Faculty Bibliography

The aim of this multicenter retrospective study is to characterize the histopathologic features of initial/early biopsies of proliferative leukoplakia (PL; also known as proliferative verrucous leukoplakia), and to analyze the correlation between histopathologic features and malignant transformation (MT). Patients with a clinical diagnosis of PL who have at least one biopsy and one follow-up visit were included in this study. Initial/early biopsy specimens were reviewed. The biopsies were evaluated for the presence of squamous cell carcinoma (SCCa), oral epithelial dysplasia (OED), and atypical verrucous hyperplasia (AVH). Cases that lacked unequivocal features of dysplasia were termed "hyperkeratosis/parakeratosis not reactive (HkNR)". Pearson chi-square test and Wilcoxon test were used for statistical analysis. There were 86 early/initial biopsies from 59 patients; 74.6% were females. Most of the cases had a smooth/homogenous (34.8%) or fissured appearance (32.6%), and only 13.0% had a verrucous appearance. The most common biopsy site was the gingiva/alveolar mucosa (40.8%) and buccal mucosa (25.0%). The most common histologic diagnosis was OED (53.5%) followed by HkNR (31.4%). Of note, two-thirds of HkNR cases showed only hyperkeratosis and epithelial atrophy. A lymphocytic band was seen in 34.8% of OED cases and 29.6% of HkNR cases, mostly associated with epithelial atrophy. Twenty-eight patients (47.5%) developed carcinoma and 28.9% of early/initial biopsy sites underwent MT. The mortality rate was 11.9%. Our findings show that one-third of cases of PL do not show OED with most exhibiting hyperkeratosis and epithelial atrophy, but MT nevertheless occurred at such sites in 3.7% of cases.

BACKGROUND:-CLO) for the treatment of OLP. METHODS:-CLO) in OLP across Europe, Canada, and the United States. Patients were randomized to placebo (nonmedicated), 1, 5, 20 µg Clobetasol/patch, twice daily, for 4 weeks. The primary endpoint was change in total ulcer area compared to baseline. Secondary endpoints included improvement from baseline in pain, disease activity, and quality of life. RESULTS:-CLO patches demonstrated significant improvement with ulcer area (p = 0.047), symptom severity (p = 0.001), disease activity (p = 0.022), pain (p = 0.012), and quality of life (p = 0.003) as compared with placebo. Improvement in OLP symptoms from beginning to the end of the study was reported as very much better (best rating) in the 20-µg group (25/32) patients compared to the placebo group (11/30), (p = 0.012). Adverse events were mild/moderate. Candidiasis incidence was low (2%). CONCLUSIONS:-CLO patches were superior to placebo demonstrating statistically significant, clinically relevant efficacy in objective and subjective improvement and, with a favorable safety profile.

BACKGROUND:The early detection of oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) and oral potentially malignant disorders (OPMD), followed by appropriate treatment, may improve survival and reduce the risk for malignant transformation respectively. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2013. OBJECTIVES:To estimate the diagnostic test accuracy of conventional oral examination, vital rinsing, light-based detection, mouth self-examination, remote screening, and biomarkers, used singly or in combination, for the early detection of OPMD or OSCC in apparently healthy adults. SEARCH METHODS:Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 20 October 2020), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 20 October 2020), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 20 October 2020). The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. We conducted citation searches, and screened reference lists of included studies for additional references. SELECTION CRITERIA:We selected studies that reported the test accuracy of any of the aforementioned tests in detecting OPMD or OSCC during a screening procedure. Diagnosis of OPMD or OSCC was provided by specialist clinicians or pathologists, or alternatively through follow-up. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts for relevance. Eligibility, data extraction, and quality assessment were carried out by at least two authors independently and in duplicate. Studies were assessed for methodological quality using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2). We reported the sensitivity and specificity of the included studies. We provided judgement of the certainty of the evidence using a GRADE assessment. MAIN RESULTS:We included 18 studies, recruiting 72,202 participants, published between 1986 and 2019. These studies evaluated the diagnostic test accuracy of conventional oral examination (10 studies, none new to this update), mouth self-examination (four studies, two new to this update), and remote screening (three studies, all new to this update). One randomised controlled trial of test accuracy directly evaluated conventional oral examination plus vital rinsing versus conventional oral examination alone. There were no eligible studies evaluating light-based detection or blood or salivary sample analysis (which tests for the presence of biomarkers for OPMD and OSCC). Only one study of conventional oral examination was judged as at overall low risk of bias and overall low concern regarding applicability. Given the clinical heterogeneity of the included studies in terms of the participants recruited, setting, prevalence of the target condition, the application of the index test and reference standard, and the flow and timing of the process, the data could not be pooled within the broader categories of index test. For conventional oral examination (10 studies, 25,568 participants), prevalence in the test accuracy sample ranged from 1% to 51%. For the seven studies with prevalence of 10% or lower, a prevalence more comparable to the general population, the sensitivity estimates were variable, and ranged from 0.50 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07 to 0.93) to 0.99 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.00); the specificity estimates were more consistent and ranged from 0.94 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.97) to 0.99 (95% CI 0.98 to 1.00). We judged the overall certainty of the evidence to be low, and downgraded for inconsistency and indirectness. Evidence for mouth self-examination and remote screening was more limited. We judged the overall certainty of the evidence for these index tests to be very low, and downgraded for imprecision, inconsistency, and indirectness. We judged the evidence for vital rinsing (toluidine blue) as an adjunct to conventional oral examination compared to conventional oral examination to be moderate, and downgraded for indirectness as the trial was undertaken in a high-risk population. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:There is a lack of high-certainty evidence to support the use of screening programmes for oral cavity cancer and OPMD in the general population. Frontline screeners such as general dentists, dental hygienists, other allied professionals, and community healthcare workers should remain vigilant for signs of OPMD and OSCC.

Oral potentially malignant disorders (OPMDs) are associated with an increased risk of occurrence of cancers of the lip or oral cavity. This paper presents an updated report on the nomenclature and the classification of OPMDs, based predominantly on their clinical features, following discussions by an expert group at a workshop held by the World Health Organization (WHO) Collaborating Centre for Oral Cancer in the UK. The first workshop held in London in 2005 considered a wide spectrum of disorders under the term "potentially malignant disorders of the oral mucosa" (PMD) (now referred to as oral potentially malignant disorders: OPMD) including leukoplakia, erythroplakia, proliferative verrucous leukoplakia, oral lichen planus, oral submucous fibrosis, palatal lesions in reverse smokers, lupus erythematosus, epidermolysis bullosa, and dyskeratosis congenita. Any new evidence published in the intervening period was considered to make essential changes to the 2007 classification. In the current update, most entities were retained with minor changes to their definition. There is sufficient evidence for an increased risk of oral cancer among patients diagnosed with "oral lichenoid lesions" and among those diagnosed with oral manifestations of 'chronic graft-versus-host disease'. These have now been added to the list of OPMDs. There is, to date, insufficient evidence concerning the malignant potential of chronic hyperplastic candidosis and of oral exophytic verrucous hyperplasia to consider these conditions as OPMDs. Furthermore, due to lack of clear evidence of an OPMD in epidermolysis bullosa this was moved to the category with limited evidence. We recommend the establishment of a global research consortium to further study the natural history of OPMDs based on the classification and nomenclature proposed here. This will require multi-center longitudinal studies with uniform diagnostic criteria to improve the identification and cancer risk stratification of patients with OPMDs, link them to evidence-based interventions, with a goal to facilitate the prevention and management of lip and oral cavity cancer.

Patients with oral potentially malignant disorders (OPMDs), including oral leukoplakia and erythroplakia, proliferative verrucous leukoplakia, oral submucous fibrosis, and oral lichen planus/lichenoid lesions can be challenging to manage. A small proportion will undergo cancer development and determining a patient's cancer risk is key to making management decisions. Yet, our understanding of the natural history of OPMDs has not been fully elucidated, and a precision approach based on the integration of numerous predictive markers has not been validated by prospective studies. Evidence-based health promotion by clinicians and healthcare systems is not embraced universally. Medical and surgical interventions evaluated by rigorous research measuring important endpoints, such as cancer development, mortality, or survival are difficult and expensive to run. Most of these studies employ non-ideal surrogate endpoints and have deep methodologic flaws. Diagnostic criteria for enrolling research subjects are not uniform, and patients with the highest risk for cancer development comprise small proportions of those enrolled. Few studies explore quality of life and patient preferences. It is time to rethink how we approach the management of these patients, across each OPMD, and considering the healthcare infrastructure and cost effectiveness. Global networks with well-characterized patient populations with OPMDs and well-designed interventional trials using validated outcome measures are needed.

BACKGROUND:Squamous cell carcinoma is the most common form of malignancy of the oral cavity, and is often proceeded by oral potentially malignant disorders (OPMD). Early detection of oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma (oral cancer) can improve survival rates. The current diagnostic standard of surgical biopsy with histology is painful for patients and involves a delay in order to process the tissue and render a histological diagnosis; other diagnostic tests are available that are less invasive and some are able to provide immediate results. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2015. OBJECTIVES:Primary objective: to estimate the diagnostic accuracy of index tests for the detection of oral cancer and OPMD, in people presenting with clinically evident suspicious and innocuous lesions. SECONDARY OBJECTIVE:to estimate the relative accuracy of the different index tests. SEARCH METHODS:Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 20 October 2020), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 20 October 2020). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were also searched for ongoing trials to 20 October 2020. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. We conducted citation searches, and screened reference lists of included studies for additional references. SELECTION CRITERIA:We selected studies that reported the diagnostic test accuracy of the following index tests when used as an adjunct to conventional oral examination in detecting OPMD or oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma: vital staining (a dye to stain oral mucosa tissues), oral cytology, light-based detection and oral spectroscopy, blood or saliva analysis (which test for the presence of biomarkers in blood or saliva). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts for relevance. Eligibility, data extraction and quality assessment were carried out by at least two authors, independently and in duplicate. Studies were assessed for methodological quality using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2). Meta-analysis was used to combine the results of studies for each index test using the bivariate approach to estimate the expected values of sensitivity and specificity. MAIN RESULTS:This update included 63 studies (79 datasets) published between 1980 and 2020 evaluating 7942 lesions for the quantitative meta-analysis. These studies evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of conventional oral examination with: vital staining (22 datasets), oral cytology (24 datasets), light-based detection or oral spectroscopy (24 datasets). Nine datasets assessed two combined index tests. There were no eligible diagnostic accuracy studies evaluating blood or salivary sample analysis. Two studies were classed as being at low risk of bias across all domains, and 33 studies were at low concern for applicability across the three domains, where patient selection, the index test, and the reference standard used were generalisable across the population attending secondary care. The summary estimates obtained from the meta-analysis were: - vital staining: sensitivity 0.86 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 0.90) specificity 0.68 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.77), 20 studies, sensitivity low-certainty evidence, specificity very low-certainty evidence; - oral cytology: sensitivity 0.90 (95% CI 0.82 to 0.94) specificity 0.94 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.97), 20 studies, sensitivity moderate-certainty evidence, specificity moderate-certainty evidence; - light-based: sensitivity 0.87 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.93) specificity 0.50 (95% CI 0.32 to 0.68), 23 studies, sensitivity low-certainty evidence, specificity very low-certainty evidence; and - combined tests: sensitivity 0.78 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.94) specificity 0.71 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.84), 9 studies, sensitivity very low-certainty evidence, specificity very low-certainty evidence. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:At present none of the adjunctive tests can be recommended as a replacement for the currently used standard of a surgical biopsy and histological assessment. Given the relatively high values of the summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity for oral cytology, this would appear to offer the most potential. Combined adjunctive tests involving cytology warrant further investigation. Potentially eligible studies of blood and salivary biomarkers were excluded from the review as they were of a case-control design and therefore ineligible. In the absence of substantial improvement in the tests evaluated in this updated review, further research into biomarkers may be warranted.

Oral cancer is a major public health problem, and there is an increasing trend for oral cancer to affect young men and women. Public awareness is poor, and many patients present with late-stage disease, contributing to high mortality. Oral cancer is often preceded by a clinical premalignant phase accessible to visual inspection, and thus there are opportunities for earlier detection and to reduce morbidity and mortality. Screening asymptomatic individuals by systematic visual oral examinations to detect the disease has been shown to be feasible. A positive screen includes both oral cancer and oral potentially malignant disorders. We review key screening studies undertaken, including 1 randomized clinical trial. Screening of high-risk groups is cost-effective. Strengths and weaknesses of oral cancer screening studies are presented to help guide new research in primary care settings and invigorated by the prospect of using emerging new technologies that may help to improve discriminatory accuracy of case detection. Most national organizations, including the US Preventive Services Task Force, have so far not recommended population-based screening due a lack of sufficient evidence that screening leads to a reduction in oral cancer mortality. Where health care resources are high, opportunistic screening in dental practices is recommended, although the paucity of research in primary care is alarming. The results of surveys suggest that dentists do perform oral cancer screenings, but there is only weak evidence that screening in dental practices leads to downstaging of disease. Where health care resources are low, the feasibility of using primary health care workers for oral cancer screening has been tested, and measures indicate good outcomes. Most studies reported in the literature are based on 1 round of screening, whereas screening should be a continuous process. This review identifies a huge potential for new research directions on screening for oral cancer.