| Literature DB >> 33456231 |
Reshma Venugopal1, Radhika Manoj Bavle1, Sudhakara Muniswamappa1, Soumya Makarla1, Sreelatha S Hosthor1, Punith Shetty2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The association between potentially premalignant oral epithelial lesions (PPOEL), oral squamous cell carcinoma and its higher incidence in South-East Asian population due to the use of arecanut, pan, slaked lime and tobacco is well known. The study was carried out in urban and rural population of Bengaluru, Karnataka, to assess and correlate the pattern of habit, clinical presentation and cytological grading of PPOELs, attempting at identifying the main arms associated with risk of malignant transformation. AIMS: Assessment of history, clinical presentation of PPOELs, co-relate with cytological grades and escalate to binary risk assessment.Entities:
Keywords: Cytosmear; dysplasia grades; potentially premalignant oral epithelial lesions; risk assessment; risk factors; screening camp
Year: 2020 PMID: 33456231 PMCID: PMC7802830 DOI: 10.4103/jomfp.JOMFP_4_20
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Oral Maxillofac Pathol ISSN: 0973-029X
Risk factors associated with potentially premalignant oral epithelial lesions
| Clinical features |
| Size of lesion >200 mm2 |
| Nonhomogeneous texture of the lesion |
| Red color or speckled with mixed red and white lesions |
| Lesions involving tongue or floor of the mouth |
| Age >45-50 years |
| Associated with nonsmokers |
| Histological features |
| Higher grades of dysplasia |
| Lesions associated with HPV-16 |
| DNA aneuploidy |
| Loss of heterozygosity involving many genes |
HPV: Human papilloma virus
Figure 1(a) Photomicrograph showing clumps of uniform epithelial cells displaying Grade I cytosmear (H and E, ×40), Inset: High power view of cells showing normal nuclear cytoplasmic ratio (H and E, ×100). (b) Photomicrograph showing epithelial cells with normal nuclear cytoplasmic ratio and equal ratio of cells with bluish tinge and pink tinge suggesting they are superficial well-differentiated cells (Pap stain, ×40)
Figure 3(a) Photomicrograph showing clumps and scattered epithelial cells with few cells showing increase in nuclear cytoplasmic ratio (H and E, ×40). (b) High power view showing few cells showing increased nuclear cytoplasmic ratio (H and E, ×100). (c) Photomicrograph showing increased cells with blue tinge as compared to cells with pink tinge suggesting the presence of lesser differentiated cells (Pap stain, ×40)
Distribution of demographic, habit history and different potentially premalignant oral epithelial lesions among study populations
| Variables | Category | |
|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | ≤20 | 8 (7.1) |
| 21-30 | 44 (38.6) | |
| 31-40 | 25 (21.9) | |
| 41-50 | 25 (21.9) | |
| >50 | 12 (10.5) | |
| Sex | Males | 87 (76.3) |
| Females | 27 (23.7) | |
| Habit history | Arecanut chewing | 5 (4.4) |
| Betel quid chewing | 5 (4.4) | |
| Pan chewing | 12 (10.5) | |
| Gutka chewing | 61 (53.5) | |
| Tobacco + arecanut chewing | 10 (8.8) | |
| Cigarette/bidi smoking | 6 (5.3) | |
| Smoking + tobacco chewing | 3 (2.6) | |
| No habits | 12 (10.5) | |
| Duration (years) | 1-5 | 48 (47.1) |
| 6-10 | 38 (37.3) | |
| 11-15 | 11 (10.7) | |
| 16-20 | 2 (2.0) | |
| >20 | 3 (2.9) | |
| Clinical presentation | PPOELs | |
| Preleukoplakia | 19 (16.7) | |
| Homogeneous leukoplakia | 63 (55.3) | |
| Flat | 26 (41.3) | |
| Corrugated | 32 (50.8) | |
| Wrinkled | 5 (7.9) | |
| Nonhomogeneous leukoplakia | 8 (7.0) | |
| Speckled | 5 (62.5) | |
| Nodular | 3 (37.5) | |
| Verrucous | 0 | |
| Erythroplakia | 1 (0.9) | |
| OSMF | 7 (6) | |
| OSMF + homogeneous leukoplakia | 2 (1.8) | |
| OSMF + nonhomogeneous Leukoplakia | 1 (0.9) | |
| TPK | 9 (7.8) | |
| TPK + Erythroplakia | 1 (0.9) | |
| Desquamative Gingivitis | 1 (0.9) | |
| Lichen planus | 1 (0.9) | |
| Smoker’s melanosis | 1 (0.9) |
PPOELs: Potentially premalignant oral epithelial lesions, OSMF: Oral submucous fibrosis, TPK: Tobacco pouch keratosis
Comparison of cytological gradings of potentially premalignant oral epithelial lesions (n=111) based on the type of habit, duration, site and number of lesions using Chi-square test
| Variables | Categories | Grade I, | Grade II, | Grade III, | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Habit history | Arecanut chewing | 4 (80.0) | 1 (20.0) | 0 (0.0) | 26.057 | 0.03* |
| Betel quid chewing | 4 (80.0) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (20.0) | |||
| Pan chewing | 3 (25.0) | 7 (58.3) | 2 (16.7) | |||
| Gutka chewing | 22 (36.7) | 36 (60.0) | 2 (3.3) | |||
| Tobacco + arecanut chewing | 4 (40.0) | 6 (60.0) | 0 (0.0) | |||
| Cigarette/bidi smoking | 4 (80.0) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (20.0) | |||
| Smoking + tobacco chewing | 0 (0.0) | 3 (100.0) | 0 (0.0) | |||
| No habits | 3 (27.3) | 8 (72.7) | 0 (0.0) | |||
| Duration (years) | 1-5 | 17 (35.4) | 28 (58.3) | 3 (6.3) | 3.209 | 0.92 |
| 6-10 | 17 (45.9) | 17 (45.9) | 3 (8.1) | |||
| 11-15 | 4 (40.0) | 6 (60.0) | 0 (0.0) | |||
| 16-20 | 1 (50.0) | 1 (50.0) | 0 (0.0) | |||
| >20 | 2 (66.7) | 1 (33.3) | 0 (0.0) | |||
| Site of lesion | Buccal mucosa | 36 (44.4) | 42 (51.9) | 3 (3.7) | 37.481 | 0.001* |
| Buccal mucosa+lip | 1 (100.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | |||
| Buccal mucosa+soft palate | 1 (25.0) | 3 (75.0) | 0 (0.0) | |||
| Buccal mucosa+RMA | 0 (0.0) | 1 (33.3) | 2 (66.7) | |||
| Labial mucosa | 6 (35.3) | 11 (64.7) | 0 (0.0) | |||
| Labial mucosa+lip | 0 (0.0) | 1 (50.0) | 1 (50.0) | |||
| Gingiva | 0 (0.0) | 1 (100.0) | 0 (0.0) | |||
| RMA | 0 (0.0) | 2 (100.0) | 0 (0.0) | |||
| Number | Single | 42 (41.6) | 55 (54.5) | 4 (4.0) | 5.451 | 0.07 |
| Multiple | 2 (20.0) | 6 (60.0) | 2 (20.0) |
RMA: Retro molar area. *Statistically significant
Comparison of cytological grading of potentially premalignant oral epithelial lesions (n=111) based on clinical presentation of lesion using Chi-square test
| Variables | Categories | Grade I | Grade II | Grade III | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | % | % | |||||||
| Clinical present- ation | Pre leukoplakia | 8 | 44.40% | 10 | 55.60% | 0 | 0.00% | ||
| Homogenous leukoplakia | 23 | 37.10% | 37 | 59.70% | 2 | 3.20% | |||
| Non homogenous leukoplakia | 2 | 22.20% | 5 | 55.60% | 2 | 22.20% | |||
| OSMF | 4 | 57.10% | 3 | 42.90% | 0 | 0.00% | |||
| OSMF + Homomogenous Leukoplakia | 1 | 50.00% | 1 | 50.00% | 0 | 0.00% | |||
| OSMF + Non-homogenous Leukoplakia | 0 | 0.00% | 0 | 0.00% | 1 | 100.00% | 48.744 | <0.001* | |
| Tobacco pouch keratosis [TPK] | 5 | 62.50% | 3 | 37.50% | 0 | 0.00% | |||
| Erythroplakia | 0 | 0.00% | 0 | 0.00% | 1 | 100.00% | |||
| Desquamative gingivitis | 0 | 0.00% | 1 | 100.00% | 0 | 0.00% | |||
| Lichen planus | 0 | 0.00% | 1 | 100.00% | 0 | 0.00% | |||
| Smoker’s melanosis | 1 | 100.00% | 0 | 0.00% | 0 | 0.00% | |||
| Homo- genous leukoplakia | Corrugated | 10 | 32.3% | 19 | 61.3% | 2 | 6.5% | 0.51 | |
| Flat | 11 | 42.3% | 15 | 57.7% | 0 | 0.0% | |||
| Wrinkled | 2 | 66.7% | 1 | 33.3% | 0 | 0.0% | |||
OSMF: Oral submucous fibrosis, TPK: Tobacco pouch keratosis. *Statistically significant
Distribution of cytological grading by binary system and risk assessment of potentially premalignant oral epithelial lesions
| Variables | Categories | |
|---|---|---|
| Cytological grading-binary system | Low grade | 105 (94.6) |
| High grade | 6 (5.4) | |
| Risk assessment | Low risk | 94 (84.7) |
| High risk | 17 (15.3) |
Figure 4Clinical image of white lesion on the left buccal mucosa extending to the left lower buccal vestibule exhibiting desquamating epithelium