Warnakulasuriya S, Reibel J, Bouquot J, Dabelsteen E
Department of Oral Medicine, King's College Dental Institute at Guy's, King's & St Thomas' Hospitals, London, UK.
J Oral Pathol Med. 2008 Mar;37(3):127-33. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0714.2007.00584.x.
At a workshop coordinated by the WHO Collaborating Centre for Oral Cancer and Precancer in the United Kingdom issues related to potentially malignant disorders of the oral cavity were discussed by an expert group. The consensus views of the Working Group are presented in a series of papers. In this report, we review the oral epithelial dysplasia classification systems. The three classification schemes [oral epithelial dysplasia scoring system, squamous intraepithelial neoplasia and Ljubljana classification] were presented and the Working Group recommended epithelial dysplasia grading for routine use. Although most oral pathologists possibly recognize and accept the criteria for grading epithelial dysplasia, firstly based on architectural features and then of cytology, there is great variability in their interpretation of the presence, degree and significance of the individual criteria. Several studies have shown great interexaminer and intraexaminer variability in the assessment of the presence or absence and the grade of oral epithelial dysplasia. The Working Group considered the two class classification (no/questionable/ mild - low risk; moderate or severe - implying high risk) and was of the view that reducing the number of choices from 3 to 2 may increase the likelihood of agreement between pathologists. The utility of this need to be tested in future studies. The variables that are likely to affect oral epithelial dysplasia scoring were discussed and are outlined here; these need to be researched in longitudinal studies to explore the biological significance of a low-risk or high-risk dysplasia.
在由世界卫生组织口腔癌与癌前病变合作中心在英国协调举办的一次研讨会上,一个专家小组讨论了与口腔潜在恶性疾病相关的问题。工作组的共识性观点在一系列论文中发表。在本报告中,我们回顾了口腔上皮异常增生的分类系统。介绍了三种分类方案[口腔上皮异常增生评分系统、鳞状上皮内瘤变和卢布尔雅那分类],工作组建议将上皮异常增生分级用于常规诊断。尽管大多数口腔病理学家可能认可并接受上皮异常增生的分级标准,首先基于结构特征,然后是细胞学特征,但他们对各个标准的存在、程度及意义的解读存在很大差异。多项研究表明,在评估口腔上皮异常增生的有无及分级方面,不同检查者之间以及同一检查者自身的差异都很大。工作组考虑了二分法分类(无/可疑/轻度 - 低风险;中度或重度 - 意味着高风险),并认为将选择数量从3种减少到2种可能会增加病理学家之间达成一致的可能性。这一做法的实用性有待在未来研究中进行检验。讨论了可能影响口腔上皮异常增生评分的变量,并在此进行概述;这些变量需要在纵向研究中进行探究,以探讨低风险或高风险异常增生的生物学意义。