Literature DB >> 15288838

The sensitivity and specificity of the OralCDx technique: evaluation of 103 cases.

Christian Scheifele1, Andrea-Maria Schmidt-Westhausen, Thomas Dietrich, Peter A Reichart.   

Abstract

In this study, we compared 103 OralCDx results with the histological findings of 96 clinical sites in 80 patients (33 females; 64.3+/-13.7 years and 47 males; 53.2+/-11.5 years). The histological findings were classified as follows: compatible with oral leukoplakia (OL; n = 60) or oral lichen planus (OLP; n = 17), both without dysplasia; dysplasia in OL or OLP (n = 9); and oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC; n = 17). There were seven (6.8%) specimens with an inadequate cell count. Overall, the sensitivity of the OralCDx technique to detect dysplasia and OSCC was 92.3% (95% CI: 74.9-99.1%), and the specificity was 94.3% (95% CI: 86.0-98.4%). The positive likelihood ratio (LR+) was 16.2 (95% CI: 6.2-42.1) and the negative likelihood ratio (LR-) was 0.08 (95% CI: 0.02-0.31). In conclusion, these figures are in agreement with previously published data and support the use of OralCDx as a screening tool of oral lesions, but further trials are still necessary.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15288838     DOI: 10.1016/j.oraloncology.2004.02.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Oral Oncol        ISSN: 1368-8375            Impact factor:   5.337


  36 in total

Review 1.  Current development of saliva/oral fluid-based diagnostics.

Authors:  Chih-Ko Yeh; Nicolaos J Christodoulides; Pierre N Floriano; Craig S Miller; Jeffrey L Ebersole; Shannon E Weigum; John McDevitt; Spencer W Redding
Journal:  Tex Dent J       Date:  2010-07

2.  High-molecular tenascin-C as an indicator of atypical cells in oral brush biopsies.

Authors:  O Driemel; R Dahse; A Berndt; H Pistner; S G Hakim; L Zardi; T E Reichert; H Kosmehl
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2006-11-17       Impact factor: 3.573

Review 3.  [Oral cytology: historical development, current status, and perspectives].

Authors:  M Hullmann; T E Reichert; R Dahse; F von Eggeling; H Pistner; H Kosmehl; O Driemel
Journal:  Mund Kiefer Gesichtschir       Date:  2007-01

4.  Diagnostic efficiency of differentiating small cancerous and precancerous lesions using mucosal brush smears of the oral cavity--a prospective and blinded study.

Authors:  Felix Peter Koch; Martin Kunkel; Stefan Biesterfeld; Wilfried Wagner
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2010-07-01       Impact factor: 3.573

5.  Mouth cancer: presentation, detection and referral in primary dental care.

Authors:  M A O Lewis
Journal:  Br Dent J       Date:  2018-11-09       Impact factor: 1.626

Review 6.  Critical evaluation of diagnostic aids for the detection of oral cancer.

Authors:  Mark W Lingen; John R Kalmar; Theodore Karrison; Paul M Speight
Journal:  Oral Oncol       Date:  2007-09-06       Impact factor: 5.337

7.  A prototype tobacco-associated oral squamous cell carcinoma classifier using RNA from brush cytology.

Authors:  Antonia Kolokythas; Mitchell J Bosman; Kristen B Pytynia; Suchismita Panda; Herve Y Sroussi; Yang Dai; Joel L Schwartz; Guy R Adami
Journal:  J Oral Pathol Med       Date:  2013-04-17       Impact factor: 4.253

8.  [Performance of conventional oral brush biopsies].

Authors:  O Driemel; M Kunkel; M Hullmann; N Kleinsasser; R Staudenmaier; U Müller-Richter; T E Reichert; H Kosmehl
Journal:  HNO       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 1.284

Review 9.  Diagnostic aids in the screening of oral cancer.

Authors:  Stefano Fedele
Journal:  Head Neck Oncol       Date:  2009-01-30

10.  MAGE-A as a novel approach in the diagnostic accuracy of oral squamous cell cancer: a case report.

Authors:  Philipp Metzler; Nur Mollaoglu; Stephan Schwarz; Friedrich W Neukam; Emeka Nkenke; Jutta Ries
Journal:  Head Neck Oncol       Date:  2009-12-16
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.