4.4 Review

The utility of oral brush cytology in the early detection of oral cancer and oral potentially malignant disorders: A systematic review

Journal

JOURNAL OF ORAL PATHOLOGY & MEDICINE
Volume 47, Issue 2, Pages 104-116

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jop.12660

Keywords

brush; liquid-based cytology; oral; oral cancer; oral potentially malignant disorders

Ask authors/readers for more resources

ObjectivesThis systematic review aimed to analyze the published evidence for the use of oral brush cytology for the early detection of oral cancer and oral potentially malignant disorders (OPMDs). MethodsLiterature was systematically searched through several databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, SCOPUS, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Additional review was performed through cross-checks on the bibliographies of selected articles. The inclusion criteria involved studies assessing the utility of oral brush cytology on human tissues and its applications in the diagnosis, screening, or surveillance of oral cancer or OPMDs. ResultsThe search strategy resulted in 343 abstracts or full-text articles, of which 36 met the inclusion criteria. The year of publication ranged from 1994 to 2017, and a total of 4302 samples from OPMDs, oral squamous cell carcinoma, and healthy controls have been investigated. Baby toothbrush, cytobrush, OralCDx((R)), and Orcellex((R)) are the brushes that were used to obtain transepithelial mucosal samples for conventional and liquid-based cytology evaluation. ConclusionsFindings from this study indicate that meaningful evidence-based recommendations for the implementation of a minimally invasive technique to be utilized as an adjunctive tool for screening and early detection of oral cancer and OPMDs are complicated from the reported studies in the literature. There is need for well-designed clinical studies to assess the accuracy of oral brush cytology utilizing validated cytological assessment criteria for the diagnosis and prediction of OPMDs.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available