Evidence Hub

Oral leukoplakia and risk of progression to oral cancer: A population-based cohort study

A. Chaturvedi, N. Udaltsova, E. Engels, J. Katzel, E. Yanik, H. Katki, M. Lingen, M. Silverberg

Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2019

4,886 participants · 178 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The optimal clinical management of oral precancer remains uncertain. We investigated the natural-history of oral leukoplakia, the most common oral precancerous lesion, to estimate the relative and absolute risks of progression to cancer, the predictive accuracy of a clinician's decision to biopsy a leukoplakia vis-à-vis progression, and histopathologic predictors of progression.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study (1996-2012) of patients with oral leukoplakia (N = 4,886), identified using electronic medical records within Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC). Among patients with leukoplakia who received a biopsy (n = 1,888), we conducted a case-cohort study to investigate histopathologic predictors of progression. Analyses included indirect standardization and unweighted/weighted Cox regression.

RESULTS

Compared with the overall KPNC population, oral cancer incidence was substantially elevated in oral leukoplakia patients (standardized incidence ratio [SIR]=40.8; 95%CI=34.8-47.6; n = 161 cancers over 22,582 person-years). Biopsied leukoplakias had a higher oral cancer risk compared to those that were not biopsied (adjusted-hazard ratio [HR]=2.38; 95%CI=1.73-3.28). However, to identify a prevalent/incident oral cancer, the biopsy-decision had low sensitivity (59.6%), low specificity (62.1%), and moderate positive-predictive-value (PPV=5.1%). Risk of progression to oral cancer statistically significantly increased with the grade of dysplasia;…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 4,886 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free