Galectin-1 is a useful marker for detecting neoplastic squamous cells in oral cytology smears

The utility of oral brush cytology in the early detection of oral cancer and oral potentially malignant disorders: A systematic review

“…Goodson et al showed sensitivity and specificity of 60% and 99%, respectively. In contrast, Hayama et al, and Noda et al, did not report on sensitivity and specificity in their published papers. It can be viewed that until recently, the vast majority of studies that utilized LBC were conducted in developed countries while conventional cytology was mostly investigated in developing countries.…”

“…Of these, twelve studies showed sensitivity and specificity of 94.6% and 99.5%, 85.7% and 95.9% using conventional exfoliative cytology and 95.1% and 99.0% using liquid‐based cytology in the same study, 100% and 97.4% using a combination of cytological and DNA‐image cytometry assessment, 79% and 100%, 78% and 96%, 86.5% and 94.3%, 92.3% and 51.7%, 69% and 100%, 70.3% and 77.9%, 84.4% and 88.9%, 100% and 64%,, 96.3% and 90.6% using conventional exfoliative cytology, and 97.5% and 68.7% using liquid‐based cytology in the same study, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of 7 studies were not reported . OralCDx ® was explored in 8 studies that showed sensitivity and specificity of 100% and 100% for positive and 92.9% for atypical, 71.4% and 32%, 92.3% and 94.3%, 88.8% and 100%, 100% and 23.5%, and 72.7% and 92.3%, respectively.…”

“…17 From the evidence presented here, a number of brushes have been utilized for collecting oral mucosal cells ( Table 2). The most commonly used brush from the selected studies is the cytobrush, 11,[15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31] followed by the OralCDx â brush. [32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39] A baby toothbrush was also used in areas with limited resources (India).…”

“…The sensitivity and specificity of 7 studies were not reported. 11,17,18,20,25,28,29 OralCDx â was explored in 8 studies that showed sensitivity and specificity of 100% and 100% for positive and 92.9% for atypical, 32 respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of 2 studies were not reported.…”

“…Goodson et al 45 showed sensitivity and specificity of 60% and 99%, respectively. In contrast, Hayama et al11 , and Noda et al29 , did not report on sensitivity and specificity in their published papers. It can be viewed that until recently, the vast majority of studies that utilized LBC were conducted in developed countries while conventional cytology was mostly investigated in developing countries.Interestingly, the combination of LBC and molecular testing has introduced promising potential diagnostic and predictive biomarkers; however, these combined tests need to be validated in prospective longitudinal cohort studies.…”