| Literature DB >> 35407401 |
Vignesh Murthy1, Petros Mylonas2, Barbara Carey1, Sangeetha Yogarajah1, Damian Farnell2, Owen Addison3, Richard Cook1,3, Michael Escudier1,3, Marcio Diniz-Freitas4, Jacobo Limeres4, Luis Monteiro5, Luis Silva5, Jean-Cristophe Fricain6, Sylvain Catros6, Mathilde Fenelon6, Giovanni Lodi7, Niccolò Lombardi7, Vlaho Brailo8, Raj Ariyaratnam9, José López-López10, Rui Albuquerque1,3.
Abstract
Oral submucous fibrosis (OSF) is a chronic progressive condition affecting the oral cavity, oropharynx and upper third of the oesophagus. It is a potentially malignant disorder. The authors collated and analysed the existing literature to establish the overall malignant transformation rate (MTR). A retrospective analysis of medical and dental scientific literature using online indexed databases was conducted for the period 1956 to 2021. The quality of the enrolled studies was assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). A meta-analysis using a random effects model of a single proportion was performed along with statistical tests for heterogeneity. The overall proportion of malignancy across all studies was 0.06 (95% CI, 0.02-0.10), indicating an overall 6% risk of malignant transformation across all studies and cohorts. Sub-group analyses revealed strong differences in proportion of malignancy according to ethnicity/cohort; Chinese = 0.02 (95% CI 0.01-0.02), Taiwanese = 0.06 (95% CI, 0.03-0.10), Indian = 0.08 (95% CI, 0.03-0.14) and Pakistani = 0.27 (95% CI 0.25-0.29). Overall, the MTR was 6%; however, wide heterogeneity of the included studies was noted. Geographic variations in MTR were noted but were not statistically significant. Further studies are required to analyse the difference between cohort groups.Entities:
Keywords: areca nut; betel nut; malignant transformation rate; oral cancer; oral potentially malignant disorders; oral squamous cell carcinoma; oral submucous fibrosis
Year: 2022 PMID: 35407401 PMCID: PMC8999767 DOI: 10.3390/jcm11071793
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Clin Med ISSN: 2077-0383 Impact factor: 4.241
Figure 1PRISMA flow chart of the screened and included studies.
Cohort and patient details of the reviewed articles. NR, Not Reported. Pros, Prospective. Ret, Retrospective. F:M, female: male. MTR, Malignant Transformation Rate.
| Study, Year of Study | Cohort Ethnicity | Number of Patients | Number of Patients Diagnosed with Cancer | Mean Age | F:M | Follow Up Period | Calculated MTR | Reported MTR | Calculated Annual MTR (%) | Type of Study |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pindborg et al. [ | Indian | 25 | 1 | 41.7 | 1.5:1 | NR | 4.0 | 2.8 | NR | Pros |
| Pindborg et al. [ | Indian | 89 | 12 | NR | NR | 8 | 13.5 | 4.5 | 1.7 | Ret |
| Murti et al. [ | Indian | 66 | 5 | NR | NR | 15 | 7.6 | 4.5 | 0.5 | Ret |
| Shiau & Kwan [ | Taiwanese | 35 | 8 | 40.5 | 1:34 | NR | 22.9 | 23.0 | NR | Ret |
| Liu et al. [ | Chinese | 45 | 1 | NR | 1:1.5 | NR | 2.2 | 2.2 | NR | Pros |
| Jian et al. [ | Chinese | 29 | 0 | 40.2 | 1:2.5 | NR | 0.0 | 0.0 | NR | Pros |
| Tang et al. [ | Chinese | 335 | 4 | 38.6 | 1:3 | NR | 1.2 | 1.2 | NR | Pros |
| Jian et al. [ | Chinese | 147 | 3 | NR | 1:5.7 | NR | 2.0 | 2.0 | NR | Pros |
| Gao et al. [ | Chinese | 1166 | 20 | 37.6 | 1:5.4 | NR | 1.7 | 1.7 | NR | Pros |
| Hazarey et al. [ | Indian | 1000 | 33 | NR | NR | NR | 3.3 | NR | NR | Pros |
| Hsue et al. [ | Taiwanese | 402 | 8 | 47.5 | NR | 10 | 2.0 | 1.9 | 0.2 | Ret |
| Angadi & Rekha [ | Indian | 205 | 24 | 46 | 1:11 | NR | 11.7 | 11.7 | NR | Ret |
| Mohiuddin et al. [ | Pakistan | 1774 | 472 | NR | 3:1 | NR | 26.6 | 26.6 | NR | Ret |
| Yang et al. [ | Taiwanese | 778 | 71 | 41.8 | 1:6.7 | 6 | 9.1 | 9.1 | 1.5 | Ret |
| Chuang et al. [ | Taiwanese | 2333 | 114 | 45 | NR | 5.7 | 4.9 | 0.9 | 0.9 | Pros |
| Chiang et al. [ | Taiwanese | 87 | 4 | NR | NR | 6.7 | 4.6 | 4.6 | 0.7 | Pros |
Quality assessment of included studies based on the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of cohort studies.
| Study/Year | Selection | Comparability (Score) | Exposure | Total Score | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Representatives of the Expo Sed Cohort | Selection of the Non-Exposed Cohort | Ascertainment of Exposure | Outcome of Interest Was not Present at Start of Study | Based on the Design or Analysis | Assessment of Outcome | Follow-Up Long Enough for Outcomes to Occur | Adequacy of Follow-UP of Cohorts | ||
| Pindborg et al. [ | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| Pindborg et al. [ | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 4 |
| Murti et al. [ | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 4 |
| Shiau & Kwan [ | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| Liu et al. [ | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| Jian et al. [ | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| Tang et al. [ | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| Jian et al. [ | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| Gao et al. [ | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| Hazarey et al. [ | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| Hsue et al. [ | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 6 |
| Angadi & Rekha [ | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| Mohiuddin et al. [ | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| Yang et al. [ | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 6 |
| Chuang et al. [ | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 |
| Chiang et al. [ | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 |
Figure 2Comparison of cohort size and percentage of malignancies as reported per study. Logarithmic regression utilised for Indian cases and linear regression for Chinese cases.
Figure 3Comparison of cohort size and rate of malignant transformation of OSF as reported per study. Linear regression analysis for all data sets.
Figure 4Forrest plot indicating the proportion of malignant transformation of OSF cases (95% confidence intervals) with weighting (%) attributed to each included case. Meta-analysis was performed on a subgroup basis (according to cohort ethnicity) and on an overall basis (including all data sets) [5,7,8,9,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28].
Figure 5Funnel plot of the standards errors on the y-axis plotted against the arcsine of the pro-portion on the x-axis. This indicates a broadly symmetrical distribution of studies which suggests a low level of publication bias—there is some study heterogeneity.
Examples of common ingredients most likely to be used together with the areca nut before they are chewed; the ingredients are used in varying quantities [30].
| India | China |
|---|---|
|
| Betel fruit (husk and leaf) |
|
| Peppermint |
|
| Gelatine |
|
| Lime |
|
| Calcium carbonate |
|
| Calcium hydroxide |