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.

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.

Oral potentially malignant disorders: A consensus report from an international seminar on nomenclature and classification, convened by the WHO Collaborating Centre for Oral Cancer.

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 period was considered to make essential changes to the 2007 classification. In the current update, most entities were retained with minor changes to their definition. There is sufficient evidence for an increased risk of oral cancer among patients diagnosed with "oral lichenoid lesions" and among those diagnosed with oral manifestations of 'chronic graft-versus-host disease'. These have now been added to the list of OPMDs. There is, to date, insufficient evidence concerning the malignant potential of chronic hyperplastic candidosis and of oral exophytic verrucous hyperplasia to consider these conditions as OPMDs. Furthermore, due to lack of clear evidence of an OPMD in epidermolysis bullosa this was moved to the category with limited evidence. We recommend the establishment of a global research consortium to further study the natural history of OPMDs based on the classification and nomenclature proposed here. This will require multi-center longitudinal studies with uniform diagnostic criteria to improve the identification and cancer risk stratification of patients with OPMDs, link them to evidence-based interventions, with a goal to facilitate the prevention and management of lip and oral cavity cancer.

Comment on MaaniHessari, N.; van Schalkwyk, M.C.; Thomas, S.; Petticrew, M. Alcohol Industry CSR Organisations: What Can Their Twitter Activity Tell Us about Their Independence and Their Priorities? A Comparative Analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 892.

We noted with concern that you published recently (12 March 2019) an article about so-called "Alcohol industry CSR Organisations", which selectively targets criticism of Drinkaware [...].

Accuracy of alcohol and breast cancer risk information on Drinkaware's website.

A recent paper in Drug and Alcohol Review analysed the information on cancer disseminated by 27 alcohol industry funded organisations. The independent UK alcohol education charity Drinkaware was among the organisations whose information was studied, and based on the analysis claims were made of misrepresentation of evidence about the alcohol-related risk of cancer and alcohol industry influence. This commentary challenges the validity of these findings in respect to the evidence relating to the Drinkaware information, as the analysis is found to be misrepresenting the information by both disregarding the wider information content provided and the order and prominence with which alcohol-related cancer risk is presented. Furthermore, it is argued that the public has a right to be provided with relevant evidence-based information about cancer risk. It is critical that Drinkaware's important public health function is not compromised by unjustified allegations of inaccuracy and by unwarranted attacks on its independence and integrity.

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.

Screening programmes for the early detection and prevention of oral cancer.

BACKGROUND: Oral cancer is an important global healthcare problem, its incidence is increasing and late-stage presentation is common. Screening programmes have been introduced for a number of major cancers and have proved effective in their early detection. Given the high morbidity and mortality rates associated with oral cancer, there is a need to determine the effectiveness of a screening programme for this disease, either as a targeted, opportunistic or population-based measure. Evidence exists from modelled data that a visual oral examination of high-risk individuals may be a cost-effective screening strategy and the development and use of adjunctive aids and biomarkers is becoming increasingly common. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of current screening methods in decreasing oral cancer mortality. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 22 July 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 6), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 22 July 2013), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 22 July 2013) and CANCERLIT via PubMed (1950 to 22 July 2013). There were no restrictions on language in the search of the electronic databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of screening for oral cancer or potentially malignant disorders using visual examination, toluidine blue, fluorescence imaging or brush biopsy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors screened the results of the searches against inclusion criteria, extracted data and assessed risk of bias independently and in duplicate. We used mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous data and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs for dichotomous data. Meta-analyses would have been undertaken using a random-effects model if the number of studies had exceeded a minimum of three. Study authors were contacted where possible and where deemed necessary for missing information. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 3239 citations were identified through the searches. Only one RCT, with 15-year follow-up met the inclusion criteria (n = 13 clusters: 191,873 participants). There was no statistically significant difference in the oral cancer mortality rates for the screened group (15.4/100,000 person-years) and the control group (17.1/100,000 person-years), with a RR of 0.88 (95% CI 0.69 to 1.12). A 24% reduction in mortality was reported between the screening group (30/100,000 person-years) and the control group (39.0/100,000) for high-risk individuals who used tobacco or alcohol or both, which was statistically significant (RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.60 to 0.97). No statistically significant differences were found for incidence rates. A statistically significant reduction in the number of individuals diagnosed with stage III or worse oral cancer was found for those in the screening group (RR 0.81; 95% CI 0.70 to 0.93). No harms were reported. The study was assessed as at high risk of bias. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: 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.

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.

Early detection of oral cancer: how do I ensure I don't miss a tumour?

UNLABELLED: The GDC recommend that early detection of oral cancer should form part of every dental surgeon's Continuing Professional Development. It is arguably the most serious condition that can arise within the oral cavity and regular screening practices may also help mitigate spurious claims of prior negligence for failure to detect the cancer at an early stage. Results for routine screening of the entire oral mucosa, together with risk status assessment, should be recorded in a patient's notes at every visit (both negative and positive findings). CLINICAL RELEVANCE: A knowledge of how to detect oral cancer early is an essential part of the dentist's armamentarium.

Oral cancer awareness among undergraduate dental students in Iran.

The aim of this study was to assess undergraduate dental students' knowledge about prevention and detection of oral cancer in Tehran University of Medical Sciences (TUMS). A validated questionnaire which tested oral cancer awareness and procedure was given to 3rd to 6th year students of the dental faculty of TUMS. A total of 165 students participated in this survey. As expected, students of the final years showed greater knowledge of risk factors and clinical features of the disease. This study highlights for consideration regarding improvement to undergraduate dental education.

Screening programmes for the early detection and prevention of oral cancer.

BACKGROUND: Oral cancer is an important global healthcare problem, its incidence is increasing and late-stage presentation is common. Screening programmes have been introduced for a number of major cancers and have proved effective in their early detection. Given the high morbidity and mortality rates associated with oral cancer, there is a need to determine the effectiveness of a screening programme for this disease, either as a targeted, opportunistic or population based measure. Evidence exists from modelled data that a visual oral examination of high-risk individuals may be a cost-effective screening strategy and the development and use of adjunctive aids and biomarkers is becoming increasingly common. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of current screening methods in decreasing oral cancer mortality. SEARCH STRATEGY: The following electronic databases were searched: the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 20 May 2010), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 2), MEDLINE via OVID (1950 to 20 May 2010), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 20 May 2010) and CANCERLIT via PubMed (1950 to 20 May 2010). There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of screening for oral cancer or potentially malignant disorders using visual examination, toluidine blue, fluorescence imaging or brush biopsy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The original review identified 1389 citations and this update identified an additional 330 studies, highlighting 1719 studies for consideration. Only one study met the inclusion criteria and validity assessment, data extraction and statistics evaluation were undertaken by six independent review authors. MAIN RESULTS: One 9-year RCT has been included (n = 13 clusters: 191,873 participants). There was no statistically significant difference in the age-standardised oral cancer mortality rates for the screened group (16.4/100,000 person-years) and the control group (20.7/100,000 person-years). A 43% reduction in mortality was reported between the intervention cohort (29.9/100,000 person-years) and the control arm (45.4/100,000) for high-risk individuals who used tobacco or alcohol or both, which was statistically significant. However, this study had a number of methodological weaknesses and the associated risk of bias was high. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although there is evidence that a visual examination as part of a population based screening programme reduced the mortality rate of oral cancer in high-risk individuals, whilst producing a stage shift and improvement in survival rates across the population as a whole, the evidence is limited to one study and is associated with a high risk of bias. This was compounded by the fact that the effect of cluster randomisation was not accounted for in the analysis. Furthermore, no robust evidence was identified to support the use of other adjunctive technologies like toluidine blue, brush biopsy or fluorescence imaging within a primary care environment. Further randomised controlled trials are recommended to assess the efficacy, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a visual examination as part of a population based screening programme.

Actuarial life-table analysis of lower impacted wisdom teeth in general dental practice.

BACKGROUND: The appropriateness of extraction of asymptomatic impacted third molars has been much debated and as a result the number of extractions has fallen in the UK in the past few years. As a direct consequence of this decrease more impacted third molars are left in situ and yet, little is known about the natural history of these teeth. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to create an actuarial life-table and related survival analysis that would shed light on the natural history of an impacted lower third molar. METHODS: Panoramic radiographs taken in 14 different general dental practices in Scotland were analysed and matched with their respective case notes in order to generate a sample of patients with asymptomatic impacted lower third molars. Subjects were assessed to confirm the presence of impaction and absence of symptoms and then re-assessed 1 year later for the development of symptoms during the study period to relate the incidence of symptoms within 1 year in the sample studied to age. Logistic regression was used to construct a life table based on the survival of symptom-free teeth (independently of extraction) during the study period. RESULTS: The number of patients included in the study was 583 and 421 for the baseline and follow-up assessments respectively. The total number of teeth analysed in both appointments was 676; from those 37 (5.47%) were extracted during the study period. About 562 teeth (83.13%) survived the study period symptom-free. There was a statistically significant inverse association between the development of symptoms studied and age. There was no statistically significant association between extraction and age. CONCLUSIONS: The study indicates that older patients are less likely to develop the symptoms studied. In addition the authors believe that there is evidence to suggest that general dental practitioners might not be following current guidelines when deciding whether or not to extract an impacted lower third molar in the centres studied.

Oral cancer awareness of undergraduate medical and dental students.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of oral cancer is increasing in the United Kingdom. Early detection of oral cancers makes them more amenable to treatment and allows the greatest chance of cure. Delay in presentation and/or referral has a significant effect on the associated morbidity and mortality. Lack of general medical practitioner and general dental practitioner oral cancer knowledge has been shown to contribute to delays in referral and treatment. The aim of this study was to investigate the oral cancer awareness of future general medical and general dental practitioners by assessing undergraduate medical and dental students' knowledge of prevention and early detection of oral cancer. METHOD: Questionnaires were delivered to undergraduate medical and dental students at the University of Dundee, assessing oral examination habits, delivery of advice on oral cancer risk factors, knowledge of oral cancer risk factors and clinical appearance, preferred point of referral and requests for further information. RESULTS: Undergraduate medical students were less likely to examine patients' oral mucosa routinely and less likely to advise patients about risk factors for oral cancer. Medical students identified fewer oral cancer risk factors. In particular alcohol use was identified poorly. Medical students also identified fewer oral changes associated with oral cancer. Erythroplakia and erythroleukoplakia were identified poorly. Medical students felt less well informed regarding oral cancer. 86% and 92% of undergraduate medical and dental students respectively requested further information about oral cancer. CONCLUSION: This study highlights the need for improved education of undergraduate medical and dental students regarding oral cancer.

Assessing oral health-related quality of life in general dental practice in Scotland: validation of the OHIP-14.

OBJECTIVES: To validate the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP)-14 in a sample of patients attending general dental practice. METHODS: Patients with pathology-free impacted wisdom teeth were recruited from six general dental practices in Tayside, Scotland, and followed for a year to assess the development of problems related to impaction. The OHIP-14 was completed at baseline and at 1-year follow-up, and analysed using three different scoring methods: a summary score, a weighted and standardized score and the total number of problems reported. Instrument reliability was measured by assessing internal consistency and test-retest reliability. Construct validity was assessed using a number of variables. Linear regression was then used to model the relationship between OHIP-14 and all significantly correlated variables. Responsiveness was measured using the standardized response mean (SRM). Adjusted R(2)s and SRMs were calculated for each of the three scoring methods. Estimates for the differences between adjusted R(2)s and the differences between SRMs were obtained with 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: A total of 278 and 169 patients completed the questionnaire at baseline and follow-up, respectively. Reliability - Cronbach's alpha coefficients ranged from 0.30 to 0.75. Alpha coefficients for all 14 items were 0.88 and 0.87 for baseline and follow-up, respectively. Test-retest coefficients ranged from 0.72 to 0.78. Validity - OHIP-14 scores were significantly correlated with number of teeth, education, main activity, the use of mouthwash, frequency of seeing a dentist, the reason for the last dental appointment, smoking, alcohol intake, pain and symptoms. Adjusted R(2)s ranged from 0.123 to 0.202 and there were no statistically significant differences between those for the three different scoring methods. Responsiveness - The SRMs ranged from 0.37 to 0.56 and there was a statistically significant difference between the summary scores method and the total number of problems method for symptomatic patients. CONCLUSIONS: The OHIP-14 is a valid and reliable measure of oral health-related quality of life in general dental practice and is responsive to third molar clinical change. The summary score method demonstrated performance as good as, or better than, the other methods studied.

Alcohol and oral cancer.

Alcohol, particularly when associated with tobacco use, has been recognized as an important risk factor for mouth cancer for almost 50 years. Together, they are associated with approximately 75% of upper aerodigestive tract cancers. However, intake of alcohol remains high in many countries. The rising incidence of oral cancer has prompted a revaluation of the role of alcohol (both alone and in partnership with other etiologic agents). In this article, the potential role of alcohol in the development of oral cancer is reviewed. In particular, the effect of alcohol on cellular structure and function is considered by reference to histologic and exfoliative cytologic studies of the oral epithelia. Alcohol may influence the proliferative cells by both intracellular (e.g., endocytosis) and intercellular (permeability) pathways. The carcinogenic exposure of the proliferating stem cells in the basal layer may be regulated through these pathways. Individual variation might help explain why oral cancer arises in some, but not in most, people who smoke and consume excess alcohol. Despite this finding, alcohol is strongly associated with the development of oral cancer and other upper aerodigestive tract cancers. Efforts to reduce this burden on the individual and society must be directed toward patient and professional education and research regarding (genetic) susceptibility.