Evaluation of autofluorescence and toluidine blue in the differentiation of oral dysplastic and neoplastic lesions from non dysplastic and neoplastic lesions: a cross-sectional study

Abstract

Abstract. The objective was to compare toluidine blue (TB) and autofluorescence (AF) for the detection of oral dysplasia and squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) in clinically suspicious lesions according to conventional examination. Fifty-six clinically suspicious lesions were subjected to AF and TB examination. Data were compared using two different scenarios: in the first, mild dysplasia was considered as positive, while in the second, it was considered as negative. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV), accuracy, and concordance were calculated. AF sensitivity and specificity were 70.0 and 57.7%, respectively, while TB showed a sensitivity of 80% and a specificity of 61.5%. The sensitivity increased in the second scenario in both AF (76.5%) and TB (88.2%). The specificity decreased in AF and TB, showing the same value (51.3%). PPV was higher in TB than in AF (70.6 versus 65.6%) and similarly for NPV (72.7 versus 62.5%). In the second scenario, TB PPV was 44.1% and NPV was 90.9%; AF PPV was 40.6% and NPV was 83.3%. TB showed greater accuracy than AF in the first scenario (62.5 versus 58.9%). AF and TB are both sensitive but not specific in OSCC and dysplasia diagnosis. © The Authors. Published by SPIE under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. Distribution or reproduction of this work in whole or in part requires full attribution of the original publication, including its DOI.

Portable LED-induced autofluorescence spectroscopy for oral cancer diagnosis

“…16,18,27,[32][33][34][35] A handheld device, the VELscope, was proposed for clinicians to noninvasively direct the fluorescence images of oral cavity tissues. 16,33,35,[37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47] Some studies observed the spectra of autofluorescence on different anatomical sites and found some characteristics between different sites. The results indicated that quantitative autofluorescence imaging can provide a noninvasive and objective method for detecting oral neoplasia.…”

Optical fluorescence imaging in oral cancer and potentially malignant disorders: A systematic review

“…Fifteen studies reported efficacy on detection of OPMD and/or OSCC, with significant heterogeneity and risk of bias noted across the methodologies used (Awan, Morgan, & Warnakulasuriya, ; Betz et al, ; Bhatia et al, ; Cânjău, Todea, Sinescu, Pricop, & Duma, ; Chiang et al, ; Farah et al, ; Koch, Kaemmerer, Biesterfeld, Kunkel, & Wagner, ; Lalla, Matias, & Farah, ; Marzouki et al, ; Moro et al, ; Onizawa, Saginoya, Furuya, & Yoshida, ; Petruzzi et al, ; Sawan & Mashlah, ; Scheer et al, ; Sweeny et al, ). Only three of 15 studies demonstrated low risk of bias across all QUADAS‐2 domains (Bhatia et al, ; Farah et al, ; Lalla et al, ).…”

“…Twenty‐one studies reported efficacy on optical autofluorescence in discriminating between benign, dysplastic and neoplastic oral lesions (Amirchaghmaghi et al, ; Awan et al, ; Awan, Morgan, & Warnakulasuriya, ; Babiuch, Chomyszyn‐Gajewska, & Wyszyńska‐Pawelec, ; Betz et al, ; Chiang et al, ; Farah et al, ; Hanken et al, ; Jayaprakash et al, ; Koch et al, ; Lalla et al, ; Lane et al, ; Marzouki et al, ; Mehrotra et al, ; Moro et al, ; Paderni et al, ; Petruzzi et al, ; Rana et al, ; Sawan & Mashlah., ; Scheer et al, ; Simonato, Tomo, Miyahara, Navarro, & Villaverde, ). Significant heterogeneity and variation in reported efficacy (COE alone: sensitivity: 5.9%–96.6%; specificity: 42.9%–97.8%, OFI alone: sensitivity: 30%–100%; specificity: 12.5%–93%, combined examination: sensitivity: 46%–100%; specificity: 6%–74%) were noted.…”

Applications of Biomaterials for Bone Augmentation of Jaws: Clinical Outcomes and in Vitro Studies

“…Many materials have appeared on the market, but only a few have been proven effective in maintaining the quantity and bone volume adequate for a correct placement of implants. In addiction, even if the main factor for survival rate of implants in PTEJs is the quality of bone of receiving sites, the presence of oral mucosal diseases may be the main cause of failure of bone augmentation and implant survival (54)(55)(56)(57)(58)(59)(60)(61)(62)(63)(64). It is of paramount importance since infection can happen with high frequencies in bone regeneration (65-68) also after cancer resection (69)(70)(71)(72)(73).…”