Ghosh Snehashish, Rao Roopa S, Upadhyay Manoj K, Kumari Karuna, Sanketh D Sharathkumar, Raj A Thirumal, Parveen Sameena, Alhazmi Yaser Ali, Jethlia Ankur, Mushtaq Shazia, Sarode Sachin, Reda Rodolfo, Patil Shankargouda, Testarelli Luca
Department of Oral Pathology, M. B. Kedia Dental College and Teaching Hospital, Birgunj 44300, Nepal.
Department of Oral Pathology, Faculty of Dental Sciences, Ramaiah University of Applied Sciences, Bangalore 560054, India.
Clin Pract. 2021 Jun 1;11(2):337-346. doi: 10.3390/clinpract11020048.
(1) Objective: To review the criteria proposed by Cerero-Lapiedra et al. and to retrospectively identify the under-diagnosed disease in patients diagnosed with proliferative verrucous leukoplakia. (2) Materials and methods: In this study, we included patients who were diagnosed with leukoplakia (histological label consistent with the clinical diagnosis, = 95), and cases with a final diagnosis within the spectrum of proliferative verrucous leukoplakia ( = 110) as defined by Batsakis et al. We applied the criteria proposed by Cerero-Lepiedra et al. to screen for the possible cases of proliferative verrucous leukoplakia. (3) Results: Although many of our patients satisfied specific isolated criteria, only 11 cases satisfied specific combinations of the guidelines to satisfy a diagnosis of proliferative verrucous leukoplakia. However, due to the lack of follow-up data, the disease is not confirmed in these 11 cases. (4) Conclusion: A limited number of cases of proliferative verrucous leukoplakia were diagnosed using the criteria given by Cerero-Lapiedra et al. The true natural history of the disease could not be studied due to the lack of follow-up data. (5) Clinical relevance: Proliferative verrucous leukoplakia presenting as hyperkeratosis or mild epithelial dysplasia are often not followed up, and they subsequently transform into carcinoma. Thus, clinicians must be vigilant whenever they encounter leukoplakia, especially with multifocal presentations. In such cases, the follow-up data are the key to understanding the true nature of the disease entity.
(1) 目的：回顾塞雷罗 - 拉皮耶德拉等人提出的标准，并回顾性确定诊断为增殖性疣状白斑患者中未被充分诊断的疾病。(2) 材料与方法：在本研究中，我们纳入了被诊断为白斑的患者（组织学标签与临床诊断一致，n = 95），以及最终诊断在巴塔基斯等人定义的增殖性疣状白斑范围内的病例（n = 110）。我们应用塞雷罗 - 莱皮耶德拉等人提出的标准来筛查增殖性疣状白斑的可能病例。(3) 结果：尽管我们的许多患者满足特定的孤立标准，但只有11例满足指南的特定组合以满足增殖性疣状白斑的诊断。然而，由于缺乏随访数据，这11例病例中的疾病未得到确诊。(4) 结论：使用塞雷罗 - 拉皮耶德拉等人给出的标准诊断出的增殖性疣状白斑病例数量有限。由于缺乏随访数据，无法研究该疾病的真实自然史。(5) 临床意义：表现为角化过度或轻度上皮发育异常的增殖性疣状白斑通常未得到随访，随后会转变为癌症。因此，临床医生在遇到白斑时必须保持警惕，尤其是多灶性表现的情况。在这种情况下，随访数据是了解疾病实体真实性质的关键。
