HPV and lower risk of mortality in Head and Neck squamous carcinomas ?

"squamous carcinomas of the head and neck are often considered together
because they share cell type, epidemiology and risk factors, natural
history, and the need for head and neck surgeons to participate in optimal
evaluation and management.

Male predominance (3:1), heavy tobacco and alcohol use, and onset in late
middle age describe a typical patient. The median age at diagnosis ranges
from 55 to 67 years, depending on the site, with nasopharynx and tonsil
cancer diagnosed at a younger age and oral cavity and larynx cancer
diagnosed at an older age.

A relatively new phenomenon of younger patients without the characteristic
history of alcohol and tobacco use has been associated with infection with
human papillomavirus (HPV). Identification of this population has prognostic
implications in that their risk of death from the cancer is 60% to 80% less
than that of those who are HPV negative."*

Dr. Harlan Pinto** : Chapter 2, section 6 : "Carcinomas of the Head and
Neck" in Handbook of Cancer Chemotherapy edited by Roland T. Skeel, 7th.
edition, 2007.***

I was fascinated by the final sentence of the quote from Dr. Pinto above. I
am a person with basal tongue squamous cell carcinoma T2~T3N2M0 who has
never smoked (okay, some pot in the 1960's, a little), and has never liked,
or been able to tolerate, alchohol (okay, a few drunken binges in the early
60's in college).

However, as much as I would like to "grasp at straws" (hi Steph, I was 63
when diagnosed, and consider it very unlikely, though not impossible, I
could have HPV.

My questions :

1. Is Dr. Pinto's statement reflective of medical research consensus outside
the US ? To what extent is the dramatic mortality reduction he mentions
occurring. ? When Dr. Pinto says "younger" : can anyone expand this topic
further ?

2. What is the test for HPV for males : is it expensive and/or complex ?

best, Uncle Sally

*
carriage returns inserted for clarity by US

**
Harlan A. Pinto MD
Associate Professor, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of
Medicine; Chief of Medical Oncology Section, Veterans Affairs Palo Alto
Health Care System, Palo Alto, California

***
http://www.amazon.com/Handbook-Cance...8282766&sr=1-1

"Uncle Sally" <uncleSally@auldUncleSally.com> wrote in message
news:UlPAi.3990$1J4.2172@fe06.news.easynews.com...
> "squamous carcinomas of the head and neck are often considered together
> because they share cell type, epidemiology and risk factors, natural
> history, and the need for head and neck surgeons to participate in optimal
> evaluation and management.
>
> Male predominance (3:1), heavy tobacco and alcohol use, and onset in late
> middle age describe a typical patient. The median age at diagnosis ranges
> from 55 to 67 years, depending on the site, with nasopharynx and tonsil
> cancer diagnosed at a younger age and oral cavity and larynx cancer
> diagnosed at an older age.
>
> A relatively new phenomenon of younger patients without the characteristic
> history of alcohol and tobacco use has been associated with infection with
> human papillomavirus (HPV). Identification of this population has
> prognostic
> implications in that their risk of death from the cancer is 60% to 80%
> less
> than that of those who are HPV negative."*
>
> Dr. Harlan Pinto** : Chapter 2, section 6 : "Carcinomas of the Head and
> Neck" in Handbook of Cancer Chemotherapy edited by Roland T. Skeel, 7th.
> edition, 2007.***
>
> I was fascinated by the final sentence of the quote from Dr. Pinto above.
> I
> am a person with basal tongue squamous cell carcinoma T2~T3N2M0 who has
> never smoked (okay, some pot in the 1960's, a little), and has never
> liked,
> or been able to tolerate, alchohol (okay, a few drunken binges in the
> early
> 60's in college).
>
> However, as much as I would like to "grasp at straws" (hi Steph, I was
> 63
> when diagnosed, and consider it very unlikely, though not impossible, I
> could have HPV.
>
> My questions :
>
> 1. Is Dr. Pinto's statement reflective of medical research consensus
> outside
> the US ? To what extent is the dramatic mortality reduction he mentions
> occurring. ? When Dr. Pinto says "younger" : can anyone expand this topic
> further ?
>

There is no doubt that there is a relationship between hpv and H&N cancer in
non-smokers. H&N squamous cancers associated with smoking are most common in
the 6th and 7th decade. H&N scc in non-smokers is more commonly seen in
younger people. I know of no good evidence to support an assertion that
hpv-associated H&N cancers carry a better prognosis, all other things being
equal, However, younger patients without the comorbidities that old smokers
have do have a better prognosis. But that's patient, not disease, factors.

> 2. What is the test for HPV for males : is it expensive and/or complex ?
>

What's the point?

> best, Uncle Sally
>
> *
> carriage returns inserted for clarity by US
>
> **
> Harlan A. Pinto MD
> Associate Professor, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of
> Medicine; Chief of Medical Oncology Section, Veterans Affairs Palo Alto
> Health Care System, Palo Alto, California
>
> ***
> http://www.amazon.com/Handbook-Cance...8282766&sr=1-1
>
>

us wrote :

"2. What is the test for HPV for males : is it expensive and/or complex ?"

and Steph replied :

"What's the point ?"

That could give me a straw to grasp for : I'd like to have at least one
straw, Sir, please

Thanks for replying !

regards, Uncle Sally

Journal of Clinical Oncology, Dec. 2006

Editorial :

"Human Papillomavirus and Prognosis of Oropharyngeal Squamous Cell
Carcinoma: Implications for Clinical Research in Head and Neck Cancers"

full text at :

http://jco.ascopubs.org/cgi/content/full/24/36/5623

"Uncle Sally" <uncleSally@auldUncleSally.com> wrote in message
news:hbXAi.183860$jE4.130020@fe12.news.easynews.co m...
> us wrote :
>
> "2. What is the test for HPV for males : is it expensive and/or complex ?"
>
> and Steph replied :
>
> "What's the point ?"
>
> That could give me a straw to grasp for : I'd like to have at least one
> straw, Sir, please
>

Well there is no curative treatment for hv. And there is reason to believe
that if the hpv were curable, the cancer would care.................so
what's the point?

> Thanks for replying !
>
> regards, Uncle Sally
>
>
>

Steph wrote :

"Well there is no curative treatment for hv. And there is reason to believe
that if the hpv were curable, the cancer would care.................so
what's the point ?"

Dear Steph,

I do think you are being a bit obtuse here.

If you had a life-threatening condition and you found out there was a factor
that, on a broad statistical level, indicated a reduced mortality rate of
60-80% for that condition, and you had the slightest idea that you might
have that factor : of course you would research and evaluate it.

Good taste requires I not be more specific about what aspects of my intimate
behavior with women over the last ten years might lead me to think I was at
risk of HPV.

Since HPV and sexual behavior are not (thank God confined to the young,
and the diagnostic procedures for HPV for men are a subject of active debate
in the scientific oncology community right now (some scientists believe it
cannot be reliably detected), that's part of the "point."

I think the point you made about "youth" as a general factor is very
interesting : I'd be interested in knowing if among the relatively small
cohort of younger people who do drink and smoke heavily and who do have SCC
of H&N, if their general recovery rate is much better.

And all of the above is "the point."

regards, Uncle Sally

"Uncle Sally" <uncleSally@auldUncleSally.com> wrote in message
news:sm9Bi.195691$jE4.190500@fe12.news.easynews.co m...
> Steph wrote :
>
> "Well there is no curative treatment for hv. And there is reason to
> believe
> that if the hpv were curable, the cancer would care.................so
> what's the point ?"
>
> Dear Steph,
>
> I do think you are being a bit obtuse here.
>
> If you had a life-threatening condition and you found out there was a
> factor
> that, on a broad statistical level, indicated a reduced mortality rate of
> 60-80% for that condition, and you had the slightest idea that you might
> have that factor : of course you would research and evaluate it.
>
> Good taste requires I not be more specific about what aspects of my
> intimate
> behavior with women over the last ten years might lead me to think I was
> at
> risk of HPV.
>
> Since HPV and sexual behavior are not (thank God confined to the young,
> and the diagnostic procedures for HPV for men are a subject of active
> debate
> in the scientific oncology community right now (some scientists believe it
> cannot be reliably detected), that's part of the "point."
>
> I think the point you made about "youth" as a general factor is very
> interesting : I'd be interested in knowing if among the relatively small
> cohort of younger people who do drink and smoke heavily and who do have
> SCC
> of H&N, if their general recovery rate is much better.
>
> And all of the above is "the point."
>
> regards, Uncle Sally
>
>

HPV is very common in people with and without H&N cancer.
Patients with H&N HPV and a H&N cancer are very common
Correlation does not imply causation
As far as I'm aware there is no test for HPV in men, only in pap smear
samples in women

Steph wrote:
> "Uncle Sally" <uncleSally@auldUncleSally.com> wrote in message
> news:sm9Bi.195691$jE4.190500@fe12.news.easynews.co m...
>> Steph wrote :
>>
>> "Well there is no curative treatment for hv. And there is reason to
>> believe
>> that if the hpv were curable, the cancer would care.................so
>> what's the point ?"
>>
>> Dear Steph,
>>
>> I do think you are being a bit obtuse here.
>>
>> If you had a life-threatening condition and you found out there was a
>> factor
>> that, on a broad statistical level, indicated a reduced mortality rate of
>> 60-80% for that condition, and you had the slightest idea that you might
>> have that factor : of course you would research and evaluate it.
>>
>> Good taste requires I not be more specific about what aspects of my
>> intimate
>> behavior with women over the last ten years might lead me to think I was
>> at
>> risk of HPV.
>>
>> Since HPV and sexual behavior are not (thank God confined to the young,
>> and the diagnostic procedures for HPV for men are a subject of active
>> debate
>> in the scientific oncology community right now (some scientists believe it
>> cannot be reliably detected), that's part of the "point."
>>
>> I think the point you made about "youth" as a general factor is very
>> interesting : I'd be interested in knowing if among the relatively small
>> cohort of younger people who do drink and smoke heavily and who do have
>> SCC
>> of H&N, if their general recovery rate is much better.
>>
>> And all of the above is "the point."
>>
>> regards, Uncle Sally
>>
>>
>
> HPV is very common in people with and without H&N cancer.
> Patients with H&N HPV and a H&N cancer are very common
> Correlation does not imply causation
> As far as I'm aware there is no test for HPV in men, only in pap smear
> samples in women
>
>
There is a woman on the ACOR H&N Cancer listserve who will disagree with
you. Her husband was treated at Johns Hopkins in Maryland, USA and there
they do test H&N cancer patients for HPV. According to that lady, the
docs there feel that HPV caused H&N cancers respond better to treatments.

My own RO at MD Anderson has told me that most of the tongue cancers
that they have seen that are positive for HPV are base of tongue.

That's two major cancer centers who do tests in people's mouths, Steph.
I'm sure there are more.

This is why I went to MDA where there is an entire department of
oncologists dedicated to H&N cancers. They are much more aware of things
than a generalist.

JMTCW

--
Janet Wilder
Bad spelling. Bad punctuation
Good Friends. Good Life

Janet Wilder wrote:

> There is a woman on the ACOR H&N Cancer listserve who will disagree with
> you. Her husband was treated at Johns Hopkins in Maryland, USA and there
> they do test H&N cancer patients for HPV. According to that lady, the
> docs there feel that HPV caused H&N cancers respond better to treatments.
>
> My own RO at MD Anderson has told me that most of the tongue cancers
> that they have seen that are positive for HPV are base of tongue.
>
> That's two major cancer centers who do tests in people's mouths, Steph.
> I'm sure there are more.
>
> This is why I went to MDA where there is an entire department of
> oncologists dedicated to H&N cancers. They are much more aware of things
> than a generalist.
>
> JMTCW

http://www.labtestsonline.org/unders...s/hpv/faq.html
7. Are men screened for HPV infection? Men are not routinely screened for HPV
infection unless they fall into a high-risk category. The current commercially
available tests – the Pap smear and DNA HPV tests – are not approved for testing
samples from males. However, some specialty labs have validated DNA tests for
analyzing anal swabs from males.

"Janet Wilder" <kelliepoodle@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:02316487$0$15814$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
> Steph wrote:
>> "Uncle Sally" <uncleSally@auldUncleSally.com> wrote in message
>> news:sm9Bi.195691$jE4.190500@fe12.news.easynews.co m...
>>> Steph wrote :
>>>
>>> "Well there is no curative treatment for hv. And there is reason to
>>> believe
>>> that if the hpv were curable, the cancer would care.................so
>>> what's the point ?"
>>>
>>> Dear Steph,
>>>
>>> I do think you are being a bit obtuse here.
>>>
>>> If you had a life-threatening condition and you found out there was a
>>> factor
>>> that, on a broad statistical level, indicated a reduced mortality rate
>>> of
>>> 60-80% for that condition, and you had the slightest idea that you might
>>> have that factor : of course you would research and evaluate it.
>>>
>>> Good taste requires I not be more specific about what aspects of my
>>> intimate
>>> behavior with women over the last ten years might lead me to think I was
>>> at
>>> risk of HPV.
>>>
>>> Since HPV and sexual behavior are not (thank God confined to the
>>> young,
>>> and the diagnostic procedures for HPV for men are a subject of active
>>> debate
>>> in the scientific oncology community right now (some scientists believe
>>> it
>>> cannot be reliably detected), that's part of the "point."
>>>
>>> I think the point you made about "youth" as a general factor is very
>>> interesting : I'd be interested in knowing if among the relatively small
>>> cohort of younger people who do drink and smoke heavily and who do have
>>> SCC
>>> of H&N, if their general recovery rate is much better.
>>>
>>> And all of the above is "the point."
>>>
>>> regards, Uncle Sally
>>>
>>>
>>
>> HPV is very common in people with and without H&N cancer.
>> Patients with H&N HPV and a H&N cancer are very common
>> Correlation does not imply causation
>> As far as I'm aware there is no test for HPV in men, only in pap smear
>> samples in women
> There is a woman on the ACOR H&N Cancer listserve who will disagree with
> you. Her husband was treated at Johns Hopkins in Maryland, USA and there
> they do test H&N cancer patients for HPV. According to that lady, the docs
> there feel that HPV caused H&N cancers respond better to treatments.
>
> My own RO at MD Anderson has told me that most of the tongue cancers that
> they have seen that are positive for HPV are base of tongue.
>
> That's two major cancer centers who do tests in people's mouths, Steph.
> I'm sure there are more.
>
> This is why I went to MDA where there is an entire department of
> oncologists dedicated to H&N cancers. They are much more aware of things
> than a generalist.
>
> JMTCW
>
> --
> Janet Wilder
> Bad spelling. Bad punctuation
> Good Friends. Good Life

I'm interested that there is a test available, though not generally.
Still, there is absolutely no evidence that once you've had your treatment,
if you have a complete response, being hpv positive or negative has any
relevance at all. It may have some relevance at the time of diagnosis in
that it may impact on prognosis, but not on treatment, because it's the
same..........

Steph wrote in response to Janet's post providing clear examples of tests
for HPV and relation of HPV to SCC prognosis :

"It may have some relevance at the time of diagnosis in that it may impact
on prognosis, but not on treatment, because it's the same"

Evidently you just didn't "get it" that this whole thread is about
prognosis.

For we "patients," prognosis is damned important. A source of hope, or a
source of despair : in any case something we struggle to put into
perspective.

To me any factor that may indicate a better prognosis is worth exploring,
understanding, independent of the broad statistical likelihood of it
applying to my particular case or not.

I'd propose to you that helping the patient understand prognosis, and the
meaning of the broad statistical parameters in which prognosis is "framed,"
is as important for the patient and their family as understanding the
diagnosis, and the treatment plan. And recognizing that the patient or
their family members who "dwell upon" or "allow" prognosis to become an
obsession, or a major theme in depressive ideation, is, imho, an important
factor in providing psycho-social services to patients and family members.

For remarkable individuals like Lance Armstrong who at age 25 survived
testicular cancer that had metatastized to his abdomen, brain, and lungs,
extensive chemotherapy, brain surgery, removal of one testicle, perhaps an
"obsession" to "beat the odds" in the face of what must have been a very
negative prognosis now appears to have been a wonderful response. But if he
had not recovered and come back to win his first Tour de France at age 28,
if he had died, we'd probably be saying "well, he could have used the last
months of his life to enjoy life more, relax, say goodbye." So I think there
are aspects of prognosis that are very "sticky" psychologically.

To the extent that doctor, onco team, significant others for the patient
family, etc. encourage a "you can beat the odds" attitude : that may or may
not be "wise" for a particular person at a particular age, or in many
conditions. For me, at age almost 64, I think it would be stupid in extremis
to be obsessively optimistic, while, at the same time, I think it is "mens
sana in corpore sano" to remain generally optimistic.

It's not exactly a "binary universe," I think, where some discrete segment
of cancer patients are engaged in "magical thinking" and "grasping at
straws," and others, like me, who might sometimes like to engage in same in
moments of depression or desperation, are held back by a lifetime habit of
rationality and belief in Occam's Razor rather than magical Mexican coffee
enemas.

I, and many of the 45 families I once interviewed for ACS with multiple
incidence of cancer in the family, experienced moments, or episodes, of what
you could call "flights of fantasy," where suddenly it appeared : the whole
thing (the cancer) was a "mistake," the "doctors had made an error,"
"fasting on wheat juice can cure me," "there's a doctor in Mexico who" ...
etc. But for me and for most of the folks I once interviewed these were
speed-bumps on the road that did not lead to action, and they and I stuck
with scientific allopathic medicine.

My motivation to understand how I might have become one of the relatively
smaller number of people with basal tongue SCC who have no history of
smoking or drinking alcohol, is certainly related to my own little struggle
with the Beast; but it's also an intellectual curiousity that's just part of
who I am.

I continue to draw comfort (and rationality) from Stephen Jay Gould's
wonderful article on what you might call putting statistics into perspective
at :

http://cancerguide.org/median_not_msg.html

And I recommend the above article to anyone I know who is facing or dealing
with any kind of serious illness.

regards, Uncle Sally

"Uncle Sally" <uncleSally@auldUncleSally.com> wrote in message
news:qMuBi.276568$rk4.182994@fe09.news.easynews.co m...
> Steph wrote in response to Janet's post providing clear examples of tests
> for HPV and relation of HPV to SCC prognosis :
>
> "It may have some relevance at the time of diagnosis in that it may impact
> on prognosis, but not on treatment, because it's the same"
>
> Evidently you just didn't "get it" that this whole thread is about
> prognosis.
>

You've had your treatment. The point I was making was that once you've had
your treatment, it's the response which is important, not the aetiology.
You've had your treatment. It doesn't matter if your cancer was caused by
smoking, hpv, or death rays from Mars. There is no evidence at all that an
hpv patient with a t3n1 base of tongue cancer who achives complete
remission after RT has any better prognosis than a smoker with a t3n1 base
of tongue cancer who achieves complete remission after RT

Steph:

With all due respect, I think you seem to be missing his point.

There is a psychological component here. An attempt to hang on to
something -- study/understand something -- in this bewildering/terrirfying
sea of uncertainty. I don't mean falling to those selling snake oil. I do
mean someone who is intelligent and desperately seeking some
additional/deeper understanding.

It is like the time between having a test and waiting for the results. Yes,
at that point, like your own comment, there is nothing more to be done at
that time. But the psychology of it all is tough; the brain doesn't stop
working and the emotions and desire to gain some more understanding of it
all is heightened.

Anyway, perhaps Uncle can elaborate a bit more. Perhaps I'm missing his
point.

But I think YOU are missing the point, Steph.

Mel
"Steph" <steph@vancouvers.island> wrote in message
newsZABi.107085$fJ5.7065@pd7urf1no...
>
> "Uncle Sally" <uncleSally@auldUncleSally.com> wrote in message
> news:qMuBi.276568$rk4.182994@fe09.news.easynews.co m...
>> Steph wrote in response to Janet's post providing clear examples of tests
>> for HPV and relation of HPV to SCC prognosis :
>>
>> "It may have some relevance at the time of diagnosis in that it may
>> impact
>> on prognosis, but not on treatment, because it's the same"
>>
>> Evidently you just didn't "get it" that this whole thread is about
>> prognosis.
>>
>
> You've had your treatment. The point I was making was that once you've had
> your treatment, it's the response which is important, not the aetiology.
> You've had your treatment. It doesn't matter if your cancer was caused by
> smoking, hpv, or death rays from Mars. There is no evidence at all that an
> hpv patient with a t3n1 base of tongue cancer who achives complete
> remission after RT has any better prognosis than a smoker with a t3n1 base
> of tongue cancer who achieves complete remission after RT
>
>
>

"MZB" <moo@noway.prudigy.net> wrote in message
news:zYIBi.41$d57.5@newsfe05.lga...
> Steph:
>
> With all due respect, I think you seem to be missing his point.
>
> There is a psychological component here. An attempt to hang on to
> something -- study/understand something -- in this bewildering/terrirfying
> sea of uncertainty. I don't mean falling to those selling snake oil. I do
> mean someone who is intelligent and desperately seeking some
> additional/deeper understanding.
>
> It is like the time between having a test and waiting for the results.
> Yes, at that point, like your own comment, there is nothing more to be
> done at that time. But the psychology of it all is tough; the brain
> doesn't stop working and the emotions and desire to gain some more
> understanding of it all is heightened.
>
> Anyway, perhaps Uncle can elaborate a bit more. Perhaps I'm missing his
> point.
>
> But I think YOU are missing the point, Steph.
>

I'm not missing the point, I understand it very well. It's just that there
really is no point.........

> My motivation to understand how I might have become one of the relatively
> smaller number of people with basal tongue SCC who have no history of
> smoking or drinking alcohol, is certainly related to my own little struggle
> with the Beast; but it's also an intellectual curiousity that's just part of
> who I am.

What about your genetic legacy one leaves?
>
> I continue to draw comfort (and rationality) from Stephen Jay Gould's
> wonderful article on what you might call putting statistics into perspective
> at :
>
> http://cancerguide.org/median_not_msg.html
>
> And I recommend the above article to anyone I know who is facing or dealing
> with any kind of serious illness.
>
> regards, Uncle Sally

Yes, according to the stats I was very low risk for cancer...I often
wonder what exposures one has been exposed to has any effect.

Alex wrote :

"What about your genetic legacy one leaves ?"

Alex, Hi, I am not sure what you are asking by the very interesting question
above; perhaps it is a rhetorical question ? Please shed a little more
light for me on what you meant by this. If you mean children, I have not
done part to replicate my genes across time although I have enjoyed going
through the motions excessively.

"Yes, according to the stats I was very low risk for cancer...I often wonder
what exposures one has been exposed to has any effect."

I wonder, too, Alex. I think about the numerous mercury based fillings I had
as a child. The two surgeries where they knocked me out with ether (repair
stomach wall at age three, tonsils out at age 11 or so). And then I think
about the amount of spicy Thai food I've had in the last twelve years and
the effect of constant overloading of the "chili receptors"

In Gainesville, Florida, where I grew up, they had a DDT-fog belching
mosquito control truck come around frequently : us kids would run after it,
probably breathing in massive amounts of DDT. Our parents didn't now enough
then (1950's) to keep us indoors while the truck was around.

But it's still a beautiful life, every day of it

best, Uncle Sally

"Alex" <usenetgirl@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1188611894.737422.318080@22g2000hsm.googlegro ups.com...
>
>> My motivation to understand how I might have become one of the relatively
>> smaller number of people with basal tongue SCC who have no history of
>> smoking or drinking alcohol, is certainly related to my own little
>> struggle
>> with the Beast; but it's also an intellectual curiousity that's just part
>> of
>> who I am.
>
> What about your genetic legacy one leaves?
>>


What on earth are you on about?
You don't think that the kinds of DNA damage which cause cancer are
inherited, do you? It may be true for a very few familial conditions, but
certainly not for 99% of cancers.

Steph wrote:
> "Alex" <usenetgirl@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1188611894.737422.318080@22g2000hsm.googlegro ups.com...
>>> My motivation to understand how I might have become one of the relatively
>>> smaller number of people with basal tongue SCC who have no history of
>>> smoking or drinking alcohol, is certainly related to my own little
>>> struggle
>>> with the Beast; but it's also an intellectual curiousity that's just part
>>> of
>>> who I am.
>> What about your genetic legacy one leaves?
>
>
> What on earth are you on about?
> You don't think that the kinds of DNA damage which cause cancer are
> inherited, do you? It may be true for a very few familial conditions, but
> certainly not for 99% of cancers.
>
>

The first oncologist I went to, the guy who sent me to MD Anderson for
treatment, told us: "there are seven people in my family with cancer and
I don't have it *yet*" When I gave him my family history he commented
that it would have been difficult for me to have escaped getting cancer
somewhere.

When I went to MDA the doctors there, after reviewing my family history,
said the same thing. If I didn't get it on my tongue I'd probably have
gotten it somewhere else.

It seems to me that there are some major players in the cancer field who
think that there is a definite genetic link to being likely to get cancer.

You once posted that H&N radiation patients don't get burns, but they
do. I've seen it and had it. Not meaning to be disrespectful, but do you
think, perhaps, that there are some things you might not be aware of?

--
Janet Wilder
Bad spelling. Bad punctuation
Good Friends. Good Life

On Sep 1, 12:38 am, "Steph" <st...@vancouvers.island> wrote:
> "Alex" <usenetg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1188611894.737422.318080@22g2000hsm.googlegro ups.com...
>
>
>
> >> My motivation to understand how I might have become one of the relatively
> >> smaller number of people with basal tongue SCC who have no history of
> >> smoking or drinking alcohol, is certainly related to my own little
> >> struggle
> >> with the Beast; but it's also an intellectual curiousity that's just part
> >> of
> >> who I am.
>
> > What about your genetic legacy one leaves?
>
> What on earth are you on about?
> You don't think that the kinds of DNA damage which cause cancer are
> inherited, do you? It may be true for a very few familial conditions, but
> certainly not for 99% of cancers.

That may be true today, but they are finding new mutations related to
different cancers at a rapid rate.


http://www.cancerbackup.org.uk/About...Cancerandgenes.



Considering millions of new patients (according to the ACS In 2006,
more than half of all new cancers were cancers of the prostate,
breast, lung, and colon/rectum, It was projected that there would be
1,399,790 new cases of cancer in 2006)....1% ( if I use your stats)
that is 140,000 cases of cancer ( I think that is low based on the
merging field of the human genome) that have a genetic component and
their offspring would have a 50% of having the mutation. That maybe
small potatoes to you, but as Uncle Sally said, it is nautral to try
to understand why we got our cancer diagnosis.

On Sep 1, 12:38 am, "Steph" <st...@vancouvers.island> wrote:
> "Alex" <usenetg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1188611894.737422.318080@22g2000hsm.googlegro ups.com...
>
>
>
> >> My motivation to understand how I might have become one of the relatively
> >> smaller number of people with basal tongue SCC who have no history of
> >> smoking or drinking alcohol, is certainly related to my own little
> >> struggle
> >> with the Beast; but it's also an intellectual curiousity that's just part
> >> of
> >> who I am.
>
> > What about your genetic legacy one leaves?
>
> What on earth are you on about?
> You don't think that the kinds of DNA damage which cause cancer are
> inherited, do you? It may be true for a very few familial conditions, but
> certainly not for 99% of cancers.

That may be true today, but they are finding new mutations related to
different cancers at a rapid rate.

http://www.cancerbackup.org.uk/About...cergenetics/Ca....


Considering millions of new patients (according to the ACS In 2006,
more than half of all new cancers were cancers of the prostate,
breast, lung, and colon/rectum, It was projected that there would be
1,399,790 new cases of cancer in 2006)....1% ( if I use your stats)
that is 14000 cases of cancer ( I think that is low based on the
merging field of the human genome) that have a genetic component and
their offspring would have a 50% of having the mutation. That maybe
small potatoes to you, but as Uncle Sally said, it is nautral to try
to understand why we got our cancer diagnosis

On Aug 31, 10:20 pm, "Uncle Sally" <uncleSa...@auldUncleSally.com>
wrote:
> Alex wrote :
>
> "What about your genetic legacy one leaves ?"
>
> Alex, Hi, I am not sure what you are asking by the very interesting question
> above; perhaps it is a rhetorical question ? Please shed a little more
> light for me on what you meant by this. If you mean children, I have not
> done part to replicate my genes across time although I have enjoyed going
> through the motions excessively.
>
> "Yes, according to the stats I was very low risk for cancer...I often wonder
> what exposures one has been exposed to has any effect."
>
> I wonder, too, Alex. I think about the numerous mercury based fillings I had
> as a child. The two surgeries where they knocked me out with ether (repair
> stomach wall at age three, tonsils out at age 11 or so). And then I think
> about the amount of spicy Thai food I've had in the last twelve years and
> the effect of constant overloading of the "chili receptors"
>
> In Gainesville, Florida, where I grew up, they had a DDT-fog belching
> mosquito control truck come around frequently : us kids would run after it,
> probably breathing in massive amounts of DDT. Our parents didn't now enough
> then (1950's) to keep us indoors while the truck was around.
>
> But it's still a beautiful life, every day of it
>
> best, Uncle Sally

I was born in New York City, I wonder if they had any thing to do with
my cancer, but then NYC would have a higher cancer rate then the rest
of the USA. When I worked in a transplant unit in the 1970's we gave
many toxic agents, cytoxan, adriamycin, interferon ....we didn't wear
gloves in giving the drugs. Now the drugs are all dispensed with a
pharmacist using an vented hood. Also when a patient had an xray in
the room often times you were caught in the room or you could be in
adjoining room ( the rooms where not lead lined). We also had
patients having radiation therapy and wore badges to monitor our
radiation exposure, many of the nurses couldn't work since their badge
showed too much exposure. Don't even get me started on mercury!

No, I was talking about cancer patients who have tested positive for a
mutation, they do tests on colon, breast, ovarian and prostate
cancer. The children of these cancer survivors have a 50% of having
the gene.
That is what I was talking about.

"Alex" <usenetgirl@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1188625125.970964.121770@y42g2000hsy.googlegr oups.com...
> On Aug 31, 10:20 pm, "Uncle Sally" <uncleSa...@auldUncleSally.com>
> wrote:
>> Alex wrote :
>>
>> "What about your genetic legacy one leaves ?"
>>
>> Alex, Hi, I am not sure what you are asking by the very interesting
>> question
>> above; perhaps it is a rhetorical question ? Please shed a little more
>> light for me on what you meant by this. If you mean children, I have not
>> done part to replicate my genes across time although I have enjoyed going
>> through the motions excessively.
>>
>> "Yes, according to the stats I was very low risk for cancer...I often
>> wonder
>> what exposures one has been exposed to has any effect."
>>
>> I wonder, too, Alex. I think about the numerous mercury based fillings I
>> had
>> as a child. The two surgeries where they knocked me out with ether
>> (repair
>> stomach wall at age three, tonsils out at age 11 or so). And then I think
>> about the amount of spicy Thai food I've had in the last twelve years and
>> the effect of constant overloading of the "chili receptors"
>>
>> In Gainesville, Florida, where I grew up, they had a DDT-fog belching
>> mosquito control truck come around frequently : us kids would run after
>> it,
>> probably breathing in massive amounts of DDT. Our parents didn't now
>> enough
>> then (1950's) to keep us indoors while the truck was around.
>>
>> But it's still a beautiful life, every day of it
>>
>> best, Uncle Sally
>
> I was born in New York City, I wonder if they had any thing to do with
> my cancer, but then NYC would have a higher cancer rate then the rest
> of the USA.

Who says? Why do you post nonsense like that?

"Janet Wilder" <kelliepoodle@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:46d8ef5e$0$8149$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
> Steph wrote:
>> "Alex" <usenetgirl@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1188611894.737422.318080@22g2000hsm.googlegro ups.com...
>>>> My motivation to understand how I might have become one of the
>>>> relatively
>>>> smaller number of people with basal tongue SCC who have no history of
>>>> smoking or drinking alcohol, is certainly related to my own little
>>>> struggle
>>>> with the Beast; but it's also an intellectual curiousity that's just
>>>> part of
>>>> who I am.
>>> What about your genetic legacy one leaves?
>>
>>
>> What on earth are you on about?
>> You don't think that the kinds of DNA damage which cause cancer are
>> inherited, do you? It may be true for a very few familial conditions, but
>> certainly not for 99% of cancers.
>
> The first oncologist I went to, the guy who sent me to MD Anderson for
> treatment, told us: "there are seven people in my family with cancer and I
> don't have it *yet*" When I gave him my family history he commented that
> it would have been difficult for me to have escaped getting cancer
> somewhere.
>

Janet, that advice is nonsense. Sure people with first degree relatives with
breast cancer or bowel cancer or thyroid cancer have an increased risk, but
most breast cancers, bowel cancers and almost all other cancers are
sporadic.

> When I went to MDA the doctors there, after reviewing my family history,
> said the same thing. If I didn't get it on my tongue I'd probably have
> gotten it somewhere else.
>

Well, whoever told you that was wrong.

> It seems to me that there are some major players in the cancer field who
> think that there is a definite genetic link to being likely to get cancer.
>

For some cancers, yes, for most cancers, no.

> You once posted that H&N radiation patients don't get burns, but they do.
> I've seen it and had it. Not meaning to be disrespectful, but do you
> think, perhaps, that there are some things you might not be aware of?
>


I'm sure there are. But radiation reactions are not thermal, they are not
burns.

"Alex" <usenetgirl@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1188623711.975613.120290@o80g2000hse.googlegr oups.com...
> On Sep 1, 12:38 am, "Steph" <st...@vancouvers.island> wrote:
>> "Alex" <usenetg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1188611894.737422.318080@22g2000hsm.googlegro ups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> >> My motivation to understand how I might have become one of the
>> >> relatively
>> >> smaller number of people with basal tongue SCC who have no history of
>> >> smoking or drinking alcohol, is certainly related to my own little
>> >> struggle
>> >> with the Beast; but it's also an intellectual curiousity that's just
>> >> part
>> >> of
>> >> who I am.
>>
>> > What about your genetic legacy one leaves?
>>
>> What on earth are you on about?
>> You don't think that the kinds of DNA damage which cause cancer are
>> inherited, do you? It may be true for a very few familial conditions, but
>> certainly not for 99% of cancers.
>
> That may be true today, but they are finding new mutations related to
> different cancers at a rapid rate.
>
>
> http://www.cancerbackup.org.uk/About...Cancerandgenes.
>
>
>
> Considering millions of new patients (according to the ACS In 2006,
> more than half of all new cancers were cancers of the prostate,
> breast, lung, and colon/rectum, It was projected that there would be
> 1,399,790 new cases of cancer in 2006)....1% ( if I use your stats)
> that is 140,000 cases of cancer ( I think that is low based on the
> merging field of the human genome) that have a genetic component and
> their offspring would have a 50% of having the mutation. That maybe
> small potatoes to you, but as Uncle Sally said, it is nautral to try
> to understand why we got our cancer diagnosis.
>

Your grasp of stats is breathtaking. Do you know the difference between
dominant and recessive?

"Alex" <usenetgirl@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1188624400.558730.152690@o80g2000hse.googlegr oups.com...
> On Sep 1, 12:38 am, "Steph" <st...@vancouvers.island> wrote:
>> "Alex" <usenetg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1188611894.737422.318080@22g2000hsm.googlegro ups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> >> My motivation to understand how I might have become one of the
>> >> relatively
>> >> smaller number of people with basal tongue SCC who have no history of
>> >> smoking or drinking alcohol, is certainly related to my own little
>> >> struggle
>> >> with the Beast; but it's also an intellectual curiousity that's just
>> >> part
>> >> of
>> >> who I am.
>>
>> > What about your genetic legacy one leaves?
>>
>> What on earth are you on about?
>> You don't think that the kinds of DNA damage which cause cancer are
>> inherited, do you? It may be true for a very few familial conditions, but
>> certainly not for 99% of cancers.
>
> That may be true today, but they are finding new mutations related to
> different cancers at a rapid rate.
>
> http://www.cancerbackup.org.uk/About...cergenetics/Ca....
>
>
> Considering millions of new patients (according to the ACS In 2006,
> more than half of all new cancers were cancers of the prostate,
> breast, lung, and colon/rectum, It was projected that there would be
> 1,399,790 new cases of cancer in 2006)....1% ( if I use your stats)
> that is 14000 cases of cancer ( I think that is low based on the
> merging field of the human genome) that have a genetic component and
> their offspring would have a 50% of having the mutation. That maybe
> small potatoes to you, but as Uncle Sally said, it is nautral to try
> to understand why we got our cancer diagnosis
>

As usual, you don't have a clue, and I don't have the time or energy to
explain it to you..........

"Alex" <usenetgirl@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1188623711.975613.120290@o80g2000hse.googlegr oups.com...
> On Sep 1, 12:38 am, "Steph" <st...@vancouvers.island> wrote:
>> "Alex" <usenetg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1188611894.737422.318080@22g2000hsm.googlegro ups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> >> My motivation to understand how I might have become one of the
>> >> relatively
>> >> smaller number of people with basal tongue SCC who have no history of
>> >> smoking or drinking alcohol, is certainly related to my own little
>> >> struggle
>> >> with the Beast; but it's also an intellectual curiousity that's just
>> >> part
>> >> of
>> >> who I am.
>>
>> > What about your genetic legacy one leaves?
>>
>> What on earth are you on about?
>> You don't think that the kinds of DNA damage which cause cancer are
>> inherited, do you? It may be true for a very few familial conditions, but
>> certainly not for 99% of cancers.
>
> That may be true today, but they are finding new mutations related to
> different cancers at a rapid rate.
>
>
> http://www.cancerbackup.org.uk/About...Cancerandgenes.
>
>
>
> Considering millions of new patients (according to the ACS In 2006,
> more than half of all new cancers were cancers of the prostate,
> breast, lung, and colon/rectum, It was projected that there would be
> 1,399,790 new cases of cancer in 2006)....1% ( if I use your stats)
> that is 140,000 cases of cancer ( I think that is low based on the
> merging field of the human genome) that have a genetic component and
> their offspring would have a 50% of having the mutation. That maybe
> small potatoes to you, but as Uncle Sally said, it is nautral to try
> to understand why we got our cancer diagnosis.
>


Your grasp of genetics and stats is, as usual, breathtaking.
Do you know the difference between dominant and recessive?

All cancer is a genetic disease, but there is the world of difference
between genetic damage and inherited genetic damage.

Alex wrote:
> No, I was talking about cancer patients who have tested positive for a
> mutation, they do tests on colon, breast, ovarian and prostate
> cancer. The children of these cancer survivors have a 50% of having
> the gene.
> That is what I was talking about.

I have been exposed to so much radiation and chemotherapy
that I would never want to father a child because of the
danger of damaged DNA. I have had high dose radiation for
Hodgkin's Lymphoma and I-131 multiple times for Thyroid
cancer. Just doesn't seem like a smart thing to do.

On Sep 1, 3:09 am, "Steph" <st...@vancouvers.island> wrote:
> "Alex" <usenetg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1188623711.975613.120290@o80g2000hse.googlegr oups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Sep 1, 12:38 am, "Steph" <st...@vancouvers.island> wrote:
> >> "Alex" <usenetg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:1188611894.737422.318080@22g2000hsm.googleg roups.com...
>
> >> >> My motivation to understand how I might have become one of the
> >> >> relatively
> >> >> smaller number of people with basal tongue SCC who have no history of
> >> >> smoking or drinking alcohol, is certainly related to my own little
> >> >> struggle
> >> >> with the Beast; but it's also an intellectual curiousity that's just
> >> >> part
> >> >> of
> >> >> who I am.
>