Oral cancer screening is important for early detection and early treatment, which help improve survival rates. Biopsy is invasive and painful, while fluorescence visualization using optical instruments is non-invasive, convenient, and provides results in real time, and examinations can be repeated. The purpose of this study was to determine the usefulness of optical instruments in oral screening. A total of 314 patients who were examined using optical instruments at Tokyo Dental College between 2014 and 2018 were enrolled in this study. Fluorescence visualization images were analyzed using subjective and objective evaluations. Subjective evaluation for detecting oral cancer offered 98.0% sensitivity and 43.2% specificity. Regarding the objective evaluations for detecting oral cancer, sensitivity and specificity were 61.9% and 62.7% for mean luminance, 90.3% and 55.7% for luminance ratio, 56.5% and 67.7% for standard deviation of luminance, and 72.5% and 85.4% for coefficient of variation of luminance. Fluorescence visualization with subjective and objective evaluation using optical instruments is useful for oral cancer screening.

Background: Oral cancer screening is important for early detection and early treatment, which help improve survival rates. Biopsy is the gold standard for a definitive diagnosis but is invasive and painful, while fluorescence visualization is non-invasive, convenient, and real-time, and examinations can be repeated using optical instruments. The purpose of this study was to clarify the usefulness of fluorescence visualization in oral cancer screening. Methods: A total of 502 patients, who were examined using fluorescence visualization with optical instruments in our hospitals between 2014 and 2019, were enrolled in this study. The final diagnosis was performed by pathological examination. Fluorescence visualization was analyzed using subjective and objective evaluations. Results: Subjective evaluations for detecting oral cancer offered 96.8% sensitivity and 48.4% specificity. Regarding the objective evaluations, sensitivity and specificity were 43.7% and 84.6% for mean green value, 55.2% and 67.0% for median green value, 82.0% and 44.2% for coefficient of variation of value, 59.6% and 45.3% for skewness, and 85.1% and 75.8% for value ratio. For the sub-analysis of oral cancer, all factors on objective and subjective evaluation showed no significant difference. Conclusions: Fluorescence visualization with subjective and objective evaluation is useful for oral cancer screening.

Tokyo Dental College started oral cancer screening in cooperation with a local dental association in 1992. Reveal the usefulness of Countermeasure and Opportunistic Screening Systems for Oral Cancer. The actual results of countermeasure and opportunistic oral cancer screening systems are reported. Countermeasure screening for the public was performed in each region, and opportunistic screening was performed in a general dental clinic of a cooperating physician. In countermeasure screening, 19,721 persons were checked from 1992 to 2018; the gender ratio was 1:3. The close examination rate was 4.45%. The detection rates of oral cancer and oral potentially malignant disorders were 0.13% and 1.85%, respectively. In opportunistic screening, 29,912 persons were checked from 2006 to 2018; the gender ratio was 2:3. The close examination rate was 2.33%. The detection rates of oral cancer and oral potentially malignant disorders were 0.08% and 2.15%, respectively. The close examination rate was significantly lower in opportunistic screening than in countermeasure screening. The oral cancer detection rates and the positive predictive value for cancer were equivalent. In addition, the detection rate of oral potentially malignant disorders was significantly higher in opportunistic screening than in countermeasure screening. Oral cancer detection rates were equivalent between countermeasure and opportunistic screenings, and opportunistic screening were more effective on number of participants and the close examination rate, and the detection rate of oral potentially malignant disorders.

Background/Aim: Oral cancer screening is important for early detection and early treatment, which help improve survival rates. Biopsy is invasive and painful, while fluorescence visualization is non-invasive, convenient, and real-time, and examinations can be repeated using optical instruments. The purpose of this study was to clarify the usefulness of an optical instrument in oral screening. Patients and Methods: A total of 201 patients, who were examined using an optical instrument in our Department between 2017 and 2018, were enrolled in this study. Fluorescence visualization images were analyzed using subjective and objective evaluations. Results: Subjective evaluations for detecting oral cancer and oral epithelial dysplasia offered 83.3% sensitivity and 75.7% specificity. Regarding the objective evaluations for detecting oral cancer and oral epithelial dysplasia, sensitivity and specificity were 47.4% and 72.4% for luminance value, 94.7% and 79.6% for luminance ratio, and 100.0% and 68.0% coefficient of variation. Conclusion: Fluorescence visualization using optical instruments is useful for oral cancer screening.

The control of enclosed oral epithelial dysplasia is important for the control of oral cancer. Fluorescence visualization and iodine solution are able to detect oral epithelial dysplasia and surrounding oral cancer. The purpose of this study was to clarify the effectiveness of combining fluorescence visualization and iodine solution-guided surgery for early tongue cancer. Participants comprised 264 patients with primary early tongue cancer who underwent surgery. The surgical margin was set at 10 mm outside the clinical tumour, and 5 mm outside the area of fluorescence visualization loss, and 5mm outside the iodine unstained area. The 5-year disease-free survival rate was 87.1% vs 76.1% (P = 0.016) and the 5-year local control rate was 98.6% vs 93.0% (P = 0.008) for combination-guided surgery when compared to conventional surgery. Positive margin rates were 0% for cancer, and 6.5% and 0% for low- and high-grade dysplasia, respectively, with combination-guided surgery (P = 0.257). Multivariate analysis revealed that combination-guided surgery (odds ratio 0.140, 95% confidence interval 0.045-0.437; P < 0.001) and intraoperative frozen section examination (odds ratio 0.302; 95% confidence interval 0.115-0.791; P = 0.015) were significantly associated with local control. The combination of fluorescence visualization and iodine solution are effective in selecting surgical margins for early tongue cancer.