2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjoms.2015.08.268
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Oral precursor lesions and malignant transformation – who, where, what, and when?

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

2
46
4
4

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
3

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 71 publications
(63 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
2
46
4
4
Order By: Relevance
“…Interestingly, lichenoid inflammation alone may contribute to MT. Goodson et al reviewed 1248 OSCCs and found that only 5.8% arose from documented OPMDs (similar rate of 6% in Cowan et al) and whilst 43% were classified as dysplasia or carcinoma in situ, 33% were classified as hyperkeratosis with lichenoid inflammation. Histological evidence of inflammation in cases of dysplasia or OSCC are relatively common, with rates of 20%‐30% of lesions displaying lichenoid features .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 87%
“…Interestingly, lichenoid inflammation alone may contribute to MT. Goodson et al reviewed 1248 OSCCs and found that only 5.8% arose from documented OPMDs (similar rate of 6% in Cowan et al) and whilst 43% were classified as dysplasia or carcinoma in situ, 33% were classified as hyperkeratosis with lichenoid inflammation. Histological evidence of inflammation in cases of dysplasia or OSCC are relatively common, with rates of 20%‐30% of lesions displaying lichenoid features .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 87%
“…Warnakulasuriya & Ariyawardana reviewed 24 observational studies of oral leukoplakia and identified advanced age, females, lesion greater than 200 mm 2 in size, non‐homogenous clinical appearance and severe dysplasia as high risk. Other authors, however, have not found clinical or pathological observations to correlate reliably with malignant transformation, with currently available biomarkers of little practical use …”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…46,47 Further, while expert opinion suggests screening for these lesions in the general population using standard visual and tactile exam (VTE) 44 followed by surgical biopsy, this approach is associated with potential morbidity. 48 Moreover, both a meta-analysis and a subsequent, large cohort study questioned the clinical utility of VTE and surgical biopsy 49,50 Adjunctive visualization methods such as VELscope and Vizilite have shown good sensitivity but poor specificity. 49 While results with oral cytology in those with visible OPMD have been encouraging (e.g., to triage who requires biopsy), appropriate studies in the general clinic population are required, and there is a paucity of relevant data in HIV-infected individuals.…”
Section: Site-specific Screening Approachmentioning
confidence: 99%