Talk:Cholangiocarcinoma

(null header)

Recintly, cholangiocarcinoma was associated with HBV or HCV infection. Wikipedia should be changed the expresion in this part.

could you please provide (Medline) references backing your claim? StephP 00:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. MastCell 21:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

How do you pronounce this??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.21.53 (talk) 11:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

minor addition, some surgeons do ERCP

See this ad for a consultant surgeon's position. Surgeons may do ERCP at this hospital. [[1]]. Where I trained, a few general surgeons did ERCP. I also know of a U.S. surgery fellowship that has a fair amount of ERCP experience. I do agree that many general surgeons do not do ERCP. There are probably quite a few gastroenterologists that don't do many or any.VK35 20:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Good point; I've definitely known surgeons who perform them, and many GI docs don't do ERCP's as they're a pretty specialized procedure. MastCell ^Talk 22:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info; where I'm at ERCP is 100% done by gastroenterologists, didn't know gen surgeons were doing them. Fuzbaby (talk) 15:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

History

Could use a section on history.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

present?

The verb to present is a rather formal/jargon verb for use in the opening paragraph of a general encyclopedia imo. Could we find a more everyday way of putting that? IceDragon64 (talk) 13:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I took a shot at making the language a bit more accessible. Thanks for the feedback. MastCell ^Talk 16:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Greek word

Carcinoma is a pure greek word. --91.140.54.111 (talk) 16:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Free images

Images for the article: doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040201.g004. --Snek01 (talk) 18:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Updated British guidelines

doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2011-301748 JFW | T@lk 23:09, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Review

doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2013.10.013 - Gastroenterology. JFW | T@lk 14:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Notable victims section

I agree with the removal of the section. It's at best it's the stuff of personal interest stories, not something noteworthy for an encyclopedia. Further, there's no inclusion criteria that demonstrates it is neutral in any way. --Ronz (talk) 17:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

And I would say KeepThe inclusion criteria is that the persons on the list are a-noteworthy for some reason and B-They died from the disease-(and that fact has been referenced by a reliable source(s)). I'm not understanding what this has to do with NPOV, (mentioned in the edit summary for the reversal and elsewhere, and again here)--I really don't see anything that could appear biased here so I'd appreciate if a there is a bias here that someone could point it out for me.

Also-another entire section being blanked. Why shouldn't an encyclopedia contain personal interest content? Not that I agree that that section is only personal interest content. For readers interested in the article topic, I would think that having that information could only help someone. By including the real names of well-known persons who were affected by a disease, a reader could use that information to seek-out the answers to questions that they might have after reading the article. I cannot think of anything more "neutral" than that. Including facts that a reader can use for their own purposes whether they have a personal interest or not. Making a judgement about what the reader's purpose is seems to be the biased choice in my opinion.24.0.133.234 (talk) 02:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Also, the section version that is linked above was not the most recent version of that section. That would be this --->[2] After seeing Ronz's objection related to WP:NPOV I looked at the list again and deleted one incomplete reference after looking for more information and not really finding anything and also deleted the word, "legendary" which had preceded several of the names on the list. I was really trying to figure-out if there were something "opinionated"-there, and "legendary" could have been that, and it was redundant and unnecessary. My questions about what is not neutral are in regard to the most recent version of the blanked section.24.0.133.234 (talk) 02:13, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

They are just names.

This is an encyclopedia.

Adding the names gives no additional understanding of the topic of this article. --Ronz (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Ronz. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:08, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

They are not just names. That would imply that they are random names? They are people who experienced the disease. The way that a list of names of people with a disease is helpful to Wikipedia users, and in this instance specifically, is that further research can be done by the reader. It helps the reader answer questions that were not answered by the article. For instance by following the Walter Payton reference, I was able to learn that he had written a book ;Never Die Easy. Reading that book contained a narrative of how the disease affected a person in a way that cold hard medical information could not do. The book also verified and confirmed the medical information in the article-Payton's illness followed the course predicted in the article. All of the scientific and medical information in the article is interesting and may be of particular use to some readers but including examples of well-known people who were treated for the illness provides more facts that can be used to validate what the article says. Two of the people on the list, in further research, were noted as having a "long battle" with the condition, which was interesting to me since I gathered from the article that most people who were diagnosed were deceased within less than a year. -(as was Payton, officially diagnosed in May and deceased on November 1st of that same year, again the course of his illness validated much of what the article said). One died seeking treatment in Germany and this German treatment is not mentioned in the article, so the list of names is not redundant information to the topic either, and it is relevant to the topic.

Also the list (so far), presents clearly the fact that there are not any well-known survivors of the disease.

But the narrative way of documenting Payton's experience in further researching--(which was inspired because his name was listed with the article), provided an understanding, and details of the condition that could only be learned from looking at the article topic in a non-academic way. Yes a WP user could imagine how the course of an illness could go by reading the article, or reading medical references and texts, but that is not a good reason to leave out additional resources, especially resources that present the information from a real life perspective.24.0.133.234 (talk) 02:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

So you want the list to advance unsourced synthesis, "Also the list (so far), presents clearly the fact that there are not any well-known survivors of the disease"? That would be an OR and NPOV violation.

Again, the only addition is a list of names, so I'm afraid I don't see how this provides any further understanding. Not that this is a vote, but so far no one else does either. --Ronz (talk) 15:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

wait a minute. People use Wikipedia all the time to draw their own conclusions and conduct OR. We're not supposed to include OR IN the articles when we edit them.The article mentions that the condition is fatal so if you want to call my remarks that the section's names on the list verifies that fact because so far there are no survivors listed OR....that does not equate to editing in OR into an article so you have no point there. Where exactly is the NPOV violation? If you just want to admit that there was none this could be over.24.0.133.234 (talk) 01:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Lancet

Review doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61903-0 JFW | T@lk 19:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Pathophysiology (Anatomy correction)

Under the section Pathophysiology it is stated that, "A cholangiocarcinoma occurring at the junction where the left and right hepatic ducts meet to form the common bile duct may be referred to eponymously as a Klatskin tumor.[30]" Suggest this needs to be corrected as the left and right hepatic ducts meet to form the common hepatic duct. Thank you.

Opisthorchis viverrini and Clonorchis sinensis

The information in the current version needs to be modified. O. viverrini is known from Thailand, Lao PDR, Cambodia and southern and central Vietnam, not from Malaysia. Sripa B, Kaewkes S, Intapan PM, Maleewong W, Brindley PJ. Food-borne trematodiases in Southeast Asia epidemiology, pathology, clinical manifestation and control. Adv Parasitol. 2010;72:305–50.

C. sinensis is found in China, Taiwan, eastern Russia and northern Vietnam as well as Korea. It was previously found in Japan but no cases have been reported from this country for years. Hong, S-T, Fang, Y. Clonorchis sinensis and clonorchiasis, an update. Parasitology International 61 (2012) 17–24. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TNP82 (talk • contribs) 07:30, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Done. Alan Merrit (talk) 06:38, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

refs needed

Extended content

Notable cases Ernie Harwell, US sportscaster. Satoru Iwata, former CEO and president of Nintendo (age 55). Fred Kavli was a philanthropist, physicist, entrepreneur, and business leader. He established The Kavli Foundation in 2000 and the Kavli Prize in 2005 to advance science for the benefit of humanity and died on November 21, 2013, at the age of 86. Ray Manzarek, musician, songwriter, and fouding member of The Doors (age 74).

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Content

A) Not sure what this means "a cancer of the biliary tree, for which the lifetime risk among patients with PSC is 10-15%".

B) This is a primary source we should be using secondary sources per WP:MEDRS. "but studies are underway to identify novel, non-invasive predictors."

C) I do not get this as being another type of bilary tract cancer."as well as cholangiocarcinoma arising in the intrapancreatic segment of the common bile duct (which can be difficult to distinguish from primary pancreatic cancer)."

D) This source "Tabibian JH, Lindor KD. Challenges of Cholangiocarcinoma Detection in Patients with Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis. J Analytical Oncology. 2012;1(1):50-55." does not appear to be pubmed indexed? Please advice. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:23, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

References

Highest rates in Thailand, other parts Mekong Basin

Can the epidemiology be modified to note that the highest rates of the disease are in Southeast Asia and related to consumption of raw fish (http://worldcholangiocarcinomaday.org/the-statistics/). And link to a new page about a successful and internationally recognized program to control opishthorchiasis infection there

cholecystectomy

is there a greater or lesser chance of developing this cancer if the gall bladder has been removed? is there any connection between overactive gall bladder and this cancer? is there any connection between gall stone development and this cancer? in other words, could the bile damage the remaining ducts sufficiently to cause, or predispose one to develop, this cancer? 70.51.83.211 (talk) 15:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Covid-19 link?

[3] Evidence-Based Oncology via AJMC. Possible link between Covid-19 and this rare cancer. I saw the term in the AJMC article and came here to find out what the disease was. 2602:243:2007:9990:FC12:23ED:462:65F4 (talk) 19:18, 22 April 2023 (UTC)