Oral potentially malignant disorders (OPMDs) are associated with an increased risk of occurrence of cancers of the lip or oral cavity. This paper presents an updated report on the nomenclature and the classification of OPMDs, based predominantly on their clinical features, following discussions by an expert group at a workshop held by the World Health Organization (WHO) Collaborating Centre for Oral Cancer in the UK. The first workshop held in London in 2005 considered a wide spectrum of disorders under the term "potentially malignant disorders of the oral mucosa" (PMD) (now referred to as oral potentially malignant disorders: OPMD) including leukoplakia, erythroplakia, proliferative verrucous leukoplakia, oral lichen planus, oral submucous fibrosis, palatal lesions in reverse smokers, lupus erythematosus, epidermolysis bullosa, and dyskeratosis congenita. Any new evidence published in the intervening Medical Sciences,

Oral potentially malignant disorders (OPMDs) have a statistically increased risk of progressing to cancer, but the risk varies according to a range of patient- or lesion-related factors. It is difficult to predict the risk of progression in any individual patient, and the clinician must make a judgment based on assessment of each case. The most commonly encountered OPMD is leukoplakia, but others, including lichen planus, oral submucous fibrosis, and erythroplakia, may also be seen. Factors associated with an increased risk of malignant transformation include sex; site and type of lesion; habits, such as smoking and alcohol consumption; and the presence of epithelial dysplasia on histologic examination. In this review, we attempt to identify important risk factors and present a simple algorithm that can be used as a guide for risk assessment at each stage of the clinical evaluation of a patient.

No abstract

No abstract

There is evidence that a visual examination as part of a population-based screening programme reduces the mortality rate of oral cancer in high-risk individuals. In addition, there is a stage shift and improvement in survival rates across the population as a whole. However, the evidence is limited to one study, which has a high risk of bias and did not account for the effect of cluster randomisation in the analysis. There was no evidence to support the use of adjunctive technologies like toluidine blue, brush biopsy or fluorescence imaging as a screening tool to reduce oral cancer mortality. Further RCTs are recommended to assess the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of a visual examination as part of a population-based screening programme in low, middle and high-income countries.