Objective. The aim of this prospective study was to report on the diagnostic accuracy of conventional oral exfoliative cytology taken from white‐spotted, ulcerated or other suspicious oral lesions in our clinic. In addition we checked DNA‐image cytometry as an adjuvant diagnostic tool. Our hypothesis is that DNA‐aneuploidy is a sensitive and specific marker for the early identification of tumor cells in oral brushings. Study design. 251 cytological diagnoses obtained from exfoliative smears of 181 patients from macroscopically suspicious lesions of the oral mucosa and from clinically seemingly benign oral lesions which were exisiced for establishing histological diagnoses were compared with histological and/or clinical follow‐ups of the respective patients. Additionally nuclear DNA‐contents were measured after Feulgen restaining using a TV image analysis system. Results. Sensitivity of our cytological diagnosis on oral smears for the detection of cancer cells was 94.6%, specificity 99.5%, positive predictive value 98.1% and negative predictive value 98.5%. DNA‐aneuploidy was assumed if abnormal DNA‐stemlines or cells with DNA‐content greater 9c were observed. On this basis the prevalence of DNA‐aneuploidy in smears of oral squamous cell carcinomas in situ or invasive carcinomas was 96.4%. Sensitivity of DNA‐aneuploidy in oral smears for the detection of cancer cells was 96.4%, specificity 100%, positive predictive value 100% and negative 99.0%. The combination of both techniques increased the sensivity to 98.2%, specificity to 100%, positive predictive value to 100% and negative to 99.5%. Conclusions. Brush cytology of all visible oral lesions, if they are clinically considered as suspicious for cancer, are an easily practicable, cheap, non‐invasive, painless, safe and accurate screening method for detection of oral precancerous lesions, carcinoma in situ or invasive squamous cell carcinoma in all stages. We conclude that DNA‐image cytometry is a very sensitive, highly specific and objective adjuvant tool for the early identification of neoplastic epithelial cells in oral smears.

Objective: We describe four patients presenting early oral cancers, detected cytologically on non‐invasive brush biopsies including DNA‐image cytometry as an adjunctive method before histology on scalpel biopsies confirmed the evidence of malignancy. Methods: Brush biopsies were performed and smears thereof investigated cytologically. After Feulgen restaining, DNA‐measurements were performed using a DNA‐Image‐Cytometer. Case reports: Oral squamous cell carcinomas were diagnosed cytologically in macroscopically suspicious lesions and malignancy confirmed by DNA‐cytometry. The initially performed scalpel biopsies did neither supply evidence of oral cancer nor of severe dysplasia. After at least one to 15 months the occurrence of cancer was finally proven histologically on a second scalpel biopsy each (three microinvasive and one in situ carcinoma). Conclusion: Non‐invasive brush biopsies are a suitable instrument for early cytologic detection of cancer of the mouth. DNA‐image‐cytometry, as an adjunctive method, can be used to confirm the cytologic diagnosis or suspicion of cancer in patients with doubtful lesions (dysplasias). DNA‐aneuploidy is a marker for (prospective) malignancy in smears of the oral cavity, which may detect malignancy months prior to histology. In future this method could be used as a mass screening tool in dentists practise. Colour figures can be viewed on http://www.esacp.org/acp/2003/25‐4/remmerbach.htm.

Objective: The aim of this retrospective study was to report on the diagnostic accuracy of AgNOR‐analysis as an adjunctive diagnostic tool of conventional oral exfoliative cytology taken from suspicious lesions in our clinic. Study design: Cytological diagnoses obtained from brush biopsies of macroscopically suspicious lesions of the oral mucosa from 75 patients (final diagnoses: 53 histologically proven squamous cell carcinomas, 11 leukoplakias and other inflammatory oral lesions) and from 11 patients with normal mucosa as a negative control group were compared with histological and/or clinical follow‐ups. Five smears were doubtful and seven suspicious for tumor cells in the cytologic report. Number of AgNOR's were counted in 100 squamous epithelial cell‐nuclei per slide after silver‐restaining. Results: Sensitivity of our cytological diagnosis alone on oral smears for the detection of squamous carcinomas was 92.5%, specificity 100%, positive predictive value was 100% and negative 84.6%. The best cut‐off value of the mean number of AgNOR dots per nucleus distinguishing benign from malignant cells was 4.8. The percentage of nuclei with more than three AgNORs had a cut‐off level of 70%. Applying these methods to twelve doubtful or suspicious cytological diagnoses we were able to correctly establish the diagnosis of malignancy in ten cases of histologically proven cancers and to reveal benignity in two histologically proven cases. Thus we achieved a positive and negative predictive value of 100% each. Conclusions: Smears from brushings of visible oral lesions, if clinically considered as suspicious for cancer, are an easily practicable, non‐invasive, painless, safe and accurate screening method for detection of oral cancerous lesions. We conclude that AgNOR‐analysis may be a useful adjunct to other methods in routine cytological diagnosis of oral cancer that can help to solve cytologically suspicious or doubtful cases. Colour figures can be viewed on http://www.esacp.org/acp/2003/25‐3/remmerbach.htm.

No abstract

The application of DNA image cytometry with DNA aneuploidy as a marker for neoplastic transformation in oral smears secures cytologic diagnosis of carcinomas. Smears from brushings of all visible oral lesions are an easily practicable, cheap, noninvasive, painless, and safe screening method for detection of oral precancerous lesions and squamous cell carcinoma in all stages. We conclude that DNA image cytometry is a very sensitive and highly specific, objective, and reproducible adjuvant tool for identification of neoplastic cells in oral smears.