12
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Derivation and validation of a risk-factor model for detection of oral potentially malignant disorders in populations with high prevalence

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background:

          Oral and pharyngeal cancers constitute the sixth most common type of cancer globally, with high morbidity and mortality. In many countries, most cases of oral cancer arise from long-standing, pre-existing lesions, yet advanced malignancies prevail. A new approach to early detection is needed. We aimed to validate a model for screening so that only high-risk individuals receive the clinical examination.

          Methods:

          A community-based case–control study ( n=1029) in rural Sri Lanka assessed risk factors and markers for oral potentially malignant disorders (OPMD) by administering a questionnaire followed by an oral examination. We then developed a model based on age, socioeconomic status and habits of betel-quid chewing, alcohol drinking and tobacco smoking, with weightings based on odds ratios from the multiple logistic regression. A total, single score was calculated per individual. Standard receiver-operator characteristic curves were plotted for the total score and presence of OPMD. The model was validated on a new sample of 410 subjects in a different community.

          Results:

          A score of 12.0 produced optimal sensitivity (95.5%), specificity (75.9%), false-positive rate (24.0%), false-negative rate (4.5%), positive predictive value (35.9%) and negative predictive value (99.2%).

          Conclusion:

          This model is suitable for detection of OPMD and oral cancer in high-risk communities, for example, in Asia, the Pacific and the global diaspora therefrom. A combined risk-factor score of 12.0 was optimal for participation in oral cancer/OPMD screening in Sri Lanka. The model, or local adaptations, should have wide applicability.

          Related collections

          Most cited references40

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Nomenclature and classification of potentially malignant disorders of the oral mucosa.

          At a workshop coordinated by the WHO Collaborating Centre for Oral Cancer and Precancer in the UK issues related to terminology, definitions and classification of oral precancer were discussed by an expert group. The consensus views of the Working Group are presented here. The term, 'potentially malignant disorders', was recommended to refer to precancer as it conveys that not all disorders described under this term may transform into cancer. Critically evaluating all definitions proposed so far for oral leukoplakia, the Working Group agreed that the term leukoplakia should be used to recognize 'white plaques of questionable risk having excluded (other) known diseases or disorders that carry no increased risk for cancer'. An outline was proposed for diagnosing oral leukoplakia that will prevent other oral white disorders being misclassified as leukoplakia. The Working Group discussed the caveats involved in the current use of terminology and classification of oral potentially malignant disorders, deficiencies of these complex systems, and how they have evolved over the past several decades. The terminology presented in this report reflects our best understanding of multi-step carcinogenesis in the oral mucosa, and aspires to engender consistency in use.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Limitations of the odds ratio in gauging the performance of a diagnostic, prognostic, or screening marker.

            M. S. Pepe (2004)
            A marker strongly associated with outcome (or disease) is often assumed to be effective for classifying persons according to their current or future outcome. However, for this assumption to be true, the associated odds ratio must be of a magnitude rarely seen in epidemiologic studies. In this paper, an illustration of the relation between odds ratios and receiver operating characteristic curves shows, for example, that a marker with an odds ratio of as high as 3 is in fact a very poor classification tool. If a marker identifies 10% of controls as positive (false positives) and has an odds ratio of 3, then it will correctly identify only 25% of cases as positive (true positives). The authors illustrate that a single measure of association such as an odds ratio does not meaningfully describe a marker's ability to classify subjects. Appropriate statistical methods for assessing and reporting the classification power of a marker are described. In addition, the serious pitfalls of using more traditional methods based on parameters in logistic regression models are illustrated.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Human papillomavirus DNA versus Papanicolaou screening tests for cervical cancer.

              To determine whether testing for DNA of oncogenic human papillomaviruses (HPV) is superior to the Papanicolaou (Pap) test for cervical-cancer screening, we conducted a randomized trial comparing the two methods. We compared HPV testing, using an assay approved by the Food and Drug Administration, with conventional Pap testing as a screening method to identify high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in women ages 30 to 69 years in Montreal and St. John's, Canada. Women with abnormal Pap test results or a positive HPV test (at least 1 pg of high-risk HPV DNA per milliliter) underwent colposcopy and biopsy, as did a random sample of women with negative tests. Sensitivity and specificity estimates were corrected for verification bias. A total of 10,154 women were randomly assigned to testing. Both tests were performed on all women in a randomly assigned sequence at the same session. The sensitivity of HPV testing for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia of grade 2 or 3 was 94.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 84.2 to 100), whereas the sensitivity of Pap testing was 55.4% (95% CI, 33.6 to 77.2; P=0.01). The specificity was 94.1% (95% CI, 93.4 to 94.8) for HPV testing and 96.8% (95% CI, 96.3 to 97.3; P<0.001) for Pap testing. Performance was unaffected by the sequence of the tests. The sensitivity of both tests used together was 100%, and the specificity was 92.5%. Triage procedures for Pap or HPV testing resulted in fewer referrals for colposcopy than did either test alone but were less sensitive. No adverse events were reported. As compared with Pap testing, HPV testing has greater sensitivity for the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. (Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN57612064 [controlled-trials.com].). Copyright 2007 Massachusetts Medical Society.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Br J Cancer
                British Journal of Cancer
                Nature Publishing Group
                0007-0920
                1532-1827
                27 July 2010
                13 July 2010
                : 103
                : 3
                : 303-309
                Affiliations
                [1 ]simpleDental Institute, Maharagama , Colombo 10280, Sri Lanka
                [2 ]simpleGriffith Health Institute, Gold Coast Campus, Griffith University , Queensland 4222, Australia
                [3 ]simpleSchool of Dentistry and Oral Health, Gold Coast Campus, Griffith University , Queensland 4222, Australia
                [4 ]simpleDepartment of Oral Medicine and Experimental Oral Pathology, King's College Dental Institute , London SES 9RS, UK
                Author notes
                Article
                6605778
                10.1038/sj.bjc.6605778
                2920027
                20628386
                f9ae3be3-7a18-4298-8fa1-34d6a8948513
                Copyright © 2010 Cancer Research UK
                History
                : 22 March 2010
                : 03 June 2010
                : 11 June 2010
                Categories
                Clinical Study

                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                risk factors,socioeconomic status,sri lanka,oral cancer,oral potentially malignant disorders,screening

                Comments

                Comment on this article