J Kaur1, R Jacobs2, Y Huang2,3, N Salvo2, C Politis2. 1. OMFS IMPATH research group, Department Imaging & Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, KU Leuven and Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. jasdeep.kor@gmail.com. 2. OMFS IMPATH research group, Department Imaging & Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, KU Leuven and Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. 3. State Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases, West China College of Stomatology, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to conduct a systematic review of the literature assessing potential salivary biomarkers of oral cancer and pre-cancer and discuss emerging issues and challenges in relation to oral cancer and pre-cancer diagnostics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Search for articles involved the Medline, PubMed, and EMBASE. Specific terms were used from January 1995 to March 2017 by three experts. RESULTS: This search collected 270 articles, of which 105 articles such as reviews, case reports, news, letter to editor, etc. in first round and 117 articles such as publications in other languages than English, non-human studies, etc. were excluded. The remaining 48 articles considered analyzing whole saliva as well as specific gland saliva. Thirty-one studies considered oral stimuli such as eating, drinking, and oral hygiene practices for varied periods of time prior to sample collection. The time of collection of saliva was morning in most studies, but the exact time of collection was not mentioned. Three studies showed to have evaluated the whole saliva without centrifugation. Two-dimensional gel electrophoresis and tandem mass spectrometry were the most commonly used methods. Most of the potential salivary biomarkers of oral cancer are salivary proteins. CONCLUSION: Combination approach of salivary biomarkers could be used as screening tool to improve early detection and diagnostic precision of oral pre-cancer and cancer. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The current findings are of importance for clinicians and researchers to mitigate the challenges in salivary-based diagnosis of oral cancer and to evaluate reliable, specific, and sensitive salivary biomarkers for oral pre-cancer and cancer diagnosis.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to conduct a systematic review of the literature assessing potential salivary biomarkers of oral cancer and pre-cancer and discuss emerging issues and challenges in relation to oral cancer and pre-cancer diagnostics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Search for articles involved the Medline, PubMed, and EMBASE. Specific terms were used from January 1995 to March 2017 by three experts. RESULTS: This search collected 270 articles, of which 105 articles such as reviews, case reports, news, letter to editor, etc. in first round and 117 articles such as publications in other languages than English, non-human studies, etc. were excluded. The remaining 48 articles considered analyzing whole saliva as well as specific gland saliva. Thirty-one studies considered oral stimuli such as eating, drinking, and oral hygiene practices for varied periods of time prior to sample collection. The time of collection of saliva was morning in most studies, but the exact time of collection was not mentioned. Three studies showed to have evaluated the whole saliva without centrifugation. Two-dimensional gel electrophoresis and tandem mass spectrometry were the most commonly used methods. Most of the potential salivary biomarkers of oral cancer are salivary proteins. CONCLUSION: Combination approach of salivary biomarkers could be used as screening tool to improve early detection and diagnostic precision of oral pre-cancer and cancer. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The current findings are of importance for clinicians and researchers to mitigate the challenges in salivary-based diagnosis of oral cancer and to evaluate reliable, specific, and sensitive salivary biomarkers for oral pre-cancer and cancer diagnosis.
Authors: Sricharan Bandhakavi; Matthew D Stone; Getiria Onsongo; Susan K Van Riper; Timothy J Griffin Journal: J Proteome Res Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 4.466
Authors: Kuldeep Dhama; Shyma K Latheef; Maryam Dadar; Hari Abdul Samad; Ashok Munjal; Rekha Khandia; Kumaragurubaran Karthik; Ruchi Tiwari; Mohd Iqbal Yatoo; Prakash Bhatt; Sandip Chakraborty; Karam Pal Singh; Hafiz M N Iqbal; Wanpen Chaicumpa; Sunil Kumar Joshi Journal: Front Mol Biosci Date: 2019-10-18
Authors: Paula Demétrio de Souza França; Susanne Kossatz; Christian Brand; Daniella Karassawa Zanoni; Sheryl Roberts; Navjot Guru; Dauren Adilbay; Audrey Mauguen; Cristina Valero Mayor; Wolfgang A Weber; Heiko Schöder; Ronald A Ghossein; Ian Ganly; Snehal G Patel; Thomas Reiner Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2021-05-05 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Elżbieta Kubala; Paulina Strzelecka; Marta Grzegocka; Danuta Lietz-Kijak; Helena Gronwald; Piotr Skomro; Edward Kijak Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2018-05-09 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Maksim Domnich; Jana Riedesel; Ekaterina Pylaeva; Cornelius H L Kürten; Jan Buer; Stephan Lang; Jadwiga Jablonska Journal: Front Immunol Date: 2020-10-09 Impact factor: 7.561
Authors: Silvio Abati; Chiara Bramati; Stefano Bondi; Alessandra Lissoni; Matteo Trimarchi Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-12-08 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Elena Ferrari; Margherita E Pezzi; Diana Cassi; Thelma A Pertinhez; Alberto Spisni; Marco Meleti Journal: Int J Mol Sci Date: 2021-06-24 Impact factor: 5.923