[quote=Maria]Hi, Ron
to add to the confusion, prognosis in a specific case is also impacted by the quality of the institution and the adherence to the treatment protocol by the patient. I *think* I saw a Dana Farber institutional study that indicated either a 3 or 5 year survival in the 60 or 70 percent range for HPV negative oropharyngeal cancer - the research noted that their institutional results were better than others published. So, whose stats are 'better' - the SEER data that looks at a much larger number of patients - but includes those that had treatment at less experienced institutions and broke protocol, or a smaller study at a top-flight institution where, I would imagine, the patients had sufficient medical and counseling support to stay on protocol and the adminstation of the therapy itself was correct? It's not an easy question to answer, and I have taken statistics at a graduate level.
Maria [/quote]

Yes, I seen other facilities make similar claims on their sites. More like advertisements. Sure, the SEER data is what it is. Look at the link I posted in my first post. Very interesting how the author "used" the data. I am also interested in finding any info as to whether in-country Vietnam impacts. Also interesting is I came across something about John Wayne. He did a movie in Nevada at the time of the nuclear testing and an extraordinarily of those involved in the film died of cancer.

Cancer is big business now-overshadowing the prior revenue generator-cardiovascular disease. I expect we will see much bolder "ads" from cancer "centers" trying to draw business.