| Literature DB >> 34319052 |
Vasudha Singh1, Kachnar Varma1, Mudita Bhargava1, Vatsala Misra1, Mangal Singh2, Richa Singh3.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Oral cancer accounts for 50-70% of total cancer mortality. VIA screening has drastically changed the morbidity and mortality related to cervical cancer. In present study, we assessed the role of 5% Acetic Acid as a vital stain in oral mucosa of chronic tobacco chewers, to know if it can help in early diagnosis and improved prognosis of oral malignancies and to assess the sensitivity and specificity of VIA and exfoliative cytology for screening of Oral premalignant and malignant lesions in high risk population with limited health care infrastructure.Entities:
Keywords: Exfoliative cytology; OPMD; OSCC; acetic acid; early detection
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34319052 PMCID: PMC8607076 DOI: 10.31557/APJCP.2021.22.7.2273
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Asian Pac J Cancer Prev ISSN: 1513-7368
Figure 1Clinical Image Showing Results of VI, VIA and Cytological Features in Dysplasias and OSCC. a, VI showing erythematous patch on left buccal mucosa; b, Same lesion showing diffuse blanching on VIA; c, ASCUS. Inset- Notching of nuclear membrane (arrow) (PAP, x400); d, LSIL; e, HSIL- Dyskeratosis (black arrow) and atypical mitosis (red arrow) (PAP, X400); f, OSCC-Atypical mitosis (black arrow), multinucleated tumour cell (red arrow) (PAP, x400)
Showing Different Lesions on Visual Inspection and Results of VIA in Chronic Tobacco Users
| Lesions | Number of cases (n=150) | VIA* | |
|---|---|---|---|
| No change (n=68) | Change (n=82) | ||
| Normal | 50 (33.3%) | 30 (60%) | 20 (40%) |
| Leukoplakia | 27 (18%) | 11 (40%) | 16 (60%) |
| Erythroplakia | 4 (2.6%) | 1 (25%) | 3 (75%) |
| Leukoerythroplakia | 13 (8.7%) | 3 (23%) | 10 (77%) |
| Oral submucous fibrosis (OSMF) | 21 (14%) | 13 (60%) | 8 (40%) |
| Smokeless tobacco Keratosis | 4 (2.7%) | 1 (25%) | 3 (75%) |
| Palatal lesions a/w reverse smoking | 1 (0.67%) | 0 | 1 (100%) |
| Growth(ulcerative/fungating) | 30 (20%) | 09 (30%) | 21 (70%) |
*VIA, Visual inspection using acetic acid
Cytological Categories According to Bethesda Classification and Its Correlation with Visual Inspection Using Acetic Acid
| Diagnostic Groups | Cytological Criteria | N (%) | VIA | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| No change | Change | |||
| Normal | Even sized cells and nuclei | 38 (25.3%) | 27 (71.1%) | 11 (28.9%) |
| Atypical squamous cells of unknown significance | Reactive changes with Mild increase in N:C ratio<10%, even chromatin distribution | 28 (18.6%) | 14 (50%) | 14 (50%) |
| Squamous Intraepithelial lesion low grade | Increase in N:C ratio <50%, Nuclear membrane irregularities and anisonucleosis | 39 (26.0%) | 17 (43.6%) | 22 (56.4%) |
| Squamous Intraepithelial lesion high grade | Increase in N:C ratio <50% and <75%, Nuclear membrane irregularities, Hyperchromasia and Marked anisonucleosis | 16 (10.7) | 02 (12.5%) | 14 (87.5%) |
| Squamous cell carcinoma | Increase in N:C ratio >75%, Nuclear membrane irregularities, marked hyperchromasia, Marked anisonucleosis, Irregular chromatin distribution and thickened nuclear membrane, Presence of necroticc debris in the background | 29 (19.3%) | 08 (27.6%) | 21 (72.4%) |
| Total | 150 | 68 (45.3%) | 82 (54.7%) | |
Showing Statistical Analysis of VIA in Comparison to Exfoliative Cytology
| Exfoliative Cytology | Total (n=150) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Normal (n= 66) | Abnormal (n=84) | ||||
| VIA | No Change | 41 (60.3%) | 27 (39.7%) | 68 | P value= 0.0003 |
| Change | 25 (30.5%) | 57 (69.5%) | 82 | ||
Showing Statistical Analysis of VIA in Comparison to Histopathology
| Histopathologically Negative | Histopathologically Positive | Total (n=58) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| VIA | ||||
| No Change | 11 (47.8%) | 12 (52.2%) | 23 | P value = 0.0183 |
| Change | 6 (17.1%) | 29 (82.9%) | 35 | |
| Sensitivity: 70.73%, Specificity: 64.71% , PPV: 82.86%, NPV: 47.83% , Accuracy: 68.97% | ||||
| Exfoliative Cytology | ||||
| Normal | 11 (91.7%) | 1 (8.3%) | 12 | P value = 0.0001 |
| Abnormal | 6 (13%) | 40 (87%) | 46 | |
| Sensitivity: 97.56%, Specificity: 64.71%, PPV: 86.96%, NPV: 91.67 %, Accuracy: 87.93% | ||||