Evaluation of a new binary system of grading oral epithelial dysplasia for prediction of malignant transformation.

The aim of this paper is to assess the reproducibility of a novel binary grading system (high/low risk) of oral epithelial dysplasia and to compare it with the WHO classification 2005. The accuracy of the new system for predicting malignant transformation was also assessed. Ninety-six consecutive oral epithelial dysplasia biopsies with known clinical outcomes were retrieved from the Oral Pathology archives. A pilot study was conducted on 28 cases to determine the process of classification. Four observers then reviewed the same set of H&E stained slides of 68 oral dysplastic lesions using the two grading systems blinded to the clinical outcomes. The overall inter-observer unweighted and weighted kappa agreements for the WHO grading system were Ks = 0.22 (95% CI: 0.11-0.35), Kw = 0.63 (95% CI: 0.42-0.78), respectively, versus K = 0.50 (95% CI: 0.35-0.67) for the new binary system. Interestingly, all pathologists showed satisfactory agreement on the distinction of mild dysplasia from severe dysplasia and from carcinoma in situ using the new WHO classification. However, assessment of moderate dysplasia remains problematic. The sensitivity and specificity of the new binary grading system for predicting malignant transformation in oral epithelial dysplasia were 85% and 80%, respectively and the accuracy was 82%. The new binary grading system complemented the WHO Classification 2005 and may have merit in helping clinicians to make critical clinical decisions particularly for the cases of moderate dysplasia. Histological grading of dysplasia using established criteria is a reproducible prognosticator in oral epithelial dysplasia. Furthermore, the present study showed that more consensus scoring on either the degree of dysplasia, assessment of risk or the presence of each morphological characteristic by a panel should be encouraged.

[1]  F. Kee,et al.  Potentially malignant oral lesions in northern Ireland: a 20-year population-based perspective of malignant transformation. , 2001, Oral diseases.

[2]  G. Bradley,et al.  Observer agreement in the grading of oral epithelial dysplasia. , 2003, Community dentistry and oral epidemiology.

[3]  J. Sudbø,et al.  DNA content as a prognostic marker in patients with oral leukoplakia. , 2001, The New England journal of medicine.

[4]  J. Sudbø,et al.  Retracted: The evolution of predictive oncology and molecular‐based therapy for oral cancer prevention , 2005, International journal of cancer.

[5]  S. Warnakulasuriya Lack of molecular markers to predict malignant potential of oral precancer , 2000, The Journal of pathology.

[6]  J. Sudbø,et al.  Which putatively pre-malignant oral lesions become oral cancers? Clinical relevance of early targeting of high-risk individuals. , 2003, Journal of oral pathology & medicine : official publication of the International Association of Oral Pathologists and the American Academy of Oral Pathology.

[7]  J K Greenson,et al.  Reproducibility of the diagnosis of dysplasia in Barrett esophagus: a reaffirmation. , 2001, Human pathology.

[8]  E. Berg,et al.  World Health Organization Classification of Tumours , 2002 .

[9]  F T Bosman,et al.  Dysplasia classification: pathology in disgrace? , 2001, The Journal of pathology.

[10]  Rebecca Zwick,et al.  Another look at interrater agreement. , 1988, Psychological bulletin.

[11]  J. Reibel,et al.  Subjectivity in evaluating oral epithelial dysplasia, carcinoma in situ and initial carcinoma. , 1985, Journal of oral pathology.

[12]  C. Peoples Observer variability in the histologic assessment of oral premalignant lesions , 1996 .

[13]  J. Sudbø,et al.  Retracted: Comparison of histological grading and large‐scale genomic status (DNA ploidy) as prognostic tools in oral dysplasia , 2001, The Journal of pathology.

[14]  P W Hamilton,et al.  Interobserver variation in the reporting of cervical colposcopic biopsy specimens: comparison of grading systems. , 1996, Journal of clinical pathology.

[15]  Stefano Fedele,et al.  Oral cancer screening: 5 minutes to save a life , 2005, The Lancet.

[16]  J. R. Landis,et al.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. , 1977, Biometrics.

[17]  E. Schröck,et al.  Centrosome amplification and instability occurs exclusively in aneuploid, but not in diploid colorectal cancer cell lines, and correlates with numerical chromosomal aberrations , 2000, Genes, chromosomes & cancer.

[18]  M. Sideri,et al.  Inter‐observer variation in histopathological diagnosis and grading of vulvar intraepithelial neoplasia: results of an European collaborative study , 2000, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[19]  Joel B Epstein,et al.  Interobserver reliability in the histopathologic diagnosis of oral pre-malignant and malignant lesions. , 2004, Journal of oral pathology & medicine : official publication of the International Association of Oral Pathologists and the American Academy of Oral Pathology.

[20]  S. Lippman,et al.  Predicting cancer development in oral leukoplakia: ten years of translational research. , 2000, Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research.

[21]  S. Warnakulasuriya Histological grading of oral epithelial dysplasia: revisited , 2001, The Journal of pathology.

[22]  E. Eisenberg,et al.  Intraexaminer and interexaminer reliability in the diagnosis of oral epithelial dysplasia. , 1995, Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics.

[23]  H Lumerman,et al.  Oral epithelial dysplasia and the development of invasive squamous cell carcinoma. , 1995, Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics.