Talk:Pheochromocytoma

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 August 2020 and 29 August 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Katherine Ilona.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2019 and 29 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lexiholroyd.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Hereditary

This is a very unusual disorder and i believe it to be hereditary. I also will make the assuption that having this disease causes people to have a least one other disease from this disorder. This disease has not really been publically talked about wonder how many people get this disease and who is it passed from

The MEN 2/3 disorder which is one of the causes is indeed hereditary, although i think it is more likely to be a multifactorial condition than a purely genetic one. I was also under the impression that 1st line treatment was adrenalectomy, and not tumour removal as stated here.

The National Cancer Institute points out that this is a rare disease, with only 800 cases per year diagnosed in the USA. That should be pointed out in the article so people with common conditions (like generalized anxiety disorder) do not read this article and think they have a tumor. 71.112.16.187 05:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Plural

Given the ending of "a", what is the plural or collective name ? "phaeochromocytomae" ("ae" being pronounced as in "eye") or "phaeochromocytomas" ? David Ruben ^Talk 20:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

-mas or -mata are both acceptable. Hovea 06:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I have removed carcinoid syndrome from the differential diagnosis. Carcinoid syndrome is not associated with high blood pressure. Early writers, notably I. Page, speculated that it was because serotonin is a vasoconstrictor. The only blood pressure change associated with carcinoid syndrome is hypotension which occurs during the flush; it is caused by bradykinin, a most powerful vasodilator.BobL (talk) 03:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Mention on House MD

I think it is very likely that, like me, many readers of this page were inspired to look here by the episode of House MD (S2.E1, "Acceptance") that mentions this condition. Does it warrant a "references in popular culture" section or something like it? Chalkieperfect (talk) 10:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

No. JFW | T@lk 12:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Underdiagnosis

doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2008.08.021 - underdiagnosis is common and can lead to trouble. JFW | T@lk 12:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Chromaffinoma

I suggest that this article mention the word "chromaffinoma", and either list it as a synonym or disambiguate the terms, so that this article can be found by searching for this term. Thomas.Hedden (talk) 14:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Very good idea. Phaeochromocytomas are, after all, chromaffin-positive neuroendocrine tumours. What distinguishes them from paragangliomas is not their site (both can be extra-adrenal), but the fact that phaeochromocytomas are chromaffin-positive, while paragangliomas are not. --79.33.210.81 (talk) 22:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Clarification needed

Article says, "The tumors are made up of large, polyhedral, pleomorphic chromaffin cells. Fewer than 10% of these are malignant." Does this mean that fewer than 10% of the cells are malignant, or fewer than 10% of the tumors? 174.24.126.88 (talk) 14:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

==The article has a CALL FOR REFERENCES. By edito(rs)war, any modifications done by me have been reverted. --Ossip Groth (talk) 14:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Review

In Circulation doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.114.008544 JFW | T@lk 23:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

NEJM: doi:10.1056/NEJMra1806651 JFW | T@lk 19:49, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Added information

Hello everyone! I added some information on the clinical implications of the endocrine effects of the tumors as well as details on the genetic side of things. I also added more detailed information on the imaging procedures used, specifically MIBG, and linked the iobenguane (compound used in MIBG) page for more information. If there are any inaccuracies, feel free to edit. Happy editing!! Lexiholroyd (talk) 02:23, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Project August 2020

I will be posting a weekly work plan to address the various changes I will be making as a part of the a Med Communications Wikipedia Course I am currently taking part of. Please see below for 8/7 to 8/14 agenda

- Edited the Introduction - Added a new photo for Pheo - Added an “also known as” with links to Paraganglioma and other PPGL genetic syndromes (like the influenza page) - NEW**Create an updated “grey box on the right hand side” that mirrors the starred wikipedia pages (see MS) - Edited the Signs and Symptoms

  - Remove the incorrect signs and symptoms 

- NEW** Add a section on complications

   - HTN crisis; recognition, management, and prevention 
   - Move the differential diagnosis to this section
       - Remove the various genetic syndromes from differential 

- NEW** Start the Genetics Section

   - Previously referred to as “Cause;” will dive into various syndromes. This will be a (2) day effort 

Katherine Ilona (talk) 13:44, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Cleanup needs

I started listing cleanup needs, but have been called away; will add a more detailed explanation here later. For now, there are considerable WP:MOS issues, but more significantly, the tone and sourcing issues should be cleaned up before this article could be assessed to B class. Please consult WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS; I will come back later to add additional explanation. In the meantime, please review my sample edits, and have a look at WP:NOT. Also see MOS:SANDWICH. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Back finally to make a more complete list, from reviewing this version. It appears that a lot of work has been misspent on this article, as the impression is given that the authors did not digest WP:MEDMOS, WP:NOT or WP:MEDRS.

1. Please see WP:GALLERY and WP:NOTADVICE; in this article, presenting an entire section describing imaging is off-topic. That Gallery *might* be appropriate at a more general imaging article, but is not appropriate here. Similar advice issue here (writing for the wrong audience).
2. Ditto here.
3. There is a problem throughout the article with the use of uppercase: sample edit [1] [2] [3]
4. The entire Pediatric considerations section was written as advice, not in an encyclopedic tone, and uses a primary source characterizing it as a "guideline". Compare that to this. Similar adjustments in encyclopedic tone and NOTADVICE are needed throughout.
5. Regarding this deletion, see WP:NOT and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#External links and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Writing for the wrong audience. (In broad terms, "writing for the wrong audience" applies to much of this article.)
6. See Help:Footnotes#Footnotes:_the_basics, there should be no space before the ref
7. Please review WP:ITALICS, MOS:BOLD and MOS:BADITALICS; problems throughout. [4] [5]
8. There is a problem with the use of primary sources throughout; understanding of WP:PSTS and WP:MEDRS is essential in editing medical content. For example, here, a primary source on a sample size of 16 is used, and the word "guideline" has specific connotations in medicine.[6]
9. Here is an example of NOTADVICE and excess bolding combined to affect the tone (writing for the wrong audience): [7] And another example.
10. The word remains is unhelpful to readers in a dynamic environment ... remains since when? See MOS:CURRENT, text like this and this.
11. Seven-year-old primary study that amounts to an advert for the Cleveland Clinic: [8] if this information were relevant, it would be mentioned in a secondary review, see WP:MEDRS. Ditto for an old primary study that is basically an advert for Cedars-Sinai: [9] And this is a 1981 primary study!! Surely we have better info by now, and if this info is still relevant and significant, it would be mentioned in a secondary source.
12. Of course. [10] Naturally, please note, etc-- to be avoided in encyclopedic writing, which is different than term paper writing or essay writing. In encyclopedic writing, the goal is not to convince but to summarize secondary sources.
13. See MOS:SANDWICH; text is sandwiched between images throughout.

These are samples only; the problems are throughout. To receive a B-class assessment, WP:MEDRS, and WP:NOTADVICE should be addressed, with consideration of WP:MEDMOS and "writing for the wrong audience. There is good material here, but the primary sources need to be replaced with secondary sources, and an encyclopedic tone adopted. There are many other issues I haven't detailed, but this is a start. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:17, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Spelling

Shouldn't the Standard English spelling - "Phaeochromocytoma" - be used for the title and in the article, with a redirect from the US spelling ("Pheochromocytoma"), rather than the other war round?