Contents

Talk:ABVD

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Medicine Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

All right

[edit]

Alright, I have expanded this page and removed the stub. Comments? MastCell 17:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great! --WS 19:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How would you feel about moving the "History" section back up near the top, underneath "Indications"? It seems a little anticlimactic at the end. MastCell 21:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So I moved the "History" section toward the top... I lean toward this organization. Comments? MastCell 03:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 12 seems to infer that the secondary cancer risk is much lower with ABVD than MOPP. Although it remains elevated, I would suggest that the statement made regarding secondary malignancies is misleading and should maybe be placed into context. The paper emphasises that leukaemia is the most devastating secondary (presumably in reference to treatability rather than incidence), but this has lowered with ABVD (over MOPP). The study observed 26 cases of gastrointestinal tumours, 13 cases of lung cancer and 27 instances of breast cancer out of over 100 solid tumours manifesting themselves. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.78.98.1 (talk • contribs).

Yes... looking again at that study, it seems that most of the patients they followed were treated with MOPP, or MOPP/ABVD hybrid regimens. Not many were treated with ABVD, so the relevance is questionable. Unfortunately, the authors didn't break down the analysis by chemo regimen. I added a little to try and clarify that the 28% finding including many patients treated with MOPP, which is known to have a higher rate of secondary malignancy. MastCell 22:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there...as a former ABVD patient (5 years!!!) I thought it would be worth noting the concept of the "rapid responder"...after 2 cycles of ABVD it was decided due to PET scan that I would receive 4 cycles rather than 6 due to the complete absence of activity on the PET. Not sure how wide-spread this practice is, but it seems to me to be a significant advance (?) in the practice of the therapy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.96.253.226 (talk)

Yes, PET scan has definitely had an impact in how Hodgkin's is treated. I think this might be better described in the article on Hodgkin disease so as to avoid duplication. Feel free to have a look - that article could definitely stand improvement. Congratulations on being 5 years out! MastCell ^Talk 23:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Osteoprosis is one of the long term side effects that I am dealing with. I have been off ABVD for 3 years now and was diagnosised with severe osteoporosis this past year. No I am not your normal osteoporosis diagnosee. I am a 36 year old male in the U.S. Army. My osteoporosis is bad enough that I am being medically retired.--Dennis scales 19:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look into that. If you don't mind my asking, were you on steroids (e.g. prednisone) for any prolonged periods (more than a week or two) during or after your treatment? Steroids certainly enhance bone loss, though I don't know about ABVD itself... MastCell ^Talk 20:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only other thing that I was on during the entire treatment process was neupogen for neutropenia. --Dennis scales 21:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the publicity department of a UK charity is spamming their website to all the lymphoma-related articles they can find. I'm cleaning it up (again), but wanted to say that for this page in particular, external links must (to comply with WP:EL and WP:MEDMOS) actually be about the subject of this article, which is ABVD. If www.favorite-charity.org doesn't have a page on ABVD, then we don't really want their link here. Wikipedia is not a web directory. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on ABVD. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090620163745/http://www.cancer.org:80/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_4_4x_Chemotherapy_84.asp?sitearea=tohttp://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_4_4x_Chemotherapy_84.asp?sitearea=

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to trueorfailed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very preliminary research, but if this pans out, it is potentially significant

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/12/06/infertility-breakthrough-cancer-drug-sparks-growth-new-eggs/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.137.245.207 (talk) 12:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on ABVD. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111211105234/http://www.cancer.gov/aboutnci/ncicancerbulletin/archive/2010/022310/page6tohttp://www.cancer.gov/aboutnci/ncicancerbulletin/archive/2010/022310/page6
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_4_4x_Chemotherapy_84.asp?sitearea=

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]