4.2 Article

Brush Cytology and AgNOR in the Diagnosis of Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma

Journal

ACTA CYTOLOGICA
Volume 61, Issue 1, Pages 62-70

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000451050

Keywords

Oral cancer; Potential malignancy; Conventional cytology; Liquid-based cytology; AgNOR

Categories

Funding

  1. Department of Biotechnology (DBT)
  2. Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India
  3. Department of Biotechnology, Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India.

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: We aimed to evaluate the role of brush cytology in the screening of oral lesions with malignant suspicion and compare it with histopathology in north-eastern India. Study Design: Brush cytology samples taken from 48 patients were processed for conventional cytology (CC) and liquid-based cytology (LBC), and biopsy samples were also obtained. LBC samples were also stained to assess the argyrophilic nucleolar organizer region (AgNOR). The cytology was compared with histopathology, both individually and in combination with AgNOR. The smear quality was compared with histopathology for evaluating their diagnostic accuracy. Results: The sensitivity of diagnosing oral cavity squamous cell carcinoma by LBC and CC alone was 75 and 85%, respectively, which improved on combining with the AgNOR count, with a cutoff of 6.5. The presence of round cells on cytology was significantly associated with high-grade lesions. LBC provided clearer cytomorphology but compromised the background information in high-grade lesions. Conclusion: Brush cytology is a minimally invasive tool for screening oral lesions with malignant suspicion. LBC and CC are complementary techniques for cytological screening and combining them with AgNOR can increase the diagnostic yield. With objective criteria for assessment, cytology can be an indispensable tool for screening oral lesions in a resource-limited set-up, especially in high-incidence regions. (C) 2016 S. Karger AG, Basel

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available