Diagnostic tests for oral cancer and potentially malignant disorders in patients presenting with clinically evident lesions.

BACKGROUND: Squamous cell carcinoma is the most common form of malignancy of the oral cavity, and is often proceeded by oral potentially malignant disorders (OPMD). Early detection of oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma (oral cancer) can improve survival rates. The current diagnostic standard of surgical biopsy with histology is painful for patients and involves a delay in order to process the tissue and render a histological diagnosis; other diagnostic tests are available that are less invasive and some are able to provide immediate results. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2015. OBJECTIVES: Primary objective: to estimate the diagnostic accuracy of index tests for the detection of oral cancer and OPMD, in people presenting with clinically evident suspicious and innocuous lesions. SECONDARY OBJECTIVE: to estimate the relative accuracy of the different index tests. SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 20 October 2020), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 20 October 2020). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were also searched for ongoing trials to 20 October 2020. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. We conducted citation searches, and screened reference lists of included studies for additional references. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected studies that reported the diagnostic test accuracy of the following index tests when used as an adjunct to conventional oral examination in detecting OPMD or oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma: vital staining (a dye to stain oral mucosa tissues), oral cytology, light-based detection and oral spectroscopy, blood or saliva analysis (which test for the presence of biomarkers in blood or saliva). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts for relevance. Eligibility, data extraction and quality assessment were carried out by at least two authors, independently and in duplicate. Studies were assessed for methodological quality using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2). Meta-analysis was used to combine the results of studies for each index test using the bivariate approach to estimate the expected values of sensitivity and specificity. MAIN RESULTS: This update included 63 studies (79 datasets) published between 1980 and 2020 evaluating 7942 lesions for the quantitative meta-analysis. These studies evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of conventional oral examination with: vital staining (22 datasets), oral cytology (24 datasets), light-based detection or oral spectroscopy (24 datasets). Nine datasets assessed two combined index tests. There were no eligible diagnostic accuracy studies evaluating blood or salivary sample analysis. Two studies were classed as being at low risk of bias across all domains, and 33 studies were at low concern for applicability across the three domains, where patient selection, the index test, and the reference standard used were generalisable across the population attending secondary care. The summary estimates obtained from the meta-analysis were: - vital staining: sensitivity 0.86 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 0.90) specificity 0.68 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.77), 20 studies, sensitivity low-certainty evidence, specificity very low-certainty evidence; - oral cytology: sensitivity 0.90 (95% CI 0.82 to 0.94) specificity 0.94 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.97), 20 studies, sensitivity moderate-certainty evidence, specificity moderate-certainty evidence; - light-based: sensitivity 0.87 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.93) specificity 0.50 (95% CI 0.32 to 0.68), 23 studies, sensitivity low-certainty evidence, specificity very low-certainty evidence; and - combined tests: sensitivity 0.78 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.94) specificity 0.71 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.84), 9 studies, sensitivity very low-certainty evidence, specificity very low-certainty evidence. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: At present none of the adjunctive tests can be recommended as a replacement for the currently used standard of a surgical biopsy and histological assessment. Given the relatively high values of the summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity for oral cytology, this would appear to offer the most potential. Combined adjunctive tests involving cytology warrant further investigation. Potentially eligible studies of blood and salivary biomarkers were excluded from the review as they were of a case-control design and therefore ineligible. In the absence of substantial improvement in the tests evaluated in this updated review, further research into biomarkers may be warranted.

Clinical assessment for the detection of oral cavity cancer and potentially malignant disorders in apparently healthy adults.

BACKGROUND: The early detection of oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) and oral potentially malignant disorders (OPMD), followed by appropriate treatment, may improve survival and reduce the risk for malignant transformation respectively. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2013. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the diagnostic test accuracy of conventional oral examination, vital rinsing, light-based detection, mouth self-examination, remote screening, and biomarkers, used singly or in combination, for the early detection of OPMD or OSCC in apparently healthy adults. SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 20 October 2020), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 20 October 2020), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 20 October 2020). The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. We conducted citation searches, and screened reference lists of included studies for additional references. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected studies that reported the test accuracy of any of the aforementioned tests in detecting OPMD or OSCC during a screening procedure. Diagnosis of OPMD or OSCC was provided by specialist clinicians or pathologists, or alternatively through follow-up. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts for relevance. Eligibility, data extraction, and quality assessment were carried out by at least two authors independently and in duplicate. Studies were assessed for methodological quality using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2). We reported the sensitivity and specificity of the included studies. We provided judgement of the certainty of the evidence using a GRADE assessment. MAIN RESULTS: We included 18 studies, recruiting 72,202 participants, published between 1986 and 2019. These studies evaluated the diagnostic test accuracy of conventional oral examination (10 studies, none new to this update), mouth self-examination (four studies, two new to this update), and remote screening (three studies, all new to this update). One randomised controlled trial of test accuracy directly evaluated conventional oral examination plus vital rinsing versus conventional oral examination alone. There were no eligible studies evaluating light-based detection or blood or salivary sample analysis (which tests for the presence of biomarkers for OPMD and OSCC). Only one study of conventional oral examination was judged as at overall low risk of bias and overall low concern regarding applicability. Given the clinical heterogeneity of the included studies in terms of the participants recruited, setting, prevalence of the target condition, the application of the index test and reference standard, and the flow and timing of the process, the data could not be pooled within the broader categories of index test. For conventional oral examination (10 studies, 25,568 participants), prevalence in the test accuracy sample ranged from 1% to 51%. For the seven studies with prevalence of 10% or lower, a prevalence more comparable to the general population, the sensitivity estimates were variable, and ranged from 0.50 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07 to 0.93) to 0.99 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.00); the specificity estimates were more consistent and ranged from 0.94 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.97) to 0.99 (95% CI 0.98 to 1.00). We judged the overall certainty of the evidence to be low, and downgraded for inconsistency and indirectness. Evidence for mouth self-examination and remote screening was more limited. We judged the overall certainty of the evidence for these index tests to be very low, and downgraded for imprecision, inconsistency, and indirectness. We judged the evidence for vital rinsing (toluidine blue) as an adjunct to conventional oral examination compared to conventional oral examination to be moderate, and downgraded for indirectness as the trial was undertaken in a high-risk population. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of high-certainty evidence to support the use of screening programmes for oral cavity cancer and OPMD in the general population. Frontline screeners such as general dentists, dental hygienists, other allied professionals, and community healthcare workers should remain vigilant for signs of OPMD and OSCC.

World Workshop on Oral Medicine VII: What participants perceive as important.

Our objective was to identify which aspects of World Workshop on Oral Medicine (WWOM) participation were perceived as significant for participants' professional development. Online survey was sent to previous WWOM participants. Qualitative analysis of participants' responses to an open-ended question was performed. Fifty-two WWOM participants responded. Nearly three quarters of respondents (72.3%) felt that participation in the WWOM helped their career. A high percentage of respondents (67.3%) provided answers that fell under the domains of international collaboration, followed by personal academic benefits (48%). Overall, the results indicate that WWOM participation played an important role in individual's professional development. We identified aspects of WWOM involvement that the participants perceived as important. This information will be used for the development of an objective instrument for measuring impact of WWOM on participant's professional path.

Diagnostic tests for oral cancer and potentially malignant disorders in patients presenting with clinically evident lesions.

BACKGROUND: Oral squamous cell carcinoma is the most common form of malignancy of the lip and oral cavity, often being proceeded by potentially malignant disorders (PMD). Early detection can reduce the malignant transformation of PMD and can improve the survival rate for oral cancer. The current standard of scalpel biopsy with histology is painful for patients and involves a delay whilst histology is completed; other tests are available that are unobtrusive and provide immediate results. PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: To estimate the diagnostic accuracy of index tests for the detection of oral cancer and PMD of the lip and oral cavity, in people presenting with clinically evident lesions. SECONDARY OBJECTIVE: To estimate the relative accuracy of the different index tests. SEARCH METHODS: The electronic databases were searched on 30 April 2013. We searched MEDLINE (OVID) (1946 to April 2013) and four other electronic databases (the Cochrane Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies Register, the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, EMBASE (OVID) and MEDION (Ovid)). There were no restrictions on language in the searches of the electronic databases. We conducted citation searches and screened reference lists of included studies for additional references. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected studies that reported the diagnostic test accuracy of the following index tests when used as an adjunct to conventional oral examination in detecting PMD or oral squamous cell carcinoma of the lip or oral cavity: vital staining, oral cytology, light-based detection and oral spectroscopy, blood or saliva analysis (which test for the presence of biomarkers in blood or saliva). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts for relevance. Eligibility, data extraction and quality assessment were carried out by at least two authors, independently and in duplicate. Studies were assessed for methodological quality using QUADAS-2. Meta-analysis was used to combine the results of studies for each index test using the bivariate approach to estimate the expected values of sensitivity and specificity. MAIN RESULTS: We included 41 studies, recruiting 4002 participants, in this review. These studies evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of conventional oral examination with: vital staining (14 studies), oral cytology (13 studies), light-based detection or oral spectroscopy (13 studies). Six studies assessed two combined index tests. There were no eligible diagnostic accuracy studies evaluating blood or salivary sample analysis.The summary estimates for vital staining obtained from the meta-analysis were sensitivity of 0.84 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.90) with specificity of 0.70 (0.59 to 0.79), with 14 studies were included in the meta-analysis. For cytology, sensitivity was 0.91 (0.81 to 0.96) and specificity was 0.91 (0.81 to 0.95) with 12 studies included in the meta-analysis. For light-based detection, sensitivity was 0.91 (0.77 to 0.97) and specificity was 0.58 (0.22 to 0.87) with 11 studies included in the meta-analysis. The relative test accuracy was assessed by adding covariates to the bivariate analysis, no difference in model fit was observed. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The overall quality of the included studies was poor. None of the adjunctive tests can be recommended as a replacement for the currently used standard of a scalpel biopsy and histological assessment. Given the relatively high values of the summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity for cytology, this would appear to offer the most potential. Combined adjunctive tests involving cytology warrant further investigation.

Increasing opportunistic oral cancer screening examinations: findings from focus groups with general dentists in Puerto Rico.

This study aims to identify educational and training modalities that dentists in Puerto Rico (PR) believe will increase the quality and quantity of opportunistic oral cancer screening examinations (OCS) in dental offices on the island. The study was conducted in three phases: a systematic search of relevant literature, an expert review and consensus panel, and focus groups (FG) involving PR general dentists. To increase OCS by dentists in PR, the FG participants proposed a small group, hands-on OCS training, an integrated oral cancer course, and readily available videos, photographs, and computer simulations to further demonstrate OCS performance and facilitate differential diagnosis. OCS training requirements for licensure and re-licensure, improving OCS dentist-patient communication skills, and establishment of an oral lesion referral center were also viewed favorably. In conclusion, general dentists in our FGs believed the quality and quantity of OCS in Puerto Rico can be increased through the application of specific continuing education and training modalities.

Clinical assessment to screen for the detection of oral cavity cancer and potentially malignant disorders in apparently healthy adults.

BACKGROUND: The early detection and excision of potentially malignant disorders (PMD) of the lip and oral cavity that require intervention may reduce malignant transformations (though will not totally eliminate malignancy occurring), or if malignancy is detected during surveillance, there is some evidence that appropriate treatment may improve survival rates. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the diagnostic accuracy of conventional oral examination (COE), vital rinsing, light-based detection, biomarkers and mouth self examination (MSE), used singly or in combination, for the early detection of PMD or cancer of the lip and oral cavity in apparently healthy adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE (OVID) (1946 to April 2013) and four other electronic databases (the Cochrane Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies Register, the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, EMBASE (OVID), and MEDION) from inception to April 2013. The electronic databases were searched on 30 April 2013. There were no restrictions on language in the searches of the electronic databases. We conducted citation searches, and screened reference lists of included studies for additional references. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected studies that reported the diagnostic test accuracy of any of the aforementioned tests in detecting PMD or cancer of the lip or oral cavity. Diagnosis of PMD or cancer was made by specialist clinicians or pathologists, or alternatively through follow-up. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts for relevance. Eligibility, data extraction and quality assessment were carried out by at least two authors independently and in duplicate. Studies were assessed for methodological quality using QUADAS-2. We reported the sensitivity and specificity of the included studies. MAIN RESULTS: Thirteen studies, recruiting 68,362 participants, were included. These studies evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of COE (10 studies), MSE (two studies). One randomised controlled of test accuracy trial directly evaluated COE and vital rinsing. There were no eligible diagnostic accuracy studies evaluating light-based detection or blood or salivary sample analysis (which tests for the presence of bio-markers of PMD and oral cancer). Given the clinical heterogeneity of the included studies in terms of the participants recruited, setting, prevalence of target condition, the application of the index test and reference standard and the flow and timing of the process, the data could not be pooled. For COE (10 studies, 25,568 participants), prevalence in the diagnostic test accuracy sample ranged from 1% to 51%. For the eight studies with prevalence of 10% or lower, the sensitivity estimates were highly variable, and ranged from 0.50 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07 to 0.93) to 0.99 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.00) with uniform specificity estimates around 0.98 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.00). Estimates of sensitivity and specificity were 0.95 (95% CI 0.92 to 0.97) and 0.81 (95% CI 0.79 to 0.83) for one study with prevalence of 22% and 0.97 (95% CI 0.96 to 0.98) and 0.75 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.77) for one study with prevalence of 51%. Three studies were judged to be at low risk of bias overall; two were judged to be at high risk of bias resulting from the flow and timing domain; and for five studies the overall risk of bias was judged as unclear resulting from insufficient information to form a judgement for at least one of the four quality assessment domains. Applicability was of low concern overall for two studies; high concern overall for three studies due to high risk population, and unclear overall applicability for five studies. Estimates of sensitivity for MSE (two studies, 34,819 participants) were 0.18 (95% CI 0.13 to 0.24) and 0.33 (95% CI 0.10 to 0.65); specificity for MSE was 1.00 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.00) and 0.54 (95% CI 0.37 to 0.69). One study (7975 participants) directly compared COE with COE plus vital rinsing in a randomised controlled trial. This study found a higher detection rate for oral cavity cancer in the conventional oral examination plus vital rinsing adjunct trial arm. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of the target condition both between and within index tests varied considerably. For COE estimates of sensitivity over the range of prevalence levels varied widely. Observed estimates of specificity were more homogeneous. Index tests at a prevalence reported in the population (between 1% and 5%) were better at correctly classifying the absence of PMD or oral cavity cancer in disease-free individuals that classifying the presence in diseased individuals. Incorrectly classifying disease-free individuals as having the disease would have clinical and financial implications following inappropriate referral; incorrectly classifying individuals with the disease as disease-free will mean PMD or oral cavity cancer will only be diagnosed later when the disease will be more severe. General dental practitioners and dental care professionals should remain vigilant for signs of PMD and oral cancer whilst performing routine oral examinations in practice.

World Workshop on Oral Medicine VIII: Barriers to research in oral medicine: results from a global survey.

OBJECTIVES: To explore factors influencing research interest and productivity and perceived barriers to conducting research in Oral Medicine (OM). METHODS: Invitations to participate in an online survey were e-mailed to a network of international OM practitioners and related professional organizations. Questions captured respondents' demographic/professional variables and gauged research interest, productivity, and perceived barriers to conducting research specifically in OM. Statistical analysis was conducted via descriptive, logistic regression, and multivariate modeling. RESULTS: Five hundred and ninety-three OM practitioners from 55 countries completed the survey, with 54%, 25%, and 21% practicing in high, upper-middle, and lower-middle-income countries, respectively. Eighty-six percent of respondents were interested in conducting research. Age (less interest with an increase in age), working in academia, and practicing in a lower-middle vs high-income country were significant predictors of research interest. Self-reported research productivity was significantly greater among males, those working in academia, and those who graduated from programs that mandated research presentation/publication. Obtaining research funding was a significant barrier among respondents from lower and upper-middle-income countries, whereas finding time for research was a reported barrier by respondents from high-income countries. CONCLUSION: The results of this survey identified perceived barriers to conducting research in OM and highlighted solutions to address such barriers.

Squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity in nonsmoking women: a new and unusual complication of chemotherapy for recurrent ovarian cancer?

PURPOSE: To describe occurrences of oral squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) in patients who had received long-term pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) for ovarian cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In our cohort of patients on maintenance PLD for ovarian and related mullerian epithelial malignancies, we encountered two patients with invasive SCC of the oral cavity (one of them multifocal) and one with high-grade squamous dysplasia. Review of patients at our institution receiving PLD for recurrent ovarian cancer identified three additional patients. The duration of treatment, cumulative PLD dose, human papillomavirus (HPV) positivity, BRCA status, stage at diagnosis, outcome, and other characteristics are reviewed. RESULTS: All five cases were nonsmokers with no known risk factors for HPV and four were negative for p16 expression. Four of the patients had known BRCA mutations whereas one tested negative. Cumulative doses of PLD were >1,600 mg/m2 given over 30-132 months. Three had SCCs staged as T1N0 oral tongue, alveolar ridge (gingival), and multifocal oral mucosa; one had a T2N0 oral tongue; and one had dysplasia. After excision, two were given radiation but recurred shortly thereafter; the others remain well and have had no further exposure to cytotoxic drugs, including PLD. CONCLUSION: Awareness of this possible long-term complication during PLD treatment should enhance the likelihood of early detection of oral lesions in these patients. Decisions to continue maintenance PLD after complete response of the original cancer should perhaps consider the benefits of delaying ovarian cancer recurrence versus the possible risk for a secondary cancer.

Oral Potentially Malignant Disorders and Oral Cavity Cancer.

The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program from the National Cancer Institute reports that the aggregate number of oral cavity and pharyngeal cancer cases has been increasing over the past decade and, despite an overall decline in oral cavity cancers, this increase is largely related to a dramatic increase in cancers involving oropharyngeal subsites. Early detection of oral cavity cancers is commensurate with improved survival, and opportunistic screening by trained clinicians to detect oral cavity cancer and oral potentially malignant disorders is recommended by the American Dental Association and the American Academy of Oral Medicine.

Point-of-care characterization and risk-based management of oral lesions in primary dental clinics: A simulation model.

OBJECTIVES: Oral potentially malignant disorders (OPMDs) encompass histologically benign, dysplastic, and cancerous lesions that are often indistinguishable by appearance and inconsistently managed. We assessed the potential impact of test-and-treat pathways enabled by a point-of-care test for OPMD characterization. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We constructed a decision-analytic model to compare life expectancy of test-treat strategies for 60-year-old patients with OPMDs in the primary dental setting, based on a trial for a point-of-care cytopathology tool (POCOCT). Eight strategies of OPMD detection and evaluation were compared, involving deferred evaluation (no further characterization), prompt OPMD characterization using POCOCT measurements, or the commonly recommended usual care strategy of routine referral for scalpel biopsy. POCOCT pathways differed in threshold for additional intervention, including surgery for any dysplasia or malignancy, or for only moderate or severe dysplasia or cancer. Strategies with initial referral for biopsy also reflected varied treatment thresholds in current practice between surgery and surveillance of mild dysplasia. Sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the impact of variation in parameter values on model results. RESULTS: Requisite referral for scalpel biopsy offered the highest life expectancy of 20.92 life-years compared with deferred evaluation (+0.30 life-years), though this outcome was driven by baseline assumptions of limited patient adherence to surveillance using POCOCT. POCOCT characterization and surveillance offered only 0.02 life-years less than the most biopsy-intensive strategy, while resulting in 27% fewer biopsies. When the probability of adherence to surveillance and confirmatory biopsy was ≥ 0.88, or when metastasis rates were lower than reported, POCOCT characterization extended life-years (+0.04 life-years) than prompt specialist referral. CONCLUSION: Risk-based OPMD management through point-of-care cytology may offer a reasonable alternative to routine referral for specialist evaluation and scalpel biopsy, with far fewer biopsies. In patients who adhere to surveillance protocols, POCOCT surveillance may extend life expectancy beyond biopsy and follow up visual-tactile inspection.

Evidence-based clinical practice guideline for the evaluation of potentially malignant disorders in the oral cavity: A report of the American Dental Association.

BACKGROUND: An expert panel convened by the American Dental Association (ADA) Council on Scientific Affairs and the Center for Evidence-Based Dentistry conducted a systematic review and formulated clinical recommendations to inform primary care clinicians about the potential use of adjuncts as triage tools for the evaluation of lesions, including potentially malignant disorders (PMDs), in the oral cavity. TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED: This is an update of the ADA's 2010 recommendations on the early diagnosis of PMDs and oral squamous cell carcinoma. The authors conducted a systematic search of the literature in MEDLINE and Embase via Ovid and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify randomized controlled trials and diagnostic test accuracy studies. The authors used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to assess the certainty in the evidence and to move from the evidence to the decisions. RESULTS: The panel formulated 1 good practice statement and 6 clinical recommendations that concluded that no available adjuncts demonstrated sufficient diagnostic test accuracy to support their routine use as triage tools during the evaluation of lesions in the oral cavity. For patients seeking care for suspicious lesions, immediate performance of a biopsy or referral to a specialist remains the single most important recommendation for clinical practice. In exceptional cases, when patients decline a biopsy or live in rural areas with limited access to care, the panel suggested that cytologic testing may be used to initiate the diagnostic process until a biopsy can be performed (conditional recommendation, low-quality evidence). CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: The authors urge clinicians to remain alert and take diligent action when they identify a PMD. The authors emphasize the need for counseling because patients may delay diagnosis because of anxiety and denial.

Adjuncts for the evaluation of potentially malignant disorders in the oral cavity: Diagnostic test accuracy systematic review and meta-analysis-a report of the American Dental Association.

BACKGROUND: Oral squamous cell carcinoma is the most common manifestation of malignancy in the oral cavity. Adjuncts are available for clinicians to evaluate lesions that seem potentially malignant. In this systematic review, the authors summarized the available evidence on patient-important outcomes, diagnostic test accuracy (DTA), and patients' values and preferences (PVPs) when using adjuncts for the evaluation of clinically evident lesions in the oral cavity. TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED: The authors searched for preexisting systematic reviews and assessed their quality using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews tool. The authors updated the selected reviews and searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify randomized controlled trials and DTA and PVPs studies. Pairs of reviewers independently conducted study selection, data extraction, and assessment of the certainty in the evidence by using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. RESULTS: The authors identified 4 existing reviews. DTA reviews included 37 studies. The authors retrieved 7,534 records, of which 9 DTA and 10 PVPs studies were eligible. Pooled sensitivity and specificity of adjuncts ranged from 0.39 to 0.96 for the evaluation of innocuous lesions and from 0.31 to 0.95 for the evaluation of suspicious lesions. Cytologic testing used in suspicious lesions appears to have the highest accuracy among adjuncts (sensitivity, 0.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.86 to 0.98; specificity, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.88 to 0.99; low-quality evidence). CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Cytologic testing appears to be the most accurate adjunct among those included in this review. The main concerns are the high rate of false-positive results and serious issues of risk of bias and indirectness of the evidence. Clinicians should remain skeptical about the potential benefit of any adjunct in clinical practice.