An update on the clinical pathology of oral precancer and cancer

Signal regulatory protein α associated with the progression of oral leukoplakia and oral squamous cell carcinoma regulates phenotype switch of macrophages

Signal regulatory protein α (SIRPα) is a cell-surface protein expressed on macrophages that are regarded as an important component of the tumor microenvironment. The expression of SIRPα in oral leukoplakia (OLK) and oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC), and further explored the role of SIRPα on the phenotype, phagocytosis ability, migration, and invasion of macrophages in OSCC were investigated. The expression of SIRPα in OLK was higher than in OSCC, correlating with the expression of CD68 and CD163 on macrophages. After cultured with the conditioned media of oral cancer cells, the expression of SIRPα on THP-1 cells was decreased gradually. In co-culture system, macrophages were induced into M2 phenotype by oral cancer cells. Blockade of SIRPα inhibited phagocytosis ability and IL-6, TNF-α productions of macrophages. In addition, the proliferation, migration, and IL-10, TGF-β productions of macrophages were upregulated after blockade of SIRPα. Macrophages upregulated the expression of SIRPα and phagocytosis ability, and inhibited the migration and invasion when the activation of NF-κB was inhibited by pyrrolidine dithiocarbamate ammonium (PDTC). Hence, SIRPα might play an important role in the progression of OLK and oral cancer, and could be a pivotal therapeutic target in OSCC by regulating the phenotype of macrophages via targeting NF-κB.

Mouth Cancer for Clinicians Part 7: Cancer Diagnosis and Pre-treatment Preparation

A MEDLINE search early in 2015 revealed more than 250,000 papers on head and neck cancer; over 100,000 on oral cancer; and over 60,000 on mouth cancer. Not all publications contain robust evidence. We endeavour to encapsulate the most important of the latest information and advances now employed in practice, in a form comprehensible to healthcare workers, patients and their carers. This series offers the primary care dental team in particular, an overview of the aetiopathogenesis, prevention, diagnosis and multidisciplinary care of mouth cancer, the functional and psychosocial implications, and minimization of the impact on the quality of life of patient and family.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This article offers the dental team an overview of diagnosis, diagnostic and pre-treatment procedures.

The Seattle Care Pathway for securing oral health in older patients

There is a need for a structured, evidence based approach to care for older dental patients. The following article describes the development of the Seattle Care Pathway based upon a workshop held in 2013. An overview is provided on the key issues of older persons dental care including the demography shift, the concept of frailty, the need for effective prevention and treatment to be linked to levels of dependency and the need for a varied and well educated work force. The pathway is presented in tabular form and further illustrated by the examples in the form of clinical scenarios. The pathway is an evidence based, pragmatic approach to care designed to be globally applicable but flexible enough to be adapted for local needs and circumstances. Research will be required to evaluate the pathways application to this important group of patients.

Meta-analysis of two computer-assisted screening methods for diagnosing oral precancer and cancer

The early diagnosis of oral precancer and cancer is crucial and could have the highest impact on improving survival rates. A meta-analysis was conducted to compare the accuracy between the OralCDx brush biopsy and DNA-image cytometry in diagnosing both conditions. Bibliographic databases were systematically searched for original relevant studies on the early diagnosis of oral precancer and oral cancer. Study characteristics were evaluated to determine the accuracy of the two screening strategies. Thirteen studies (eight of OralCDx brush biopsy and five of DNA-image cytometry) were identified as having reported on 1981 oral mucosa lesions. The meta-analysis found that the area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curves of the OralCDx brush biopsy and DNA-image cytometry were 0.8879 and 0.9885, respectively. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio of the OralCDx brush biopsy were 86% (95% CI 81-90), 81% (95% CI 78-85), and 20.36 (95% CI 2.72-152.67), respectively, while these modalities of DNA-image cytometry were 89% (95% CI 83-94), 99% (95% CI 97-100), and 446.08 (95% CI 73.36-2712.43), respectively. Results of a pairwise comparison between each modality demonstrated that specificity, area under the curve (AUC), and Q(∗) index of DNA-image cytometry was significantly higher than that of the OralCDx brush biopsy (Z=2.821, p<0.05; Z=1.711, p<0.05; Z=1.727, p<0.05), but no significant difference in sensitivity was found (Z=1.520, p>0.05). In conclusion, the meta-analysis of the published studies indicated that DNA-image cytometry is more accurate than the OralCDx brush biopsy in diagnosing oral precancer and oral cancer.