Talk:Burkitt lymphoma

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2022 and 4 February 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sam6836 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: NM UCFCOM.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2022 and 4 February 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sam6836.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

In

In Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine, 16th edition, chapter 97, it says that Burkitt's lymphoma "is the most rapidly progressive human tumor". However, elsewhere I read that about ovarian Endodermal sinus tumor, previously known as Yolk sac tumor. Does anyone know anything about it? Ehudzel 22:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I had Burkitt's lymphoma as a 6-year old back in the mid-1980's and at that time there was very little pediatric protocol... I was like a guinea pig for treatment, but one thing the doctors knew for sure was that it had to be attacked quickly and throughly b/c this lymphoma was known industry wide to be capable of doubling its size in less than 24 hours. Hence, I underwent chemotherapy, radiation, and over 12 hours of surgery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.201.151.10 (talk) 21:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The article states that "Normal B cells possess rearranged immunoglobulin heavy (IgH) and light chain genes, unlike most T-cells and other cells of the body in which the genes are germline". This is true in so far as only B cells have distinct Immunoglobin Heavy and Light Chains. However, T cells DO undergo gene rearrangement to produce unique T-cell Receptors using the same mechanisms as found in B cells. Like B cells they start their development with a germline DNA canvas and both sets of cells will mature into lymphocytes with unique receptors structurally suited to their role in antigen-binding. Allasse Lossehelin 15.03.08

Regarding the comment on IgH gene in T-cells. Actually, T-cells or probably all cells in the body possess IgH and light chain gene but B-cells rearrange them. In rare situation of T-cell lymphoma, rearrangement of IgH or light chain gene may be detected. This phenomenon is sometime referred as lineage infidelity. Wilflo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.0.229.224 (talk) 09:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Photographs: one reversed

If these 2 photos are of the same patient, then one of them has been reversed from the transparency (take a look at which side the tumour is located). Plutonium27 (talk) 04:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Probably from different patients as one appear involving the lower jaw and another the upper jaw. Wilflo

Unless this 7 year old boy's parents have specifically given consent to have his face - which is generally considered enough to confirm identity and is protected information - this picture is a violation of patient confidentiality. It's an excellent photograph - if the appropriate people cannot be contacted, the eyes should be blacked out by horizontal bars, as is standard in medical literature to protect patient privacy. Glacialfury (talk) 14:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Adults

doi:10.1111/j.1365-2141.2011.08877.x review on BL in adults. JFW | T@lk 22:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Lancet Seminar doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61177-X JFW | T@lk 20:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

AIDS sufferers

The statement 'Burkitt's lymphoma is usually associated with over 90% of AIDS cases' seems a bit far fetched. Firstly it has no citation and secondly 90% of AIDS sufferers having Burkitt's Lymphoma seems very high. Doctor Whiskey (talk) 21:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Chemotherapy Protocol Incorrect

The reference for the chemo protocols cites a paper dealing with Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma, not Burkitt's Lymphoma. Although the DA-EPOCH-R looks very promising for Burkitt's, the protocol is still undergoing clinical trials and is not yet appproved for wide-scale use. The current protocols can be found on emedicine. However, I am still learning this material and don't want to edit up anything that could turn out to be incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.9.94 (talk) 21:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

UCF WikiProject Medicine Workplan

Hello, I will be working on improving this page. My aim is to provide this page with more information in certain sections, improve clarity, and ensure adequate support by references. There are sections that require expansion to provide sufficient detail to the reader on this topic. Certain sections may also benefit from rearrangement of content for better flow. I will mainly focus on the sections below.

General – At times, the flow of the article can be challenging so I will make rearrangements to improve overall clarity. Also, there are instances where information is presented with a citation needed. I will attempt to add citations where needed.

Classification – I will work to edit this section so that the information provided is pertinent to this section. There is content (e.g. epidemiologic) that may better fit in other sections. There is also information that is presented without an associated citation. I will attempt to provide needed citations, further information, and remove unnecessary content (e.g. sections of the last paragraph).

Pathophysiology – I plan to provide more detailed information in this section on the underlying pathophysiologic state and how it results in the disease process. Specifically, I will try to expand on the genetic component of this disease. Also, there is information in this section that does not have an associated citation and that may be better excluded (e.g. section on microRNA expression).

Prognosis – I plan to expand on the information that is included in this section to provide more detail as well as more current literature.

Epidemiology – I plan to provide more information in this section as it is currently limited. I will attempt to add more comprehensive epidemiologic data such as prevalence, distribution in the population, etc. Also, there is information in other sections (e.g. classification) of the article that may be better placed in this section.

Sam6836 (talk) 03:23, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Sam6836,

Happy to be your peer reviewer! As a general overview, you did a wonderful job improving the article and adding current, high quality references. In the classification section, I like how you removed irrelevant content and moved epidemiological data to the epidemiology section. This improved the organization and made relevant content easier to find. Within the pathophysiology section, I like that you removed the microRNA section, because not only was it uncited but it was also very complex for the audience. Your explanation of c-MYC mutations was excellent and very high value information. The addition of the entire prognosis section was also very well written and contained important content for the readers.

Something you can utilize to help the readers is linking keywords in your article to other Wikipedia articles. Additionally, a change to consider would be replacing all abbreviations with the full term, in particular for the terms Burkitt lymphoma and Epstein-Barr Virus. I provide this consideration because readers may jump directly to the relevant section they want to read, and may miss the portion of the article where the abbreviation is defined.

Your edits were well focused and added great substance to the article. Please don’t hesitate to reach out with any questions. Thanks and good luck!

NM UCFCOM (talk) 00:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Technical language

This page is great in terms of content, but I see a lot of technical words, as well as long paragraphs. I especially noted it in the prognosis section. This would be a great page to improve without having to dig up the textbooks, fellow editors. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 21:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Move to "Burkitt's disease"

User:Cool828 renamed this article to Burkitt's disease. However, see 200.2, C83.7, and 2A85.6. The ICDs uniformly call it Burkitt lymphoma. All sources cited in this article call it Burkitt lymphoma. Googling "Burkitt's disease" shows that the name is always used alongside "Burkitt('s) lymphoma", which is a much more accurate description, since it involves lymphoma in the lymphatic system. I have reverted Cool828's changes. Cheers, Manifestation (talk) 07:55, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the correct name of this disease should be the original, grammatically correct, name containing the possessive of the surname ("Burkitt's lymphoma"), not the revised, grammatically incorrect, name containing the raw surname ("Burkitt lymphoma").

The WHO seems to think it is renaming (or has renamed) the hundreds(?) of diseases and syndromes that were named with the possessive of a surname, replacing the possessive with the raw surname. I have not been able to determine how, when, or why they did this. Did the WHO ask for input or debate? Did they hold a vote (like at IUPAC)? Did they announce and explain this radical change? Did they publish a decision, guideline, suggestion, or opinion? It looks like none of these things happened; one year the new ICD appeared with all of those names changed. Some users didn't notice; some accepted the absurdity and played along; and some ignored it, continuing as if nothing had happened. (I have not noticed whether anyone objected or even commented after the fact.)

I found only two relevant items: One was a paper that estimated the % of published serious medical papers that use the new [unexplained non-possessive] WHO names, and what % keep the original possessive names. I think the other item stated that the WHO [now] says diseases should not be named with the possessive. If the recommendation(?) said only that, then it only urges people to stop naming new diseases with possessives. (Don't name a new disease "Harvey's disease".) It doesn't suggest or allow naming it "Harvey disease" instead – no sensible person would do that because that is not grammatical, and it is still sort-of possessive, violating the spirit of the recommendation! No sensible person could ever take that suggestion as an obligation to casually, unilaterally rename hundreds(?) of diseases and syndromes, many named 100+ years ago, with a change that does not truly remove the possessive, while making them all non-grammatical, and creating confusion and annoyance. I think the intent was to not name new diseases after people (doctors or patients), because it unfairly embarrasses random people who happen to share that surname. That is a good intent, much like the rule that [new] diseases should not be named after countries, cities, or peoples (e.g. China virus, Wuhan virus, Chinese virus), because it unfairly embarrasses people and governments. ((These two rules make it challenging to come with new names! I wonder whether they publish any suggestions. Recent coinages include SARS and COVID-19.))

I think some editor or typist working on the ICD saw a rule that was intended to guide people naming new diseases and misconstrued it into a mandate to rename every known "possessive" disease by simply removing the 's. I think they didn't comment on what they did or why they did it because they were in no position to create or add content. I think they simply applied the change across the board (global search-and-replace). It kinda "happened", and people still don't know how to deal with it.

Another problem is that WHO's twisted disaster is never going to take. The change is pointless. The changed names look and sound so blatantly stupid and annoying. Pompous, affected, and stilted. Foundations won't rename themselves. DSM-5 doesn't buy it. Copying it makes Wikipedia look unthinking, copycat, and admiring of the Emperor's New Clothes (too afraid to say what we see, lest the other pretenders call us unintelligent).

This comment intends to "improve the encyclopedia" (this article and a few others) by changing the title to the old, original, possessive name. But it's an uphill fight. Wikipedia somehow made WHO and ICD authoritative (in a lost discussion page, not a guideline), notwithstanding use of the original names by the general population, dictionaries, Mayo Clinic, NHS, Sjögren's Foundation (and others). I'd like to see including the 's (maybe even for "Down's syndrome") codified in stylebooks of media outlets, in perpetual opposition to this stupidity. The WHO really should undo this stupid change that they [seem to have] initiated, but I wouldn't hold my breath. There's probably no one to complain to. Beyond that, to change is to admit that you were wrong, and large organizations generally don't do that. -A876 (talk) 02:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)