Oral malignancies associated with negative transepithelial brush biopsy

Potter, Tyler J.; Summerlin, Don‐John; Campbell, John H.

doi:10.1053/joms.2003.50136

Cited by 54 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Because of non rigid nature of cervical brushes, inadequate results are expected. This leads to false negative results and significant diagnostic delay (14). So, this study was planned to use LBC technique employing a specialized oral brush (OralCDx® Brush), simultaneously and exactly from the same area to determine the diagnostic value (sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values and positive and negative likelihood ratios) of modified LBC technique in detection of dysplasia /malignancy in oral potentially malignant and cancerous lesions and to evaluate diagnostic agreement between this technique and scalpel biopsy.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the diagnostic value of a Modified Liquid-Based Cytology using OralCDx Brush in early detection of oral potentially malignant lesions and oral cancer

Delavarian¹,

Mohtasham²,

Mozafari³

et al. 2010

Med Oral

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To determine diagnostic value of modified Liquid Based Brush Biopsy technique. Study design: 26 oral premalignant and malignant lesions in 25 patients (12 females; 54.23±19.77 years and 13 males; 53.77±15.43 years) underwent Modified (Liquid Based) Brush Biopsy and scalpel biopsy simultaneously from the same area. Results: There were 16 positive and 10 negative brush biopsy results, with no inadequate readings. Histological findings were compatible with oral leukoplakia(n=5)with dysplasia, Oral lichen planus and lichenoid reaction(n=7) (with or without dysplasia)oral squamous cell carcinoma(n=11),verrucous carcinoma(n=1) and granular cell tumors( n=2). Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, positive diagnostic likelihood ratio(LR+) and negative diagnostic likelihood ratio(LR-) were 88.8%,100%,100% , 80%, infinity and 0.11 respectively(no false positive results). Conclusion: It is the first attempt to do LBC (liquid based cytology) with a specialized oral brush. Our results show that modified technique is a useful tool for screening of oral premalignant and malignant lesions.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the diagnostic value of a Modified Liquid-Based Cytology using OralCDx Brush in early detection of oral potentially malignant lesions and oral cancer

Delavarian¹,

Mohtasham²,

Mozafari³

et al. 2010

Med Oral

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Patología Oral durante un período de dos años, para determinar si habían sido sometidos previamente una biopsia con el OralCDx ® y si el informe había sido negativo para anomalía epitelial (2). Los casos identificados fueron investigados para determinar el lapso de tiempo transcurrido entre la biopsia con el OralCDx ® y el diagnóstico definitivo del análisis histopatológico.…”

Section: Potter Y Cols (2003) Examinaron Todos Los Diagnós-ticos De unclassified

“…Al igual que otros estudios (2,14,15,24,25) la principal limitación de este estudio es el sesgo de muestreo. El personal hospitalario no es representativo de los pacientes que acuden a la consulta dental y este es exactamente el grupo-objetivo del OralCDx ® .…”

Section: La Mayoría De Los Sujetos Eran Varones (H: M 47:33)unclassified

“…Aunque el estudio realizado por el Dr. Sciubba fue muy elogiado por algunos, otros han cuestionado la interpretación de la estadística y por consiguiente la aplicabilidad clínica de estos resultados (2). Ensayos clínicos con diferencias en la metodología utilizada mostraron resultados contradictorios a los observados por Sciubba y cols.…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

“…Ensayos clínicos con diferencias en la metodología utilizada mostraron resultados contradictorios a los observados por Sciubba y cols. (2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7). Esto dio lugar a lo que Greenberg designó la "controversia del cepillo" y a una incertidumbre, que aún hoy prevalece, en cuanto al uso de esta prueba diagnóstica como herramienta adyuvante de detección de LOMP (8).…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

See 2 more Smart Citations

Biopsia por cepillado con el OralCDx®: Estado de la cuestión

Cruz¹,

Bascones-Martínez²

2013

Av Odontoestomatol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

RESUMENLa controversia en torno al OralCDx ® (OralScan Laboratories Inc., Suffern, Nueva York) se ha mantenido desde la publicación del primer estudio evaluando la validez y seguridad de esta prueba diagnóstica, como artículo de portada de la revista JADA en 1999. Aunque el estudio fue muy elogiado por algunos, otros han cuestionado la interpretación de la estadística y por consiguiente la aplicabilidad clínica de estos resultados. Esto dio lugar a lo que Greenberg designó la "controversia del cepillo" y a una incertidumbre, que aún hoy prevalece, en cuanto al uso de esta prueba diagnóstica. Entendemos que es importante llevar a cabo un análisis actualizado de la literatura que permita resumir la evidencia actual en torno al OralCDx ® . El objetivo de este artículo es realizar una revisión bibliográfica relacionada con la precisión del sistema de Test de cepillado OralCDx ® como técnica adyuvante de diagnóstico de LOMP. Se resumen datos acerca del diseño, muestras y características del grupo de estudio, intervenciones, resultados comunicados y medidas básicas de precisión diagnóstica de este método adyuvante, a partir de los estudios clínicos publicados entre los años de 1999 y 2013.Palabras clave: Cáncer oral, condiciones precancerosas, diagnóstico, biopsia por cepillado, análisis asistido por ordenador. SUMMARYThe controversy surrounding the OralCDx® (OralScan Laboratories Inc., Suffern, New York) has been on since the first study evaluating the validity and safety of this diagnostic test was published as cover story of the JADA in 1999. Although the study was highly praised by some, others have challenged the interpretation of the statistics and therefore the practical implications of these results. This resulted in what Greenberg called the "brush controversy" and in an uncertainty regarding the use of this diagnostic test that still prevails today. We believe it is important to conduct an updated review of the literature to summarize the current evidence regarding OralCDx®. The aim of this article is to review the literature regarding the accuracy of the OralCDx® brush biopsy in the detection or diagnosis of oral premalignant and malignant lesions (OPML). We abstracted data relating to study design, sampling and characteristics of the study group, interventions, reported outcomes and diagnostic accuracy of this adjunctive aid from the clinical studies published between 1999 and 2013.

show abstract

Low positive predictive value of the oral brush biopsy in detecting dysplastic oral lesions

Bhoopathi

Kabani

Mascarenhas

2009

Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND:The authors evaluated the effectiveness of the oral brush biopsy technique as a diagnostic tool in detecting dysplastic oral lesions.METHODS:In this cross‐sectional study, pathologic reports (n = 152) from the scalpel biopsies (tissue samples) in patients who previously tested either “positive” (n = 3) or “atypical” (n = 149) for dysplasia by brush biopsy (OralCDx) were evaluated. Information on the age and sex of the patient, the site of the lesion, the brush biopsy results, and the histopathologic diagnosis of the scalpel biopsy was collected. The positive predictive values (PPVs) for “abnormal,” “atypical,” and “positive” brush biopsies were determined.RESULTS:Overall, the PPV of an abnormal brush biopsy was only 7.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.2%‐13.4%), and the PPV of an “atypical” brush biopsy was 7.4% (95% CI, 3.7%‐12.8%). Of the 3 positive brush biopsies, only 1 was identified as dysplastic. The proportion of false‐positive biopsy results was as high as 92.1% (95% CI, 86.6%‐95.9%).CONCLUSIONS:The OralCDx technique overestimated dysplastic lesions and produced a high number of false‐positive results. Cancer 2009. © 2009 American Cancer Society.

show abstract

Oral malignancies associated with negative transepithelial brush biopsy

Cited by 54 publications

References 9 publications

Evaluation of the diagnostic value of a Modified Liquid-Based Cytology using OralCDx Brush in early detection of oral potentially malignant lesions and oral cancer

Evaluation of the diagnostic value of a Modified Liquid-Based Cytology using OralCDx Brush in early detection of oral potentially malignant lesions and oral cancer

Biopsia por cepillado con el OralCDx®: Estado de la cuestión

Low positive predictive value of the oral brush biopsy in detecting dysplastic oral lesions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About