Assessment of Clinical Examination Validity in Oral Cancer Risk Patients

Bruno Nikolovski 1 , Danica Popovik Monevska 2 , Mirjana Popovska 3 , Vera Radojkova Nikolovska 3  and Ana Minovska 4
  • 1 Center for dental health – ETERNAdent, , Skopje
  • 2 University Clinic for Maxillofacial surgery, University “Ss. Cyril and Methodius”, , Skopje
  • 3 Clinic for Oral Pathology and Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, University “Ss. Cyril and Methodius”, Skopje
  • 4 Faculty of Medical Sciences, University Goce Delcev, Stip

Summary

Background/Aim: Oral cancer is one of the ten most common cancers in the world, recently positioned as a sixth one, unfortunately with poor prognosis after treatment because of the late diagnostics in advanced stages of the disease. Aim of this study was to present the basic criteria in assessment the accuracy/efficacy, specificity and sensitivity, the positive and negative predicted values of the conventional oral examination (COE) as the easiest and most acceptable procedure in detection of the early changes of the suspicious oral tissue changes compared to the diagnostic gold standard – tissue biopsy in two different groups of examinees.

Material and Methods: Sixty patients divided into two study groups (one with potentially malignant oral lesions and a second consisted of clinically suspicious oral cancer lesions) were examined with COE and subjected to histopathological confirmation - tissue biopsy. All examined patients underwent the diagnostic protocol by the American Joint Commission on Cancer, selected under certain inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Results: Sensitivity of COE in the group of examinees with oral potentially malignant lesions is 83.33%, its specificity is 20.83%, the positive predictive value is 20.83% and the negative predictive value is 83.33%. The accuracy of the COE method is 33.33%. The sensitivity, in the group of patients with oral cancer is 96.43%, specificity is 0%, the positive predictive value is 93.10% and the negative predictive value is 0%. The accuracy of this method is 90%.

Conclusions: The accuracy reaches a value over 90% for the group with lesions with highly suspected malignant potential – oral cancer, and sets the thesis that COE as screening method for oral cancer or premalignant tissue changes is more valuable for the patients with advanced oral epithelial changes, but is recommended to be combined with some other type of screening procedure in order to gain relevant results applicable in the everyday clinical practice.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • 1. National Cancer Institute. SEER Stat Fact Sheets: Oral Cavity and Pharynx. Bethesda, MD: Available from: http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/oralcav, October 2013.

  • 2. National Cancer Institute. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1973-1998.

  • 3. Available from: http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1973_1998/index.html

  • 4. Parkin DM, Bray F, Ferlay J, Pisani P. Estimating the world cancer burden: Globocan 2000. Int J Cancer, 2001;94:153-156.

  • 5. American Cancer Society: Cancer Facts and Figures. 2005. Available from: http://www.cancer.org/docroot/STT/stt_0.asp.

  • 6. National Cancer Institute. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2005. Available from: http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2005/

  • 7. Silverman S Jr, Gorsky M, Lozada F. Oral leukoplakia and malignant transformation. A follow-up study of 257 patients. Cancer, 1984;53:563-568.

  • 8. Miyahara LAN, Pontes FSC, Burbano RMR, Conte Neto N, Guimarães DM, Fonseca FP, Pontes HAR. PTEN allelic loss is an important mechanism in the late stage of development of oral leucoplakia into oral squamous cell carcinoma. Histopathology, 2018;72:330-338.

  • 9. Ali J, Sabiha B, Jan HU, Haider SA, Khan AA, Ali SS. Genetic etiology of oral cancer. Oral Oncol, 2017;70:23-28.

  • 10. Lin LH, Chang KW, Cheng HW, Liu CJ. SMAD4 Somatic Mutations in Head and Neck Carcinoma Are Associated With Tumor Progression. Front Oncol, 20199:1379.

  • 11. De la Oliva J, Larque AB, Marti C, Bodalo-Torruella M, Nonell L, Nadal A et al. Oral premalignant lesions of smokers and non-smokers show similar carcinogenic pathways and outcomes. A clinicopathological and molecular comparative analysis. J Oral Pathol Med, 2019. doi: 10.1111/jop.12864

  • 12. Shiboski CH, Shiboski SC, Silverman S Jr. Trends in oral cancer rates in the United States, 1973–1996. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol, 2000;28:249-256.

  • 13. Rosin MP, Cheng X, Poh C, Lam WL, Huang Y, Lovas J et al. Use of allelic loss to predict malignant risk for low-grade oral epithelial dysplasia. Clin Cancer Res, 2000;6:357-362.

  • 14. Canadian Dental Association. Oral cancer. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Dental Association; 2005. [Accessed 2008 May 6].

  • 15. Available from: www.cda-adc.ca/en/oral_health/complications/diseases/oral_cancer.asp.

  • 16. American Dental Association. Oral cancer. Chicago, IL: American Dental Association; 2007. [Accessed 2008 May 6]. Available from: www.ada.org/public/topics/cancer_oral.asp.

  • 17. Whited JD, Grichnik JM. The rational clinical examination. Does this patient have a mole or a melanoma? JAMA, 1998;279:696-701.

  • 18. Rampen FH, Casparie-van Velsen JI, van Huystee BE, Kiemeney LA, Schouten LJ. False-negative findings in skin cancer and melanoma screening. J Am Acad Dermatol, 1995;33:59-63.

  • 19. Shugars DC, Patton LL. Detecting, diagnosing and preventing oral cancer. Nurse Pract,1997;22:105, 109-110, 113-115. passim.

  • 20. Silverman S Jr. Early diagnosis of oral cancer. Cancer, 1988;62:1796-1799.

  • 21. Melrose RJ. Premalignant oral mucosal diseases. J Calif Dent Assoc, 2001;29(8):593-600.

  • 22. Reibel J. Prognosis of oral pre-malignant lesions: Significance of clinical, histopathological, and molecular biological characteristics. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med, 2003;14:47-62.

  • 23. Epstein JB, Guneri P, Boyacioglu H, Abt E. The limitations of the clinical oral examination in detecting dysplastic oral lesions and oral squamous cell carcinoma. J Am Dent Assoc, 2012;143:1332-1342.

  • 24. Nair D, Pruthy R, Pawar U, Pankaj Chaturvedi. Oral cancer: premalignant conditions and screening — an update. J Can Res Therap, 2012;8:57-66.

  • 25. Thomson PJ. Field change and oral cancer: new evidence for widespread carcinogenesis? Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg, 2002;31:262-266.

  • 26. Downer MC, Moles DR, Palmer S, Speight PM. A systematic review of test performance in screening for oral cancer and precancer. Oral Oncol, 2004;40:264-273.

  • 27. Warnakulasuriya S, Pindborg JJ. Reliability of oral precancer screening by primary health care workers in Sri Lanka. Community Dent Health, 1990;7:73-79.

  • 28. Mathew B, Sankaranarayanan R, Sunilkumar KB, Kuruvila B, Pisani P, Nair MK. Reproducibility and validity of oral visual inspection by trained health workers in the detection of oral precancer and cancer. Br J Cancer, 1997;76:390-394.

  • 29. Ikeda N, Downer MC, Ishii T, Fukano H, Nagao T, Inoue K. Annual screening for oral cancer and precancer by invitation to 60-year-old residents of a city in Japan. Community Dent Health, 1995;12:133-137.

  • 30. Epstein JB, Gorsky M, Cabay RJ, Day T, Gonsalves W. Screening for and diagnosis of oral premalignant lesions and oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma. Can Fam Physician, 2008;54:870-875.

  • 31. Kumdee C, Kulpeng W, Teerawattananon Y. Cost-utility analysis of the screening program for early oral cancer detection in Thailand. PLoS One. 2018;13:e0207442.

  • 32. Walsh T, Liu JLY, Brocklehurst P, Glenny AM, Lingen M, Kerr AR et al. Clinical assessment to screen for the detection of oral cavity cancer and potentially malignant disorders in apparently healthy adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2013;21(11):CD010173.

  • 33. Macey R, Walsh T, Brocklehurst P, Kerr A-R, Liu J, Lingen MW et al. Diagnostic tests for oral cancer and potentially malignant disorders in patients presenting with clinically evident lesions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2015;29:CD010276.

  • 34. Giovannacci I, Vescovi P, Manfredi M, Melet M. Noninvasive visual tools for diagnosis of oral cancer and dysplasia: A systematic review. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal, 2016;21:305-315

  • 35. Warnakulasuriya S, Pindborg JJ. Reliability of oral precancer screening by primary health care workers in Sri Lanka. Community Dent Health, 1990;7:73-79.

  • 36. Mathew B, Sankaranarayanan R, Sunilkumar KB, Kuruvila B, Pisani P, Nair MK. Reproducibility and validity of oral visual inspection by trained health workers in the detection of oral precancer and cancer. Br J Cancer, 1997;76:390-394.

  • 37. Ikeda N, Downer MC, Ozowa Y, Inoue C, Mizuno T, Kawai T. Characteristics of participants and non-participants in annual mass screening for oral cancer in 60-year-old residents of Tokoname City, Japan. Community Dent Health, 1995;12:83-88.

  • 38. NIMIT. Novel instruments for minimally invasive techniques, Plan for a Centre of Research Excellence. Zeist: A-D Druk BV; 2010.

  • 39. Ghani WMN, Razak IA, Doss JG, Ramanathan A, Tahir Z, Ridzuan NA et al. Mouth self-examination as a screening tool for oral potentially malignant disorders among a high-risk Indigenous population. J Public Health Dent, 2019;79:222-230.

  • 40. Bhoopathi V, Mascarenhas AK. Utility of oral cancer diagnostic adjuncts in the adult US populations. J Oral Pathol Med, 2013;42:363-367.

  • 41. Chang IH, Jiang RS, Wong YK, Wu SH, Chen F, Liu SA. Visual screening of oral cavity cancer in a male population: Experience from a medical center. J Chin Med Assoc, 2011;74:561-566.

OPEN ACCESS

Journal + Issues

Search