Trial reportHead & neck oncology2011
The efficacy of oral brush biopsy with computer-assisted analysis in identifying precancerous and cancerous lesions.
Trial report in Head & neck oncology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Circulating microRNAs: a new era in early detection of oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) - a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of the Egyptian National Cancer Institute · 2026Pooled it
- Diagnostic tests for oral cancer and potentially malignant disorders in patients presenting with clinically evident lesions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Adjuncts for the evaluation of potentially malignant disorders in the oral cavity: Diagnostic test accuracy systematic review and meta-analysis-a report of the American Dental Association.Journal of the American Dental Association (1939) · 2017Pooled it
- Diagnostic tests for oral cancer and potentially malignant disorders in patients presenting with clinically evident lesions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015Pooled it
- INHBA-S100A16 dysregulation enables a non-invasive molecular stratification platform for rapid detection of oral squamous cell carcinoma: results from a large diagnostic case-control study.Biomarker research · 2026Article
- Biopsy for Suspicious Oral Lesions: A Review From the American Head and Neck Society-Cancer Prevention Service.Head & neck · 2026Review
- Reconstructing oral cavity tumor evolution through brush biopsy.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Review
- Retrospective evaluation of the oral brush biopsy in daily dental routine - an effective way of early cancer detection.Clinical oral investigations · 2022Article
- An active surveillance program in oral preneoplasia and translational oncology benefit.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2021Review
- Current Insights into Oral Cancer Diagnostics.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Oral cancer diagnosis and perspectives in India.Sensors international · 2020Review
- Brush biopsy of human oral mucosal epithelial cells as a quality control of the cell source for fabrication of transplantable epithelial cell sheets for regenerative medicine.Regenerative therapy · 2016Article
- Transepithelial Brush Biopsy - Oral CDx® - A Noninvasive Method for the Early Detection of Precancerous and Cancerous Lesions.Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR · 2014Article
- Establishing the accuracy of a new and cheaper sample collection tool: Oral cytology versus oral histopathology.Journal of oral and maxillofacial pathology : JOMFPArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCancer of the oral cavity is the sixth most common malignancy reported worldwide and one with the highest mortality rate among all malignancies. There is a paucity of reliable diagnostic methods to detect early malignancies. This study was performed to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of brush biopsy in identifying oral premalignant and malignant lesions.
methodsOral brush and scalpel biopsies were performed on 85 consecutive patients presenting with an oral lesion deemed to be minimally suspicious by clinical examination and the results were compared.
resultsOf 79 patients with adequate brush biopsy samples with matching scalpel biopsies, 27 revealed histopathologic evidence of dysplasia or carcinoma, 26 of which were independently identified with the oral brush biopsy (sensitivity: 96.3%-95% CI, 87%-100%). 52 oral lesions did not reveal any histopathologic evidence of dysplasia or carcinoma and of these, brush biopsy reported 47 as "negative" and 5 as "atypical"(specificity of "positive" brush biopsy result is 100%- 95% CI, 93%-100%; specificity for "atypical" brush biopsy result is 90.4%-95% CI, 82%-97%. The positive predictive value of an abnormal oral brush biopsy was 84% and the negative predictive value was 98%.
conclusionOur study demonstrated that the oral brush biopsy is an accurate test in identifying oral premalignant and malignant lesions, even if minimally suspicious.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.