RESUMEN
Abstract Introduction Early detection of potentially malignant oral cavity disorders is critical for a good prognosis, and it is unclear whether the use of chemiluminescence as an adjunctive diagnostic screening method improves diagnostic accuracy. Objective This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to assess the accuracy of chemiluminescence for diagnosis of oral cancer and precancerous lesions. Methods Sixteen prospective and retrospective studies from PubMed, Cochrane database, SCOPUS, Web of Science, Embase, and Google Scholar were reviewed. Oral mucosal disorder, as detected by chemiluminescence, was compared with oral mucosal disorder detected by toluidine blue or visual examination. True-positive, true-negative, false-positive, and false-negative rates were extracted for each study. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool (ver. 2). Results Sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of the use of toluidine blue were 0.832 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.692-0.917), 0.429 (95% CI 0.217-0.672), 0.747 (95% CI 0.607-0.849), and 4.061 (95% CI 1.528-10.796; I2 = 9.128%), respectively. The area under the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve was 0.743. Compared with toluidine blue, as used in 12 studies, chemiluminescence had a higher sensitivity (0.831 vs. 0.694); it had a lower specificity (0.415 vs. 0.734), negative predictive value (0.674 vs. 0.729), and DOR (3.891 vs. 7.705). Compared with clinical examination, as used in three studies, chemiluminescence had lower DOR (4.576 vs. 5.499) and area under the curve (0.818 vs. 0.91). Conclusion Although chemiluminescence itself has good sensitivity for diagnostic work-up of oral cancer and precancer, the diagnostic accuracy of chemiluminescence is comparable to or worse than toluidine blue and clinical examination. Diagnostic accuracy was therefore insufficient for reliable use of chemiluminescence alone.
Resumo Introdução A detecção precoce de distúrbios orais potencialmente malignos é fundamental para um bom prognóstico e não está claro se o uso da quimioluminescência como método auxiliar de triagem diagnóstica melhora a eficácia do diagnóstico. Objetivo Avaliar a precisão da quimioluminescência para o diagnóstico de câncer oral e pré-câncer. Método Foram revisados 16 estudos prospectivos e retrospectivos dos bancos de dados PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase e Google Scholar. Os distúrbios da mucosa oral detectados por quimioluminescência foram comparados com os distúrbios da mucosa oral detectados pelo azul de toluidina ou pelo exame visual. Taxas de resultados verdadeiro-positivos, verdadeiro-negativos, falso-positivos e falso-negativos foram extraídas de cada estudo. A qualidade metodológica foi avaliada com a ferramenta Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-versão 2 (QUADAS-2). Resultados Sensibilidade, especificidade, valor preditivo negativo e odds ratio diagnóstico do uso do azul de toluidina foram 0,832 (intervalo de confiança de 95%: 0,692-0,917), 0,429 (IC95%: 0,217-0,672), 0,747 (IC95%: 0,607-0,849) e 4,061 (intervalo de confiança 95%: 1,528-10,796; I2 = 9,128%), respectivamente. A área sob a curva SROC, do inglês summary receiver operating characteristic, foi de 0,743. Comparada ao azul de toluidina, como usado em 12 estudos, a quimioluminescência apresentou uma sensibilidade mais alta (0,831 vs. 0,694) e especificidade (0,415 vs. 0,734), valor preditivo negativo (0,674 vs. 0,729) e odds ratio diagnóstico (3,889 vs. 7,705) mais baixos. Comparado com o exame clínico, como usado em três estudos, a quimioluminescência apresentou menor odds ratio diagnóstico (4.576 vs. 5.499) e área sob a curva (0,818 vs. 0,91). Conclusão Embora a quimioluminescência em si tenha boa sensibilidade para o diagnóstico de câncer oral e pré-câncer, sua precisão diagnóstica é comparável ou pior do que o azul de toluidina e o exame clínico. A precisão do diagnóstico foi, portanto, insuficiente para o uso isolado confiável da quimioluminescência.
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Early detection of potentially malignant oral cavity disorders is critical for a good prognosis, and it is unclear whether the use of chemiluminescence as an adjunctive diagnostic screening method improves diagnostic accuracy. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to assess the accuracy of chemiluminescence for diagnosis of oral cancer and precancerous lesions. METHODS: Sixteen prospective and retrospective studies from PubMed, Cochrane database, SCOPUS, Web of Science, Embase, and Google Scholar were reviewed. Oral mucosal disorder, as detected by chemiluminescence, was compared with oral mucosal disorder detected by toluidine blue or visual examination. True-positive, true-negative, false-positive, and false-negative rates were extracted for each study. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool (ver. 2). RESULTS: Sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of the use of toluidine blue were 0.832 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.692-0.917), 0.429 (95% CI 0.217-0.672), 0.747 (95% CI 0.607-0.849), and 4.061 (95% CI 1.528-10.796; I2=9.128%), respectively. The area under the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve was 0.743. Compared with toluidine blue, as used in 12 studies, chemiluminescence had a higher sensitivity (0.831 vs. 0.694); it had a lower specificity (0.415 vs. 0.734), negative predictive value (0.674 vs. 0.729), and DOR (3.891 vs. 7.705). Compared with clinical examination, as used in three studies, chemiluminescence had lower DOR (4.576 vs. 5.499) and area under the curve (0.818 vs. 0.91). CONCLUSION: Although chemiluminescence itself has good sensitivity for diagnostic work-up of oral cancer and precancer, the diagnostic accuracy of chemiluminescence is comparable to or worse than toluidine blue and clinical examination. Diagnostic accuracy was therefore insufficient for reliable use of chemiluminescence alone.