Correlation between Clinical and Histopathological Diagnoses in Oral Cavity Lesions: A 12-Year Retrospective Study

A Retrospective Analysis of Concordance Between Clinical and Histopathologic Diagnoses and Completeness of Oral Biopsy Forms at a Tertiary Dental Hospital in Eastern Nepal

Introduction: Histopathological diagnosis remains the gold standard tool for the diagnosis, yet accurate and detailed clinical descriptions are necessary to facilitate the final diagnosis. Histopathologists believe that clinicians are unaware of how histopathology departments operate, partly because of the less information on requisition forms. The objective of the present study is to assess the concordance of clinical and histological diagnoses of all oral and maxillofacial biopsy samples, along with the completion of the requisition form provided with the biopsy sample. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted at the Department of Oral Pathology. The biopsy request forms of year 2018-2019 were retrieved from the archive of the department and were analyzed for clinicopathological concordance. Descriptive and analytical statistics were performed using SPSS. Results: Of 338 forms, 243 (71.89%) forms had total concordance between clinical and histopathologic diagnosis; 20 forms (5.92%) had concordance with the histopathological diagnosis, but only after the clinical diagnosis had been refined. Of all the forms analyzed, 36 (10.65%) forms lack habit history in cases suspected of oral cancer and oral potentially malignant disorder, and 24 (7.10%) cases lack radiographic details. The categories of clinicohistopathological concordance and the different clinical information groups showed a statistically significant relationship. We also found that the sign-out time for histopathological reports depend on the extent of clinical information provided which was statistically significant too. Conclusions: The current study concluded a sufficient level of concordance between clinical and histopathological diagnosis. A high completion rate of biopsy forms indicated that the clinicians/operating surgeons perceive the significance of clinical information in histopathological diagnosis. We also recommend, irrespective of the type of suspected oral lesions, submitted for biopsy, a detailed clinical information is the backbone for accurate and timely reporting of the histopathological diagnosis.

Development of a decision tree model for predicting the malignancy of localized gingival enlargements based on clinical characteristics

The present study aimed to determine the prevalence of localized gingival enlargements (LGEs) and their clinical characteristics in a group of Thai patients, as well as utilize this information to develop a clinical diagnostic guide for predicting malignant LGEs. All LGE cases were retrospectively reviewed during a 20-year period. Clinical diagnoses, pathological diagnoses, patient demographic data, and clinical information were analyzed. The prevalence of LGEs was determined and categorized based on their nature, and concordance rates between clinical and pathological diagnoses among the groups were evaluated. Finally, a diagnostic guide was developed using clinical information through a decision tree model. Of 14,487 biopsied cases, 946 cases (6.53%) were identified as LGEs. The majority of LGEs were reactive lesions (72.62%), while a small subset was malignant tumors (7.51%). Diagnostic concordance rates were lower in malignant LGEs (54.93%) compared to non-malignant LGEs (80.69%). Size, consistency, color, duration, and patient age were identified as pivotal factors to formulate a clinical diagnostic guide for distinguishing between malignant and non-malignant LGEs. Using a decision tree model, we propose a novel diagnostic guide to assist clinicians in enhancing the accuracy of clinical differentiation between malignant and non-malignant LGEs.

Agreement Between Clinical and Histopathological Diagnoses of Oral and Maxillofacial Lesions and Influencing Factors: A Five-Year Retrospective Study

Purpose

Diagnosing oral and maxillofacial lesions is a multi-step, multidisciplinary process. If a clinical diagnosis is achievable, then a histopathological diagnosis is indicated to support and confirm the diagnosis. Histopathological examination of tissue biopsies is therefore an essential part of the diagnosis and/or treatment plan. The purpose of this study was to investigate the agreement between the clinical and histopathological diagnoses of oral and maxillofacial lesions and the patient, lesion, and healthcare provider factors that may affect this agreement.

Patients and Methods

This was an observational, cross-sectional study of all patients who had been referred to the Oral Pathology Central Laboratory at the Faculty of Dentistry and University Dental Hospital at King Abdulaziz University in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, between 2018 and 2022 for diagnosis of oral and maxillofacial lesions. Data extracted included information about the referring dental provider such as their clinical experience (number of years), specialty, certification, and education. Agreement between the clinical and histopathological diagnoses was evaluated, and logistic regression was used to assess provider characteristics associated with the accuracy of diagnosis.

Results

The clinical and pathological diagnoses were concordant in 44.1% (n=378) of cases, and concordance was highest for odontogenic tumors (72.7%, n=24), significantly higher than for inflammatory lesions (37.3%, n=111). The anatomical locations with the highest diagnostic accuracy were the ventral surface of the tongue (71.4%, n=5), followed by the lips (52.6%, n=20). Patient age and sex and the dentist's years of experience were not associated with diagnostic agreement (p=0.2, p=0.9, and p=0.08, respectively). However, concordant diagnoses were significantly associated with the dentist's rank (p=0.02) and specialty (p=0.01). Clinical diagnoses made by oral surgeons at the time of biopsy were 1.6-times more likely (p=0.01) to agree with the pathological diagnosis compared with those made by other specialties when controlling for education, certification, and years of experience.

Conclusion

These data are a reminder that a clinical diagnosis alone is not sufficient to secure the final diagnosis and to plan treatment. Histopathological examination remains essential for most oral and maxillofacial lesions.

Analysis of Discrepancy Index between Clinical and Histopathological Diagnosis of Oral Lesions

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the discrepancy index between the clinical and histological diagnosis of oral lesions.

MATERIALS AND METHOD

A sample of 910 cases from year 2013-2021 were analyzed using non probability convenience sampling technique. This included patient records and histopathological reports of patients treated at IIDC & H and FUCD & H. Clinical presentations were classified under five categories; growth/swelling, vesico-ulcerative, white, red/pigmented, and cystic lesions. To evaluate the details of diagnostic discrepancies, the data was categorized into 4 major groups: 1) Neoplastic-Neoplastic,2) Non-Neoplastic-Non-Neoplastic ,3) Neoplastic-Non-Neoplastic and 4) Non-Neoplastic-Neoplastic. The association between clinical diagnosis and histopathological diagnosis was calculated by using pearson chi square test and statistical significance was considered with the p value less than (0.05).

RESULTS

Most common clinical presentation was swelling/growth; 601 (66%), followed by ulceration; 223 (24.5%). There were 528 (58%) incisional and 382 (42%) excisional biopsies. The definitive diagnosis based on histopathological findings showed malignant neoplasms as the commonest category; 287 (31.5%) followed by inflammatory/reactive lesions 271 (29.8%). A consensus was noted between the clinical and histologic diagnosis in 74.8% cases, while a discrepancy index of 25.1 % was calculated. Regarding diagnostic discrepancy among four major categories of our research, maximum discrepancy was noted in neoplastic-nonneoplastic category (29.6%) and minimum discrepancy was noted in malignant - benign category (2.7%).  Statistically significant difference between the clinical and histopathological diagnosis was observed with a p value of 0.000.

CONCLUSION

Considerable amount of diagnostic discordance was observed in all types of pathologies analyzed in the study.