General Rules for Clinical and Pathological Studies on Oral Cancer: A Synopsis

Izumo, Toshiyuki; Kirita, Tadaaki; Ariji, Eiichiro; Ozeki, Satoru; Okada, Norihiko; Okabe, Susumu; Okazaki, Yuichiro; Omura, Ken; Kusama, Mikio; Satô, Tôru; Shinohara, Masanori; Shimozato, Kazuo

doi:10.1093/jjco/hys141

Cited by 46 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Histologic grading of SCC differentiation was divided into 3 groups: (1) well‐differentiated (grade 1); (2) moderately differentiated (grade 2); and (3) poorly differentiated (grade 3) . Cancer growth characteristics and mode of invasion was classified using the INF classification . With respect to tumor INFs into the surrounding tissue, INFa is defined as a tumor that displays expanding growth with a distinct border from the surrounding tissue, INFb is defined as a tumor that shows an intermediate pattern between INFa and INFc, whereas INFc is defined as a tumor that displays infiltrative growth with no distinct border with the surrounding tissue.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Histologic assessment of tumor budding in preoperative biopsies to predict nodal metastasis in squamous cell carcinoma of the tongue and floor of the mouth

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Histologic assessment of tumor budding in preoperative biopsies to predict nodal metastasis in squamous cell carcinoma of the tongue and floor of the mouth

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Two experienced pathologists (M. T. and A. N.) independently graded epithelial dysplasia of the oral mucosa using hematoxylin–eosin‐stained (H&E‐stained) sections. This assessment was based on the modified squamous intra‐epithelial neoplasia (SIN) system , with the pathologists being blinded to the immunohistochemical findings. The modified SIN system was essentially the same as the SIN system outlined by the World Health Organization in 2005 , except that our definition of carcinoma in situ (CIS) covered a wider range of lesions.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multivariate analyses of Ki‐67, cytokeratin 13 and cytokeratin 17 in diagnosis and prognosis of oral precancerous lesions

Yagyuu

Obayashi

Ueyama

et al. 2014

J Oral Pathology Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND: Ki-67, cytokeratin 13, and/or cytokeratin 17 detection by immunohistochemistry has been reported to be useful for the diagnosis of oral precancerous lesions. However, the use of these markers remains controversial because of the lack of appropriately designed statistical studies. We assessed the hypothesis that Ki-67, cytokeratin 13, or cytokeratin 17 immunohistochemistry could facilitate the diagnosis of oral precancerous lesions and/or predict prognosis. METHODS: Epithelial dysplasia was classified as low grade (none or mild dysplasia) or high grade (moderate dysplasia, severe dysplasia, or carcinoma in situ). This study included 58 low-grade and 36 high-grade dysplasia cases. We used logistic regression to assess the diagnostic values of Ki-67, cytokeratin 13, and cytokeratin 17 for high-grade dysplasia. Correlations between these markers and the prognosis of oral atypical epithelium were assessed using the Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: Ki-67 overexpression and cytokeratin 13 loss were independent diagnostic markers for high-grade dysplasia (odds ratios, 1.92 and 2.53; 95% confidence intervals, 1.03-3.58, and 1.19-5.38, respectively). The area under the curve of Ki-67 was 0.73 and that of cytokeratin 13 was 0.72. However, the combination of Ki-67 and cytokeratin 13 yielded the area under the curve of 0.78. Ki-67 overexpression was significantly associated with recurrence and/or malignant transformation of oral atypical epithelium (hazard ratio, 7.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-48.92).CONCLUSIONS: Ki-67 overexpression and cytokeratin 13 loss may be useful for distinguishing oral precancerous lesions from reactive atypical epithelium. Moreover, Ki-67 overexpression may be a risk factor for recurrence and/or malignant transformation of oral atypical epithelium.

show abstract

“…The chemotherapeutic effect was evaluated histologically in resected specimens from the patients with preoperative S‐1 chemotherapy. The chemotherapeutic effect was classified into five stages: Grade 0: ineffective, no therapeutic effect noted in cancer tissue and cells; Grade 1a: very slightly effective, some degenerative change noted in cancer tissue, but clearly viable cancer cells with intact nucleus and cytoplasmic borders occupying two‐thirds or more of the cancer; Grade 1b: mildly effective, clearly viable cancer cells occupying one‐third or more but less than two‐thirds of the cancer; Grade 2: moderately effective, clearly viable cancer cells occupying less than one‐third of the cancer and dominated by showing a tendency toward nuclear disintegration; and Grade 3: markedly effective, no clearly viable cancer cells observed. The chemotherapeutic effects and budding scores on immunohistochemistry were evaluated by two pathologists (MSS and TS) by consensus.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Histopathological changes in tumor budding between biopsy and resected specimens from patients treated with preoperative S‐1 chemotherapy for oral cancer

Seki‐Soda

Sano

Koshi

et al. 2019

J Oral Pathology Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background S‐1 is an oral anticancer agent containing tegafur, a prodrug of 5‐fluorouracil (5‐FU). Preoperative S‐1 chemotherapy is performed to prevent tumor proliferation before surgery in oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC). The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of preoperative S‐1 chemotherapy on tumor budding. Methods We examined 248 cases of OSCC and evaluated the budding scores in biopsy and resected specimens by keratin immunohistochemistry. Results In S‐1‐untreated patients, the budding scores in resected specimens tended to show a mild increase. S‐1 treatment had the effect of lowering the budding score, although some cases with dramatically increased budding scores in resected specimens were found in the early phase of administration. Relapse‐free survival showed a significant difference (P < .01) according to the presence or absence of S‐1 treatment among patients with high budding scores. Conclusions The present findings indicate that S‐1 administration may be more effective in patients with high budding scores than in those with lower budding scores.

show abstract

General Rules for Clinical and Pathological Studies on Oral Cancer: A Synopsis

Cited by 46 publications

References 0 publications

Histologic assessment of tumor budding in preoperative biopsies to predict nodal metastasis in squamous cell carcinoma of the tongue and floor of the mouth

Histologic assessment of tumor budding in preoperative biopsies to predict nodal metastasis in squamous cell carcinoma of the tongue and floor of the mouth

Multivariate analyses of Ki‐67, cytokeratin 13 and cytokeratin 17 in diagnosis and prognosis of oral precancerous lesions

Histopathological changes in tumor budding between biopsy and resected specimens from patients treated with preoperative S‐1 chemotherapy for oral cancer

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About