Factors associated with underdiagnosis from incisional biopsy of oral leukoplakic lesions

Lee, Jang‐Jaer; Hung, Hsin-Chia; Cheng, Shih‐Jung; Chiang, Chun-Pin; Liu, Bu-Yuan; Yu, Chuan‐Hang; Jeng, Jiiang‐Huei; Chang, Hao-Hueng; Kok, Sang‐Heng

doi:10.1016/j.tripleo.2007.02.012

Cited by 84 publications

(75 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Some of the other studies have reported frequencies as high as 21% in these lesions [26]. Lee et al, reported a risk of less than 1% carcinomatous component in homogeneous leukoplakia lesions [30]. In contrast the homogeneous leukoplakia lesions in our study did not show any signs of malignancy.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 68%

Oral Leukoplakia – Is Biopsy at the Initial Appointment a Must?

Mutalik

Pai

et al. 2014

JCDR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 68%

Oral Leukoplakia – Is Biopsy at the Initial Appointment a Must?

Mutalik

Pai

et al. 2014

JCDR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…When compared with other studies in literature, present study showed comparatively less percentage disparity in incisional and excisional biopsy results. [3] Another important fact was that downgrading of the grade was also noted in our study along with upgrading of the lesions with same frequency. Reviewing of literature revealed that reports of upgrading was the most discussed element and no literature regarding the frequency of downgrading in the lesion.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 79%

“…In a study, carcinoma was not reported in 12% of incisional biopsy cases. [3] Few other studies also have shown carcinoma after resection, which was not detected in incisional biopsy. [5] Lee etal studied the agreement rate between histological diagnosis of single site biopsy and after resection in case of leukoplakia.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…If incisional biopsy shows downgrading of the severity of dysplasia and if the patient compliance is poor, it leads to a situation where the patient may return with a frank carcinoma in the future. [2,3] The same is applicable in case of carcinoma. The treatment modality and margin of the surgical lesion depends on the incisional biopsy report.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Study on Concordance of Pre and Post-surgical Biopsy in Oral Carcinoma

Sebastián¹,

Satheesan

Emmnuel

et al. 2018

IJMDS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Otros autores observaron valores inferiores de sensibilidad y especificidad (2-4), pero en estos estudios las discrepancias en los resultados observados se obtuvieron porque las muestras tomadas se tomaron en momentos muy diferentes, a menudo meses o con más de un año de diferencia (2-4). Los resultados falsos negativos y falsos positivos observados resultaron, por tanto, de una comparación inadecuada de la precisión de las dos pruebas diagnósti-cas ya que cuando se realizan comparaciones entre dos técnicas de biopsia sólo deben considerarse válidos los estudios que comparan los resultados de ambas biopsias realizadas al mismo tiempo y en la misma porción de la lesión (18). De no ser así, los resultados serán discrepantes, ya que la naturaleza biológica de una lesión puede cambiar con el tiempo (lesiones benignas puede llegar a ser displásicas y la displasia puede también retroceder) (19).…”

Section: La Mayoría De Los Sujetos Eran Varones (H: M 47:33)unclassified

Biopsia por cepillado con el OralCDx®: Estado de la cuestión

Cruz¹,

Bascones-Martínez²

2013

Av Odontoestomatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

RESUMENLa controversia en torno al OralCDx ® (OralScan Laboratories Inc., Suffern, Nueva York) se ha mantenido desde la publicación del primer estudio evaluando la validez y seguridad de esta prueba diagnóstica, como artículo de portada de la revista JADA en 1999. Aunque el estudio fue muy elogiado por algunos, otros han cuestionado la interpretación de la estadística y por consiguiente la aplicabilidad clínica de estos resultados. Esto dio lugar a lo que Greenberg designó la "controversia del cepillo" y a una incertidumbre, que aún hoy prevalece, en cuanto al uso de esta prueba diagnóstica. Entendemos que es importante llevar a cabo un análisis actualizado de la literatura que permita resumir la evidencia actual en torno al OralCDx ® . El objetivo de este artículo es realizar una revisión bibliográfica relacionada con la precisión del sistema de Test de cepillado OralCDx ® como técnica adyuvante de diagnóstico de LOMP. Se resumen datos acerca del diseño, muestras y características del grupo de estudio, intervenciones, resultados comunicados y medidas básicas de precisión diagnóstica de este método adyuvante, a partir de los estudios clínicos publicados entre los años de 1999 y 2013.Palabras clave: Cáncer oral, condiciones precancerosas, diagnóstico, biopsia por cepillado, análisis asistido por ordenador. SUMMARYThe controversy surrounding the OralCDx® (OralScan Laboratories Inc., Suffern, New York) has been on since the first study evaluating the validity and safety of this diagnostic test was published as cover story of the JADA in 1999. Although the study was highly praised by some, others have challenged the interpretation of the statistics and therefore the practical implications of these results. This resulted in what Greenberg called the "brush controversy" and in an uncertainty regarding the use of this diagnostic test that still prevails today. We believe it is important to conduct an updated review of the literature to summarize the current evidence regarding OralCDx®. The aim of this article is to review the literature regarding the accuracy of the OralCDx® brush biopsy in the detection or diagnosis of oral premalignant and malignant lesions (OPML). We abstracted data relating to study design, sampling and characteristics of the study group, interventions, reported outcomes and diagnostic accuracy of this adjunctive aid from the clinical studies published between 1999 and 2013.

show abstract

Factors associated with underdiagnosis from incisional biopsy of oral leukoplakic lesions

Cited by 84 publications

References 37 publications

Oral Leukoplakia – Is Biopsy at the Initial Appointment a Must?

Oral Leukoplakia – Is Biopsy at the Initial Appointment a Must?

A Study on Concordance of Pre and Post-surgical Biopsy in Oral Carcinoma

Biopsia por cepillado con el OralCDx®: Estado de la cuestión

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About