OBJECTIVE: Direct visual fluorescent examination (DVFE) is a proposed adjunct to conventional oral examination (COE). We evaluate the benefit of DVFE in screening for potentially malignant mucosal lesions in a general population of patients presenting for dental care. STUDY DESIGN: A total of 130 patients were evaluated by COE followed by DVFE. Areas clinically suspicious by COE or with positive DVFE (visual fluorescence loss [VFL]) underwent surgical biopsy. Association between COE and DVFE was assessed and compared with histopathology. RESULTS: A total of 42 subjects had one or more areas of VFL, yet histologic evidence of premalignancy/malignancy was only identified in a single individual. Further, one lesion negative by DVFE exhibited epithelial dysplasia. DVFE was statistically different from scalpel biopsy (P = .0001). No difference was found between COE and scalpel biopsy (P = 1.0). CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that COE is more valid than DVFE at discriminating benign mucosal alterations from premalignancy and do not support use of DVFE as an oral cancer screening adjunct.
OBJECTIVE: Direct visual fluorescent examination (DVFE) is a proposed adjunct to conventional oral examination (COE). We evaluate the benefit of DVFE in screening for potentially malignant mucosal lesions in a general population of patients presenting for dental care. STUDY DESIGN: A total of 130 patients were evaluated by COE followed by DVFE. Areas clinically suspicious by COE or with positive DVFE (visual fluorescence loss [VFL]) underwent surgical biopsy. Association between COE and DVFE was assessed and compared with histopathology. RESULTS: A total of 42 subjects had one or more areas of VFL, yet histologic evidence of premalignancy/malignancy was only identified in a single individual. Further, one lesion negative by DVFE exhibited epithelial dysplasia. DVFE was statistically different from scalpel biopsy (P = .0001). No difference was found between COE and scalpel biopsy (P = 1.0). CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that COE is more valid than DVFE at discriminating benign mucosal alterations from premalignancy and do not support use of DVFE as an oral cancer screening adjunct.
Authors: Adam Shadfan; Hawraa Darwiche; Jesus Blanco; Ann Gillenwater; Rebecca Richards-Kortum; Tomasz S Tkaczyk Journal: Biomed Opt Express Date: 2017-02-14 Impact factor: 3.732
Authors: Bilal H Malik; Joohyung Lee; Shuna Cheng; Rodrigo Cuenca; Joey M Jabbour; Yi-Shing Lisa Cheng; John M Wright; Beena Ahmed; Kristen C Maitland; Javier A Jo Journal: Photochem Photobiol Date: 2016-09-07 Impact factor: 3.421
Authors: Bilal H Malik; Joey M Jabbour; Shuna Cheng; Rodrigo Cuenca; Yi-Shing Lisa Cheng; John M Wright; Javier A Jo; Kristen C Maitland Journal: Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Date: 2015-10-26
Authors: Tanya Walsh; Saman Warnakulasuriya; Mark W Lingen; Alexander R Kerr; Graham R Ogden; Anne-Marie Glenny; Richard Macey Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2021-12-10
Authors: A Murali Balasubramaniam; Rajkumari Sriraman; P Sindhuja; Khadijah Mohideen; R Arjun Parameswar; K T Muhamed Haris Journal: J Pharm Bioallied Sci Date: 2015-08