ReviewHead & neck2026
Biopsy for Suspicious Oral Lesions: A Review From the American Head and Neck Society-Cancer Prevention Service.
Review in Head & neck, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- 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
- Association Between Habitual Khat (Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOral cancer is often preceded by a precursor lesion. This presents an opportunity for early diagnosis and intervention. Method of biopsy and interpretation are not well standardized and novel methods of analysis are now being investigated.
methodsWe conducted a narrative review of PubMed/MEDLINE (last search August 31, 2025), focusing on adult oral precancerous lesions evaluated in outpatient settings.
resultsIncisional punch biopsy is reproducible and often provides the diagnostic information needed. However, scalpel biopsy should be considered when initial biopsy is equivocal, depth of invasion is desired, or to minimize sampling bias. Limited studies show improved sensitivity of combining saliva and plasma sampling. Targeted fluorescent imaging may aid in future biopsy site selection. AI has shown encouraging results in both automated detection of dysplasia and prediction of malignant progression, achieving performance comparable to clinically validated grading systems.
conclusionThis update serves to further inform biopsy of oral suspicious lesions and provide a framework for future investigation.
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.