Late detection and specialist referral result in poor oral cancer outcomes globally. High-risk LRMU populations usually do not have access to oral medicine specialists, a specialty of dentistry, whose expertise includes the identification, treatment, and management of oral cancers. To overcome this access barrier, there is an urgent need for novel, low-cost tele-health approaches to expand specialist access to low-resource, remote and underserved individuals. The goal of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of remote versus in-person specialist visits using a novel, low-cost telehealth platform consisting of a smartphone-based, remote intraoral camera and custom software application. A total of 189 subjects with suspicious oral lesions requiring biopsy (per the standard of care) were recruited and consented. Each subject was examined, and risk factors were recorded twice: once by an on-site specialist, and again by an offsite specialist. A novel, low-cost, smartphone-based intraoral camera paired with a custom software application were utilized to perform synchronous remote video/still imaging and risk factor assessment by the off-site specialist. Biopsies were performed at a later date following specialist recommendations. The study’s results indicated that on-site specialist diagnosis showed high sensitivity (94%) and moderate specificity (72%) when compared to histological diagnosis, which did not significantly differ from the accuracy of remote specialist telediagnosis (sensitivity: 95%; specificity: 84%). These preliminary findings suggest that remote specialist visits utilizing a novel, low-cost, smartphone-based telehealth tool may improve specialist access for low-resource, remote and underserved individuals with suspicious oral lesions.

Efforts are underway to improve the accuracy of non-specialist screening for oral cancer (OC) risk, yet better screening will only translate into improved outcomes if at-risk individuals comply with specialist referral. Most individuals from low-resource, minority, and underserved (LRMU) populations fail to complete a specialist referral for OC risk. The goal was to evaluate the impact of a novel approach on specialist referral compliance in individuals with a positive OC risk screening outcome. A total of 60 LRMU subjects who had screened positive for increased OC risk were recruited and given the choice of referral for an in-person (20 subjects) or a telehealth (40 subjects) specialist visit. Referral compliance was tracked weekly over 6 months. Compliance was 30% in the in-person group, and 83% in the telehealth group. Approximately 83–85% of subjects from both groups who had complied with the first specialist referral complied with a second follow-up in-person specialist visit. Overall, 72.5% of subjects who had chosen a remote first specialist visit had entered into the continuum of care by the study end, vs. 25% of individuals in the in-person specialist group. A two-step approach that uses telehealth to overcome barriers may improve specialist referral compliance in LRMU individuals with increased OC risk.