Search

Background: Oral cancer is an important global healthcare problem, its incidence is increasing and late-stage presentation is common. Screening programmes have been introduced for a number of major cancers and have proved effective in their early detection. Given the high morbidity and mortality rates associated with oral cancer, there is a need to determine the effectiveness of a screening programme for this disease, either as a targeted, opportunistic or population-based measure. Evidence exists from modelled data that a visual oral examination of high-risk individuals may be a cost-effective screening strategy and the development and use of adjunctive aids and biomarkers is becoming increasingly common., Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of current screening methods in decreasing oral cancer mortality., Search Methods: We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 22 July 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 6), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 22 July 2013), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 22 July 2013) and CANCERLIT via PubMed (1950 to 22 July 2013). There were no restrictions on language in the search of the electronic databases., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of screening for oral cancer or potentially malignant disorders using visual examination, toluidine blue, fluorescence imaging or brush biopsy., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors screened the results of the searches against inclusion criteria, extracted data and assessed risk of bias independently and in duplicate. We used mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous data and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs for dichotomous data. Meta-analyses would have been undertaken using a random-effects model if the number of studies had exceeded a minimum of three. Study authors were contacted where possible and where deemed necessary for missing information., Main Results: A total of 3239 citations were identified through the searches. Only one RCT, with 15-year follow-up met the inclusion criteria (n = 13 clusters: 191,873 participants). There was no statistically significant difference in the oral cancer mortality rates for the screened group (15.4/100,000 person-years) and the control group (17.1/100,000 person-years), with a RR of 0.88 (95% CI 0.69 to 1.12). A 24% reduction in mortality was reported between the screening group (30/100,000 person-years) and the control group (39.0/100,000) for high-risk individuals who used tobacco or alcohol or both, which was statistically significant (RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.60 to 0.97). No statistically significant differences were found for incidence rates. A statistically significant reduction in the number of individuals diagnosed with stage III or worse oral cancer was found for those in the screening group (RR 0.81; 95% CI 0.70 to 0.93). No harms were reported. The study was assessed as at high risk of bias., Authors' Conclusions: There is evidence that a visual examination as part of a population-based screening programme reduces the mortality rate of oral cancer in high-risk individuals. In addition, there is a stage shift and improvement in survival rates across the population as a whole. However, the evidence is limited to one study, which has a high risk of bias and did not account for the effect of cluster randomisation in the analysis. There was no evidence to support the use of adjunctive technologies like toluidine blue, brush biopsy or fluorescence imaging as a screening tool to reduce oral cancer mortality. Further RCTs are recommended to assess the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of a visual examination as part of a population-based screening programme in low, middle and high-income countries.

Background: The bulk of service delivery in dentistry is delivered by general dental practitioners, when a large proportion of patients who attend regularly are asymptomatic and do not require treatment. This represents a substantial and unnecessary cost, given that it is possible to delegate a range of tasks to dental care professionals, who are a less expensive resource. Screening for the common dental diseases by dental care professionals has the potential to release general dental practitioner's time and increase the capacity to care for those who don't currently access services. The aim of this study is to compare the diagnostic test accuracy of dental care professionals when screening for dental caries and periodontal disease in asymptomatic adults aged eighteen years of age., Methods/design: Ten dental practices across the North-West of England will take part in a diagnostic test accuracy study with 200 consecutive patients in each practice. The dental care professionals will act as the index test and the general dental practitioner will act as the reference test. Consenting asymptomatic patients will enter the study and see either the dental care professionals or general dental practitioner first to remove order effects. Both sets of clinicians will make an assessment of dental caries and periodontal disease and enter their decisions on a record sheet for each participant. The primary outcome measure is the diagnostic test accuracy of the dental care professionals and sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive values will be reported. A number of clinical factors will be assessed for confounding., Discussion: The results of this study will determine whether dental care professionals can screen for the two most prevalent oral diseases. This will inform the literature and is apposite given the recent policy change in the United Kingdom towards direct access.

Background: Oral cancer is an important global healthcare problem, its incidence is increasing and late-stage presentation is common. Screening programmes have been introduced for a number of major cancers and have proved effective in their early detection. Given the high morbidity and mortality rates associated with oral cancer, there is a need to determine the effectiveness of a screening programme for this disease, either as a targeted, opportunistic or population based measure. Evidence exists from modelled data that a visual oral examination of high-risk individuals may be a cost-effective screening strategy and the development and use of adjunctive aids and biomarkers is becoming increasingly common., Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of current screening methods in decreasing oral cancer mortality., Search Strategy: The following electronic databases were searched: the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 20 May 2010), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 2), MEDLINE via OVID (1950 to 20 May 2010), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 20 May 2010) and CANCERLIT via PubMed (1950 to 20 May 2010). There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of screening for oral cancer or potentially malignant disorders using visual examination, toluidine blue, fluorescence imaging or brush biopsy., Data Collection and Analysis: The original review identified 1389 citations and this update identified an additional 330 studies, highlighting 1719 studies for consideration. Only one study met the inclusion criteria and validity assessment, data extraction and statistics evaluation were undertaken by six independent review authors., Main Results: One 9-year RCT has been included (n = 13 clusters: 191,873 participants). There was no statistically significant difference in the age-standardised oral cancer mortality rates for the screened group (16.4/100,000 person-years) and the control group (20.7/100,000 person-years). A 43% reduction in mortality was reported between the intervention cohort (29.9/100,000 person-years) and the control arm (45.4/100,000) for high-risk individuals who used tobacco or alcohol or both, which was statistically significant. However, this study had a number of methodological weaknesses and the associated risk of bias was high., Authors' Conclusions: Although there is evidence that a visual examination as part of a population based screening programme reduced the mortality rate of oral cancer in high-risk individuals, whilst producing a stage shift and improvement in survival rates across the population as a whole, the evidence is limited to one study and is associated with a high risk of bias. This was compounded by the fact that the effect of cluster randomisation was not accounted for in the analysis. Furthermore, no robust evidence was identified to support the use of other adjunctive technologies like toluidine blue, brush biopsy or fluorescence imaging within a primary care environment. Further randomised controlled trials are recommended to assess the efficacy, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a visual examination as part of a population based screening programme.

Background: Screening programmes for major cancers, such as breast and cervical cancer have effectively decreased the mortality rate and helped to reduce the incidence of these cancers. Although oral cancer is a global health problem with increasing incidence and mortality rates, no national population-based screening programmes for oral cancer have been implemented. To date there is debate on whether to employ screening methods for oral cancer in the daily routine work of health providers., Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of current screening methods in decreasing oral cancer mortality., Search Strategy: Electronic databases (MEDLINE, CANCERLIT, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; 1966 to July 2005, The Cochrane Library - Issue 3, 2005), bibliographies, handsearching of specific journals and contact authors were used to identify published and unpublished data., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials of screening for oral cancer or precursor oral lesions using visual examination, toluidine blue, fluorescence imaging or brush biopsy., Data Collection and Analysis: The search found 112 citations and these have been reviewed. One randomised controlled trial of screening strategies for oral cancer was identified as meeting the review's inclusion criteria. Validity assessment, data extraction and statistics evaluation were undertaken by two independent review authors., Main Results: One 10-year randomised controlled trial has been included (n = 13 clusters: 191,873 participants). There was no difference in the age-standardised oral cancer mortality rates for the screened group (16.4/100,000 person-years) and the control group (20.7/100,000 person-years). Interestingly, a significant 34% reduction in mortality was recorded in high-risk subjects between the intervention cohort (29.9/100,000 person-years) and the control arm (45.4/100,000). However, this study has some methodological weaknesses. Additionally, the study did not provide any information related to costs, quality of life or even harms of screening from false-positive or false-negative findings., Authors' Conclusions: Given the limitation of evidence (only one included randomised controlled trial) and the potential methodological weakness of the included study, it is valid to say that there is insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of a visual examination as a method of screening for oral cancer using a visual examination in the general population. Furthermore, no robust evidence exists to suggest that other methods of screening, toluidine blue, fluorescence imaging or brush biopsy, are either beneficial or harmful. Future high quality studies to assess the efficacy, effectiveness and costs of screening are required for the best use of public health resources. In addition, studies to elucidate the natural history of oral cancer, prevention methods and the effectiveness of opportunistic screening in high risk groups are needed. Future studies on improved treatment modalities for oral cancer and precancer are also required.

Objective: To survey two broad areas of oral cancer awareness and management of patients at risk of oral cancer by specialists in oral surgery, oral medicine, surgical dentistry and general dental practitioners (GDPs) in the UK. The first of these included knowledge and awareness of aetiological factors, changing patterns of disease, and screening/detection programmes including their effectiveness. The second included oral cancer detection methods, advice on avoidance of high-risk activity and self-examination, and referral pattern of GDPs., Design and Method: A pretested, 44-item questionnaire, a covering letter, a brief outline of the research protocol and return, stamped envelope were mailed in March 2003. A sample of 200 GDPs whose names were obtained from the General Dental Council's main list and 305 dental specialist names obtained from specialist's list in surgical dentistry, oral medicine and oral surgery were selected randomly. Information on oral cancer awareness and practice, screening practice and education was obtained., Results: The response rate was 66.9%. The knowledge of the dental specialists was consistent with that in reports of current aetiological studies on oral cancer. However there were gaps in the GDP's knowledge and ascertainment of oral cancer risk factors. Over 70% of the dental specialists provided counselling advice on the risks of tobacco and alcohol habits compared with 41.2% of GDPs. More GDPs (52.4%) than specialists (35.4%) believed that oral cancer screening on a national basis would be effective in decreasing the mortality of oral cancer. Over 95% of all respondents used a visual examination for oral cancer screening and 89.9% of all respondents strongly believed that visual screening is effective in the early detection of oral cancer., Conclusion: The results showed that GDPs had knowledge gaps in their awareness of oral cancer risk factors and the application of preventive measures. Most dental health providers in the UK perform visual screening of the oral mucosa for their patients. Opinion was equivocal as to whether a nationally based screening programme similar to cervical cancer would be effective in improving the mortality and morbidity of oral cancer.

Worldwide, oral cancer has one of the lowest survival rates. It is well recognized that survival rates are improved if the disease is treated in its early stages. The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of screening methods in decreasing the mortality of oral cancer. A systematic review on the effectiveness of oral cancer screening was performed using all publications in MEDLINE, CANCERLIT, EMBASE, and Cochrane CCTR between 1966 and September 2002. The evidence was evaluated using the standardized methodology of the Cochrane Collaboration. The search strategy revealed 1,389 citations. From these, 100 potentially relevant articles were selected for review. However, only one randomized controlled study using visual examination as the method for screening fulfilled the selection criteria. Given the limitation of evidence and the potential methodological weakness in the included study, it is valid to say that there is no evidence to recommend inclusion or exclusion of screening programs for oral cancer using visual examination in the general population. In addition, no robust evidence exists that indicates whether other screening methods including toluidine blue, fluorescence imaging, or brush biopsy are either beneficial or harmful. Further high-quality studies to assess the efficacy and effectiveness of screening are required. Additional investigations aimed at elucidating the natural history of oral cancer and evaluating the effectiveness of prevention and opportunistic screening in high-risk groups are needed. A greater understanding of the genetic basis of oral cancer is an essential prerequisite to the development of molecular markers for screening.

Background: Although the second half of the last century has generated a rich and complex body of knowledge, the burden of oral cancer is still largely present. As with other cancers, there has been a strong debate whether screening strategies for oral cancer such as visual examination, the use of toluidine blue or newer methods such as brush biopsy or fluorescence imaging are effective in reducing the mortality rate associated with oral cancer., Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of current screening methods in decreasing oral cancer mortality., Search Strategy: Electronic databases (MEDLINE, CANCERLIT, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; 1966 to September 2002, The Cochrane Library - Issue 2, 2002), bibliographies, handsearching of specific journals and contact authors were used to identify published and unpublished data., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials of screening for oral cancer or potentially premalignant oral lesions using visual examination, toluidine blue, fluorescence imaging or brush biopsy., Data Collection and Analysis: The search found 100 citations and these have been reviewed. One randomised controlled trial of screening strategies for oral cancer was identified as meeting the review's inclusion criteria. Validity assessment, data extraction and statistics evaluation have been undertaken by two independent reviewers., Main Results: One ongoing randomised controlled trial has been included (n = 13 clusters: 153,708 eligible subjects, 130,799 included subjects). There was no difference in the age-standardised oral cancer mortality rates for the screened group (21.2/1000,000 person years) and the control group (21.3/100,000 person years). However this study has some methodological weaknesses., Reviewer's Conclusions: Given the limitation of evidence (only one included randomised controlled trial) and the potential methodological weakness in the included study, it is valid to say that there is no evidence to support or refute the use of a visual examination as a method of screening for oral cancer using a visual examination in the general population. Furthermore, no robust evidence exists to suggest other methods of screening, toluidine blue, fluorescence imaging or brush biopsy, are either beneficial or harmful. Further cost-effective, high quality studies to assess the efficacy and effectiveness of screening are required. In addition, studies to elucidate the natural history of oral cancer, prevention methods and the effectiveness of opportunistic screening in high risk groups are needed.