Gail and cclark.... This whole discussion about HPV survival rates needs to be toned back. Dr. Gillison is at the head of the pack, but collaborating with many doctors around the world. There is data that shows SOME survival advantage vs. tobacco-induced cancers. But the number of mitigating cofactors is a long list. We don't know enough about all this, and given that, as stated by other investigators, the factors such as stage, age, co morbidities and many, many other things can affect the numbers, you guys need to let this issue lie dormant for awhile, till the data is more finite. Please note that even an authority on Gilison if you listen to her lectures constantly uses the words appears, or may. It is only confusing patients for the most part since they have no way of knowing if their cancer was HPV induced, HPV containing, etc. none the which mean the same thing. Further, the data is incomplete since the cofactors have not been extrapolated by all the contributing investigators into the final conclusion. We want to be helpful, not confusing. I am getting emails about this daily from people on the board for clarification. Even though I am up to speed, and spout more facts and figures, the truth is that this is not useful information for them. They can do nothing with it. For those who may believe that they were not HPV related in cause, it is a depressing thought that their cancer is somehow worse, different, more virulent, etc. than someone else's of the same stage. This is the trouble with drawing conclusions at this time except in generalities about this issue, something that Gillison has warned me about and I walk carefully on in my lectures around the country. You need to consider this in your future postings as well. The HPV vaccine will not be used in treatment as the FDA is only releasing this for cervical applications in the near future, (and will be mostly used outside the US in third world countries where annual cervical exams are not the norm) and the vaccine will be used in PREVENTION for years to come and not treatment. That will involve many years of clinical trials before it makes it to reality in existing patient terms. As to the aggressive nature of lesions in the back of the mouth, they are in a lymph tissue rich area and metastasize locally and regionally more quickly. As to saying the risk of recurrence in a post is low, I have asked that we not speak in absolutes as the are many idiosyncrasies which you are not aware of, and the reading of a few studies does not make any of us people that can make an absolute statement. Hell, the doctors at the CCC are more careful than this, and we should be more conservative in our statements. This does not negate the fact that you are both some of our stronget informational posters. I just want to keep the tone that of a caregiver or patient, and yield to the fact that data is young, incomplete, and our non researcher understanding of it may be incomplete.