This was a good article in it's time, but you have to remember in 2002 the HPV connection was just being well substantiated. The population conclusions that they came to are no longer considered accurate today. It is definitely an under 50 and male predominance today when you look at non smokers and HPV.

[quote=Brian Hill]This was a good article in it's time, but you have to remember in 2002 the HPV connection was just being well substantiated. The population conclusions that they came to are no longer considered accurate today. It is definitely an under 50 and male predominance today when you look at non smokers and HPV. [/quote]

Actually, one experienced Head & Neck surgeon that we saw confirmed the conclusion of this article and said that in his epxerience, most of his patients who were not smokers were elderly women. Obviously, this is just his personal opinion based on his experience, and is not corraborated by any scientific study.

With thousands of oncologists in the US, I am more than certain you will find many that have not read the most current articles. Given their schedules, patient loads and more, combined with the rate that new information is arriving in the field, who can be completely up to date?

The most current articles on HPV in their original format are right here on this site. Take some time to review them, and if you want more, a Medline search will find you many. But be sure that you look for things published in the last 4 years as things are rapidly changing. Besides that, OCF is a sponsor of some of the HPV work out of Johns Hopkins, and in the next four months there are three new articles on this which have already been accepted by peer reviewed journals that elucidate this further. Identifying demographics and transfer mechanisms has been a priority since it is in flux.

So there is no doubt about my perspective on all this, there is little question that the fastest growing segment of the oral cancer population is under 50, male and non smoking, and that those people have viral etiologies. This is not my opinion, it is drawn from the numerous cancer conferences that I attend each year as both a lecturer and as a listener. Does that mean that older people are not getting this disease? or that the historic demographic of OC patients does not still exist? No. It just means things are changing rapidly.

At the end of the day, you have to listen to your doctors that you have faith in. This is just a message board, and only a couple of people on it are doctors. While some of us are more literate about this than others - for instance in the last 3 months I was paid to lecture to doctors at Tufts University, and at the University of Illinois on the changing demographics of the oral cancer population, and am on two more oral cancer programs before year's end - we are just survivors and patients for the most part. People come with questions we try to put out the best information that is current an the best support that we can. I see nothing wrong with you deciding to take the advice or opinions of your doctors over what you read on any web site or hear in any forum.

Remember lastly that your mother is more like the patients in the Roswell/Buffalo group than not. In those patients, they ended up never understanding conclusively why these older women developed their oral cancers. When all is said and done, this may be the situation for you and her, and you will just have to accept that her genetics are allowing this to occur, and reoccur and that is who she is biologically. Is this the answer that you are looking for? No. But it amy be all that there is to know.