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 [1].--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?