Assessment of time intervals in the pathway to oral cancer diagnosis in north-westerm Spain. Relative contribution of patient interval

Background: Despite continuous advances in diagnosis and therapy, oral cancers are mostly diagnosed at advanced stages with minor survival improvements in the last two decades. Both phenomena have been attributed to delays in the diagnosis. This study aims at quantifying the time elapsed until definitive diagnosis in these patients and the patient interval’s contribution. Material and Methods: A hospital-based, ambispective, observational study was undertaken on incident cases with a pathological diagnosis of oral squamous cell carcinoma recruited during 2015 at the Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery services of CHUAC (A Coruña) and POVISA (Vigo) hospitals. Results: 74 consecutive oral cancer patients (59.5% males; median age: 65.0 years (IQ:57-74)) were studied. Most cases (52.7%; n=39) were at advanced stages (TNM III-IV) at diagnosis. The period since first sign/symptom until the patient seeks health care was the longest interval in the pathway to diagnosis and treatment (median: 31.5 days; IQR= 7.0 - 61.0) and represents >60% of the interval since symptom onset until referral to specialised care (pre-referral interval). The average interval assigned to the patient resulted to be relatively larger than the time elapsed since the patient is seen at primary care until a definitive diagnosis is reached (diagnostic interval). Median of the referral interval for primary care professionals: 6.5 days (IQR= 0.0 - 49.2) and accounts for 35% (19% - 51%) of the diagnostic interval. Conclusions: The patient interval is the main component of the pathway to treatment since the detection of a bodily change until the definitive diagnosis. Therefore, strategies focused on risk groups to shorten this interval should be implemented in order to ease an early diagnosis of symptomatic oral cancer (AU)

No disponible

Biopsy of the buccal mucosa in oral lichen planus: the traditional method versus the use of a new pressure forceps.

BACKGROUND: The authors designed a pressure forceps, called the "B forceps," for use in performing biopsies. They compared biopsy specimens taken with and without the aid of the B forceps from buccal mucosa of 84 patients divided equally into two groups, all of whom satisfied the World Health Organization's diagnostic criteria for oral lichen planus. They analyzed the advantages and disadvantages of using this instrument. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The 42 patients in group A underwent a conventional biopsy (29 with a scalpel and 13 with a punch). The 42 patients in group B underwent a biopsy performed with the B forceps and a punch. The authors studied artifacts of fragmentation, pseudocysts, crushing, fissures and hemorrhages histologically in both groups. RESULTS: There were no significant differences within group A between the subjects who had undergone either the scalpel or the punch biopsy. There were, however, significant differences between groups A and B. Group B experienced less fragmentation (P = .021), fewer fissures (P = .001) and fewer hemorrhages (P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: The new B forceps was a useful aid in the performance of biopsies. It improved visibility and reduced the time needed for the procedure. Biopsy specimens taken with the B forceps also had histologically fewer artifacts than did those taken without the B forceps. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: This technique using the B forceps has several advantages, including speed, because the ischemia produced by the clamp stabilizes the tissue and increases visibility, facilitating dissection. The time needed for surgical removal thus is shortened.