29, 14 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cancer staging. 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/20090122085652/http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/help/default.asp?page=4040 to http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/help/default.asp?page=4040
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081216142730/http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/help/default.asp?page=5606 to http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/help/default.asp?page=5606

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 04:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

This series of edits by an anonymous editor added bolded blank lines, nonstandard list bullets, random double spaces between words, no heading level hierarchy, and other wiki-formatting errors. It also used a writing style like a textbook or technical guide, and used no inline citations to references. For these reasons, it is likely to be a copy and paste from a PDF or other document format. If so, I propose it be reverted per WP:COPYVIO. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 03:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

I agree - this appears to be a definite WP:COPYVIO. The original source is available here (paywalled) or in part here. Duplication Detector comparison. I propose that these edits are reverted but it will take some work to do this due to intervening edits. Go82102 (talk) 23:18, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

The "Current research" section appears to put undue emphasis on one particular research topic, with no other topics discussed. It makes it sound like it was written by a researcher who works in this area who added their own research to the page. It also is not cited at all. If the current research section is going to be kept, it should be broadened to include more general aspects of current research, and should have sources added. Otherwise it should be removed, do others agree? Sbrools (talk) 18:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)Reply