Abstract
Data sources
The Medline, Embase, PubMed, Elsevier and Web of Science databases and the reference lists of known primary and review papers were scanned for relevant citations.
Study selection
Prospective and retrospective studies evaluating brush cytology were considered. Only computer-assisted methods that included histologically confirmed disease positive status were included.
Data extraction and synthesis
Data were extracted using a standardised form. Study quality was assessed by one reviewer using the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies (QUADAS) checklist. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were calculated with 95% CIs (confidence intervals) separately for each study. Likelihood and diagnostic odds ratios were also calculated along with a summary receiver-operating characteristic (SROC) curve analysis.
Results
Thirteen studies (eight of OralCDx brush biopsy and five of DNA-image cytometry) reporting on 1981 oral mucosa lesions were included. OralCDx brush biopsy had a pooled sensitivity of 86% (95% CI; 81–90) and pooled specificity of 81% (95% CI; 78–85). The pooled sensitivity and specificity of DNA-image cytometry were 89% (95% CI; 83–94) and 99% (95% CI; 97–100). Diagnostic odds ratio estimates for OralCDx brush biopsy and DNA-image cytometry were 20.36 (95% CI; 2.72–152.67) and 446.08 (95% CI; 73.36–2712.43), respectively. Study size was found to be closely related to heterogeneity among studies and analysis suggested publication bias in relation to OralCDx brush biopsy.
Conclusions
The results of this meta-analysis suggest that DNA-image cytometry has a highly significant potential over OralCDx brush biopsy as an accurate and simple diagnostic tool for clinically suspected oral precancer and oral cancer.
Similar content being viewed by others
Log in or create a free account to read this content
Gain free access to this article, as well as selected content from this journal and more on nature.com
or
References
Chi AC, Day TA, Neville BW . Oral cavity and oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma - an update. CA Cancer J Clin 2015; 65:401–421.
Leeflang MM, Deeks JJ, Takwoingi Y, Macaskill P . Cochrane diagnostic test accuracy reviews. Syst Rev 2013; 2:82.
QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 2011; 155:529–536.
Glas AS, Lijmer JG, Prins MH, Bonsel GJ, Bossuyt PM . The diagnostic odds ratio: a single indicator of test performance. J Clin Epidemiol 2003; 56:1129–1135.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Address for correspondence: Gang Zhou, Department of Oral Medicine, School and Hospital of Stomatology, Wuhan University, Wuhan, PR China. E-mail: gordonzhou@tom.com.
Ye X, Zhang J, Tan Y, Chen G, Zhou G. Meta-analysis of two computer-assisted screening methods for diagnosing oral precancer and cancer. Oral Oncol 2015; 51: 966–975.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Abt, E. DNA-image cytometry has promise for oral cancer detection. Evid Based Dent 16, 106–107 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ebd.6401130
Published:
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ebd.6401130
