María Rosa Buenahora1, Alberto Peraza-L2, David Díaz-Báez3, Jairo Bustillo4, Iván Santacruz4, Tamy Goretty Trujillo3,5, Gloria Inés Lafaurie3, Leandro Chambrone6,7,8. 1. Unit of Oral Epidemiology Investigation-UNIECLO, School of Dentistry, Universidad El Bosque, Bogotá, Colombia. 2. School of Dentistry, Universidad El Bosque, Bogotá, Colombia. 3. Unit of Basic Oral Investigation-UIBO, School of Dentistry, Universidad El Bosque, Av. Carrera 9 No. 131 A - 02, Bogotá, Colombia. 4. Oral Pathology Department, School of Dentistry, Universidad El Bosque, Bogotá, Colombia. 5. Basque Foundation for Health Innovation and Research, BIOEF, Barakaldo, Basque Country, Spain. 6. Unit of Basic Oral Investigation-UIBO, School of Dentistry, Universidad El Bosque, Av. Carrera 9 No. 131 A - 02, Bogotá, Colombia. leandro_chambrone@hotmail.com. 7. Graduate Dentistry Program, Ibirapuera University, São Paulo, Brazil. leandro_chambrone@hotmail.com. 8. Evidence-Based Hub, Centro de Investigação Interdisciplinar Egas Moniz (CiiEM), Egas Moniz-Cooperativa de Ensino Superior, Caparica, Almada, Portugal. leandro_chambrone@hotmail.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Evaluate and compare the performance of autofluorescence, chemiluminescence, and clinical visual examination in the detection of oral potentially malignant disorders (OPMD), oral cancer (OC), and oropharyngeal cancer (OPC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review with meta-analysis based on diagnostic test studies. A literature search was carried out in the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases through August 30, 2020. For this review, the quality assessment tool of diagnostic precision studies (QUADAS-2) was used. Hierarchical regression models were used to estimate pooled diagnostic precision values in a random effects model. RESULTS: A total of 40 studies were identified for this review according to each test evaluated: 5.562 samples for autofluorescence, 1.353 samples for chemiluminescence, and 1.892 samples for clinical examination. The summary measures sensitivity and specificity of the clinical examination were 63% and 78%, respectively, AUC = 0.78 95% CI (0.74-0.81). In the autofluorescence test, these were 86% and 72%, respectively, AUC = 0.86 95% CI (0.83-0.89); and the chemiluminescent test were 67% and 48%, respectively, AUC = 0.59 95% CI (0.54-0.63) CONCLUSIONS: Autofluorescence devices displayed superior accuracy levels in the identification of premalignant lesions and early neoplastic changes compared to clinical examination and chemiluminescent test. Overall, biopsy remains the gold standard for the definitive diagnosis of OPMD, OC, and OPC. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Light-based clinical methods such as autofluorescence and chemiluminescence techniques have been used in clinical diagnosis for the differentiation of OPMD and malignant and benign lesions; although detailed visual examination appears to be effective in identifying, previous systematic reviews have not evaluated a relevant number of studies and they did not evaluate the accuracy of the clinical examination.
OBJECTIVE: Evaluate and compare the performance of autofluorescence, chemiluminescence, and clinical visual examination in the detection of oral potentially malignant disorders (OPMD), oral cancer (OC), and oropharyngeal cancer (OPC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review with meta-analysis based on diagnostic test studies. A literature search was carried out in the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases through August 30, 2020. For this review, the quality assessment tool of diagnostic precision studies (QUADAS-2) was used. Hierarchical regression models were used to estimate pooled diagnostic precision values in a random effects model. RESULTS: A total of 40 studies were identified for this review according to each test evaluated: 5.562 samples for autofluorescence, 1.353 samples for chemiluminescence, and 1.892 samples for clinical examination. The summary measures sensitivity and specificity of the clinical examination were 63% and 78%, respectively, AUC = 0.78 95% CI (0.74-0.81). In the autofluorescence test, these were 86% and 72%, respectively, AUC = 0.86 95% CI (0.83-0.89); and the chemiluminescent test were 67% and 48%, respectively, AUC = 0.59 95% CI (0.54-0.63) CONCLUSIONS: Autofluorescence devices displayed superior accuracy levels in the identification of premalignant lesions and early neoplastic changes compared to clinical examination and chemiluminescent test. Overall, biopsy remains the gold standard for the definitive diagnosis of OPMD, OC, and OPC. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Light-based clinical methods such as autofluorescence and chemiluminescence techniques have been used in clinical diagnosis for the differentiation of OPMD and malignant and benign lesions; although detailed visual examination appears to be effective in identifying, previous systematic reviews have not evaluated a relevant number of studies and they did not evaluate the accuracy of the clinical examination.
Entities:
Keywords:
Diagnostic test; Mouth neoplasms; Predictive value of tests; Sensitivity and specificity
Authors: Aisha A Hussein; Marco N Helder; Jan G de Visscher; C René Leemans; Boudewijn J Braakhuis; Henrica C W de Vet; Tymour Forouzanfar Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2017-06-24 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Jason T K Hwang; Ying R Gu; Mi Shen; Ranju Ralhan; Paul G Walfish; Kenneth P H Pritzker; David Mock Journal: Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Date: 2016-11-22
Authors: Anil K Chaturvedi; William F Anderson; Joannie Lortet-Tieulent; Maria Paula Curado; Jacques Ferlay; Silvia Franceschi; Philip S Rosenberg; Freddie Bray; Maura L Gillison Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2013-11-18 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jebrane Bouaoud; Paolo Bossi; Moshe Elkabets; Sandra Schmitz; Léon C van Kempen; Pierre Martinez; Sankar Jagadeeshan; Ingrid Breuskin; Gerwin J Puppels; Caroline Hoffmann; Keith D Hunter; Christian Simon; Jean-Pascal Machiels; Vincent Grégoire; Chloé Bertolus; Ruud H Brakenhoff; Senada Koljenović; Pierre Saintigny Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-04-02 Impact factor: 6.639