Talk:Lung cancer

Recent edit on a 'lung cancer pill'

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)

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)

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)

Semi-Protection Request

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)

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)

Source query

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)

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)

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