Unit of Oral Epidemiology Investigation-UNIECLO, School of Dentistry, Universidad El Bosque, Bogotá, Colombia.
School of Dentistry, Universidad El Bosque, Bogotá, Colombia.
Clin Oral Investig. 2021 Jun;25(6):4145-4159. doi: 10.1007/s00784-020-03746-y. Epub 2021 Jan 3.
Evaluate and compare the performance of autofluorescence, chemiluminescence, and clinical visual examination in the detection of oral potentially malignant disorders (OPMD), oral cancer (OC), and oropharyngeal cancer (OPC).
A systematic review with meta-analysis based on diagnostic test studies. A literature search was carried out in the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases through August 30, 2020. For this review, the quality assessment tool of diagnostic precision studies (QUADAS-2) was used. Hierarchical regression models were used to estimate pooled diagnostic precision values in a random effects model.
A total of 40 studies were identified for this review according to each test evaluated: 5.562 samples for autofluorescence, 1.353 samples for chemiluminescence, and 1.892 samples for clinical examination. The summary measures sensitivity and specificity of the clinical examination were 63% and 78%, respectively, AUC = 0.78 95% CI (0.74-0.81). In the autofluorescence test, these were 86% and 72%, respectively, AUC = 0.86 95% CI (0.83-0.89); and the chemiluminescent test were 67% and 48%, respectively, AUC = 0.59 95% CI (0.54-0.63) CONCLUSIONS: Autofluorescence devices displayed superior accuracy levels in the identification of premalignant lesions and early neoplastic changes compared to clinical examination and chemiluminescent test. Overall, biopsy remains the gold standard for the definitive diagnosis of OPMD, OC, and OPC.
Light-based clinical methods such as autofluorescence and chemiluminescence techniques have been used in clinical diagnosis for the differentiation of OPMD and malignant and benign lesions; although detailed visual examination appears to be effective in identifying, previous systematic reviews have not evaluated a relevant number of studies and they did not evaluate the accuracy of the clinical examination.
评估和比较自发荧光、化学发光和临床目视检查在检测口腔潜在恶性疾病(OPMD)、口腔癌(OC)和口咽癌(OPC)中的性能。
基于诊断测试研究的系统评价和荟萃分析。通过 MEDLINE 和 EMBASE 数据库进行了文献检索,检索时间截至 2020 年 8 月 30 日。本综述使用了诊断精度研究的质量评估工具(QUADAS-2)。使用分层回归模型在随机效应模型中估计汇总诊断精度值。
根据评估的每种检查方法,共确定了 40 项研究:自发荧光检查 5562 个样本,化学发光检查 1353 个样本,临床检查 1892 个样本。临床检查的汇总测量敏感性和特异性分别为 63%和 78%,AUC=0.78 95%CI(0.74-0.81)。在自发荧光检查中,这些分别为 86%和 72%,AUC=0.86 95%CI(0.83-0.89);化学发光检查分别为 67%和 48%,AUC=0.59 95%CI(0.54-0.63)。
与临床检查和化学发光检查相比,自发荧光设备在识别癌前病变和早期肿瘤性变化方面显示出更高的准确性水平。总体而言,活检仍然是 OPMD、OC 和 OPC 明确诊断的金标准。
基于光的临床方法,如自发荧光和化学发光技术,已用于临床诊断中以区分 OPMD 和恶性及良性病变;虽然详细的目视检查似乎有效,但之前的系统评价并未评估大量研究,也未评估临床检查的准确性。