Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26267490›Full record

ArticleOral and maxillofacial surgery2016

Autofluorescence imaging in recurrent oral squamous cell carcinoma.

Martin Scheer, Juliana Fuss, Mehmet Ali Derman, Matthias Kreppel, Jörg Neugebauer, Daniel Rothamel, Uta Drebber, Joachim E Zoeller

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Oral and maxillofacial surgery, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Autofluorescence Image-Guided Endoscopy in the Management of Upper Aerodigestive Tract Tumors.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Martin ScheerDepartment for Oral and Craniomaxillo and Facial Plastic Surgery, Johannes Wesling Klinikum Minden, Hans-Nolte-Str. 1, 32429, Minden, Germany. martin.scheer@muehlenkreiskliniken.de.
Juliana FussDepartment for Oral and Craniomaxillo and Facial Plastic Surgery, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Mehmet Ali DermanDepartment for Oral and Craniomaxillo and Facial Plastic Surgery, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Matthias KreppelDepartment for Oral and Craniomaxillo and Facial Plastic Surgery, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Jörg NeugebauerDental Private Practice, Bayer, Kistler, Elbertzhagen and Colleagues, Landsberg am Lech, Germany.
Daniel RothamelDepartment for Oral and Craniomaxillo and Facial Plastic Surgery, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Uta DrebberDepartment of Pathology, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Joachim E ZoellerDepartment for Oral and Craniomaxillo and Facial Plastic Surgery, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
University of Cologne · DEBayer (Germany) · DEJohannes Wesling Klinikum Minden · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The survival of patients with oral cancer is decreased by locoregional recurrence after an initial multimodal treatment. In order to identify lesions in the oral cavity for a possible recurrence, clinical evaluation as well as MRI or CT scanning is advised. The evaluation of mucosa lesions is hampered by changes related to radio- and chemotherapy as well as reconstruction with tissue flaps. Several techniques for easier identification of tissue abnormalities in the oral cavity have been advocated as adjuncts in order to facilitate identification. Especially methods using altered tissue fluorescence have gained much interest during the last decade. The aim of our prospective study was to evaluate fluorescence properties of undiagnosed mucosa lesions with the VELscope device in patients with multimodal treated oral cancer prior to histological confirmation. In total, 41 patients with a history of oral squamous cell carcinomas (OSCC) (19 females and 22 males) with undiagnosed mucosa lesions where included in the study. After clinical evaluation, examination and documentation using the VELscope® device were performed. Then, an incisional biopsy was performed. An autofluorescence loss indicating a malignant or dysplastic mucosa condition could be detected in six patients (14.6 %); however, only one OSCC and one SIN revealed a complete autofluorescence loss. In four patients, OSCC was present in lesions with retained autofluorescence. Sensitivity and specificity for the VELscope® examination to identify malignant oral lesions by autofluorescence were 33.3 and 88.6 %, respectively. The positive and negative predictive values were 33.3 and 88.6 %, respectively. No statistical correlation between gender and lesion appearance versus autofluorescence loss could be detected. In contrast to mucosa lesions in patients with no prior treatment, the autofluorescence evaluation with the VELscope reveals no additional information in our analysis. Accordingly, invasive biopsies as gold standard are still needed to get sufficient evidence regarding potential malignancy in patients after multimodal treatment for oral cancer.

Indexed as

Optical ImagingAdultAgedCarcinoma, Squamous CellCombined Modality TherapyDiagnosis, DifferentialFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedMouth NeoplasmsNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalNeoplasm StagingSurvival AnalysisTomography, X-Ray ComputedAutofluorescenceLocoregional recurrenceOral cancerPrognosis

Identifiers

PMID26267490
OpenAlexW1125559079

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.