Talk:Oral cancer

Re: Signs and tests
Although I have allowed the lengthy exposition on the Vizilite device to remain, I would point out that this section needs a re-write. While there is no doubt that the average dental practitioner would benefit from an accurate and simple screening device for oral cancer, the general readership is not well-served by blatantly unbalanced advertising copy. Readers should be advised that to date, the Vizilite plays little role in the diagnosis of oral neoplastic disease in dental practice, regardless of its potential merit. The jury is still out among members of the oral pathology community; see the following link to a typical post on the topic, dated November 2005, from the Bulletin Board of Oral Pathology Listserv: Re: Vizilte study at USC in 2002. The same could be said of the Oral CDx brush "biopsy" system, and the sad collaboration between its parent company and the American Dental Association-- something that casts a cloud on the ADA's ostensible mission of acting in the public interest. The traditional, and to date the most reliable method of detection of cancer remains a visual, tactile, and radiographic examination of the mouth, lips, and the regional lymph nodes. The only reliable laboratory technique of diagnosing oral cancer is a microscopic examination of a properly obtained and properly prepared biopsy specimen. This fact, however, is nowhere to be found in this section.--Mark Bornfeld DDS 23:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I am in agreement with the above. It may be reasonable to state that the detection and diagnosis of precancerous oral lesions may be aided by special illumination techniques. This would make sense as part of a section on oral dysplasia: screening and treatment of. However, the Vizilite blurb appears to be advertising hype, which has no great relevance to a discussion on oral cancer. Not least is the fact that oral oncology is practiced successfully without Vizilite in many major centres throughout the Western world. As it stands the script implies that vizilite is a sine qua non for oral oncology. This is very misleading.Jellytussle 18:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The Vizilite blurb IS advertising hype, this is nothing more that Heinz 2% white vinegar and a toy light. I evaluated this product for the company in 1999, told them that there was little actual science behind the idea, and more. The entire oral cancer section needs an overhaul as too many vested interests, and some outright misinformation exists in it. The CDx issue is much the same with strong marketing rhetoric replacing what the science actually says. These kinds of things need to be part of something else if they are going to exist. A separate section on adjunctive devices and their pros and cons that is not part of the core oral cancer information. Getting this right for those that may be dealing with a diagnosis or understanding risk factors and more has to be scientifically accurate, or we do a disservice to the public. I have offered on several occasions to have members of the OCF science advisory board, all recognized authorities on this topic at major cancer institutions or universities help in an effort to get this straightened out. However dealing with Wiki has not been the easiest thing to do. ---Brian Hill, Director, the Oral Cancer Foundation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.79.184.179 (talk) 17:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Teeth-related cancers
Should teeth-related cancers, such as the one affecting Novemthree, be added? I think so, but I don't know if it belongs here. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 04:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Hi. It does not really belong here. It would be better to have an "Odontogenic tumors" section instead (which, by the way, is the appropriate name of tumors derived from the tissues that form the teeth).


 * The reason why this particular case is inappropriate here is that it does not represent cancer. The important point is that there are benign tumors and there are malignant tumors, and the Novemthree case is benign. The distinction is technical; in the generic semantic sense, this tumor was certainly malignant to the extent in which it inflicted damage. However, a true cancer generally must manifest certain microscopic and clinical characteristics. In general, cancers have the potential to spread (metastasize) to remote parts of the body, be locally invasive both grossly and microscopically, and demonstrate the microscopic quality of anaplasia (also see .--Mark Bornfeld DDS 12:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

"Surgeries for Oral Cancer"
I have deleted this paragraph. Whilst I think that a more detailed discussion of surgery may be helpful, the deleted section was merely a list of procedures, some of which are non-specific or not strictly relevant to oral cancer, and which were not put in any useful sort of context. The style was poor (use of second person.) I would also contest the assertion that a (functioning) tongue can be reconstructed "from other parts of your body" following total glossectomy. In fact the rehabilitation following total glossectomy is extremely difficult, which is why this operation is seldom performed.Jellytussle 15:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Angola
Why does Angola have such a high rate of mouth cancer? Can anyone elaborate why is this? I understand that countries where the use of Bethel & Gutka chewing is wide spread, such as Papua New Guinea and South Asian countries have a higher risk, but as far as I know, these are not consumed in West Africa. Is there another culprit responsible or is the data not correct? Is it spices, alcohol or food habits? Chewing Tobacco?

Picture?
Please add an additional picture, because the existing picture may seem to imply that oral cancer is normally accompanied by an obvious sign, but many oral cancers are actually non-obvious and can only be detected by careful examination. 108.56.238.89 (talk) 00:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Depends when it is detected. This is pretty obvious, I agree, but oral cancer usually presents late so I wouldn't call this atypical. We can always do with more clinical pictures. Different site, e.g. floor of mouth, or perhaps a premalignant lesion would be good. Lesion  ( talk ) 00:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Found some more imgs on commons. There is a bit more variety now, but it would still be good to get a picture of an early malignant ulcer. Lesion  ( talk ) 12:43, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Oral cancer and HPV
This section is factually inaccurate.

Contrary to the assertions made, HPV has not yet been conclusively shown to have a role in the carcinogenesis of oral cancer. The author(s) of this paragraph go on to talk about the prediliction of these cancers to manifest in the base of tongue and tonsils - this is correct, as these are all structures that are embryologically separate from the mouth, and constitute the, where HPV *is* an indisputable cause of cancer.

This section needs to be rewritten to reflect the fact that whilst oropharyngeal cancer is caused by HPV, HPV is suspected but unproven as a cause of oral cancer. This distinction is easy to confuse for non-medical people, but is a very important one. I will try to rewrite it when I get chance, but thought I should flag this to the wiki community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.188.254.77 (talk) 10:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Perhaps many readers hope, as I do, that you or a peer will find a chance to recompose the section. And add additional information about vaccination, because:


 * It seems to me HPV risk management should probably be discussed on this page. In particular if the medical community believes the HPV vaccine is likely protective against HPV related oropharynx cancer in some measure, a statement to that effect should be included. Ideally along with some detail, or references, which would provide guidance for common groups (e.g. age range, whether sexually active, etc.).


 * (I reviewed: https://www.Vaccines.gov/diseases/hpv/index.html, https://www.CDC.gov/cancer/hpv/basic_info/hpv_oropharyngeal.htm, and https://www.CDC.gov/vaccines/schedules/easy-to-read/adult-easyread.html but remain uncertain whether the HPV vaccine might provide some protection for sexually active older adults.) --H Bruce Campbell (talk) 11:03, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Oral cancer. 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/20120319153756/http://www.ada.org/sections/professionalResources/pdfs/topics_cancer_brief_mouthrinses.pdf to http://www.ada.org/sections/professionalResources/pdfs/topics_cancer_brief_mouthrinses.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090502074028/http://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/news_details.php?news_id=755&year=2008 to http://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/news_details.php?news_id=755&year=2008

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Added new treatment options
Hello, I am a dentist and medical researcher, I just added information from a Cochrane systematic review.

MeisserMadera (talk) 14:22, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Good source
For those who wish to help, and are looking for a reliable source. See Shah et al, CURRENT CONCEPTS IN MANAGEMENT OF ORAL CANCER – SURGERY Ian Furst (talk) 01:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Simple composition refinement.
"Recent data suggest that individuals that come to the disease from this particular cause..." changed to "Recent data suggest that individuals who develop the disease from this particular cause...". Please advise if problematic. H Bruce Campbell (talk) 06:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)