Talk:Prostate cancer

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 19:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that in a year, 1.2 million people get diagnosed with prostate cancer, and over 350,000 people die from it? Source: Rebello RJ, Oing C, Knudsen KE, Loeb S, Johnson DC, Reiter RE, Gillessen S, Van der Kwast T, Bristow RG (February 2021). "Prostate cancer". Nat Rev Dis Primers. 7 (1): 9. doi:10.1038/s41572-020-00243-0. PMID 33542230. S2CID 231794303.
  • Reviewed: QPQ not required, only one previous nom.

Improved to Good Article status by Ajpolino (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

Mugtheboss (talk) 12:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC).

General eligibility:

• New enough:
• Long enough:
• Other problems:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
• Other problems:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:
• Other problems:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: No images, QPQ also unnecessary. Claim is properly cited, and mentioned multiple times throughout the article. No copy-vio issues upon spotchecks and the source is reliable. Article was recently promoted to GA after a lengthy review, so congratulation are in order for that.

The source's quote is specifically In addition, more than 1.2 million new cases are diagnosed and global prostate cancer-related deaths exceed 350,000 annually, making it one of the leading causes of cancer-associated death in men

I could maybe see a close paraphrasing issue here but I'll chalk it up to WP:LIMITED since these are simple facts that are hard to reword. I made a few minor tweaks to the lead and to the article to massage out an inconsistency, please review here: [1]. Passing DYK, congrats!! 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 00:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the swift review, this nom passed through much faster than my last.

Fun fact: I actually came up with the current hook early on in the GAN process after seeing the diagnosis and death rate in the infobox, without even seeing the actual paragraph until after the article was promoted to GA. — Mugtheboss (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Radiation side affects in Management#Localized disease

Planning to include Radiation-induced lumbar plexopathy in the existing sideaffect list. Reference is PMC3893894, sourced from ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3893894. Any issues? TomStonehunter (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Be my guest. The article uses a mildly confusing reference template style. Feel free to slap your addition in there, and I can fix any formatting issues if needed. Best, Ajpolino (talk) 19:03, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Clarify the 99% statement?

The article says:

The risk of developing prostate cancer increases with age; the average age of diagnosis is 67.

And also:

Most men diagnosed have tumors confined to the prostate; 99% of them survive more than 10 years from their diagnoses.

This doesn't sound possible. Ignore the cancer. If you take a sample of men aged 67 -- even healthy ones -- I don't believe that 99% of them will live another ten years.

Is it possible that what the sources say is that 99% of diagnosed men don't die from prostate cancer in the next ten years? That's very different than the current claim, which says 99% of them don't die at all. 45.48.98.78 (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Clarity on deaths of those diagnosed

Should read: One in eight men is diagnosed with prostate cancer in his lifetime and one in forty of those diagnosed die of the disease. 23rdCenturyHydroman (talk) 22:38, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

UNDUE and dated primary-study content

Mountaincirque, re this edit, here is the edit summary, and here is an expanded edit summary. Please gain consensus for adding this primary study to a Featured article. Do you have any high-quality recent secondary source that mentions this dated primary study, reported in a source that does not comply with WP:MEDRS or WP:MEDDATE? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi Mountaincirque, I recently updated this article and tried to cover the many aspects of the disease with due weight to how well they're represented in high-quality sources. The association with ejaculation frequency certainly captures the imagination(!) but so far it doesn't seem to be broadly accepted by the medical mainstream. It wasn't mentioned at all in most high-quality sources, suggesting experts on the topic don't find the evidence compelling. We really aim to follow the medical mainstream rather than lead it. So if further research strengthens the case for this association, I'm sure it'll end up in more reviews, and then be reflected in our article.

Perhaps one reason it hasn't caught on is that other sexual behavior associations don't seem to all point in the same obvious direction: This 2021 review (which you can hopefully access through The Wikipedia Library) mentions the results of the large cohort study that found this association that you reference in your edit. The review points out the two other pieces of data that confuse the picture: men with delayed first sexual intercourse were less likely to develop prostate cancer. Men with more sexual partners were more likely to develop prostate cancer. Sexual behavior is probably correlated to various other life attributes, so it's hard to say (and experts do not say) if these are related to cancer risk, or just proxies for some attributes that are. Best, Ajpolino (talk) 02:42, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Mountaincirque, As that review says, in a brief paragraph summarizing findings about sexual behavior, "... these observations should be considered within the limits of cohort studies, and whether these are findings of correlation or causation remains unknown" ... i.e., probably for that reason, the content is not given attention in other secondary literature, and the content is undue in a broad overview. That is, we don't give attention to findings that secondary reviews don't give attention to -- Wikipedia follows, not leads. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:37, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Adjustments initiated per IP 202, using two secondary reviews. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 6 February 2025 (UTC)