Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Development of a Novel Oral Cytologic Grading System

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Oral Cytology

Abstract

While the Bethesda system represents one of the great success stories in cervical cytology, there has been little appetite for the adoption of a universal grading system for oral cytology. This could be explained by the general lack of interest in oral cytology due to a high percentage of false negative diagnoses, a great variation in technical quality and cellularity of oral smears as well as the use of inadequate sampling procedures. The lack of a standardized method for reporting oral cytology adversely affects proper management of patients with oral lesions. The emergence of Liquid-Based Cytology (LBC) with dramatic improvements in technical quality and cellularity of the cytology specimens has provoked a new interest in using this diagnostic modality for suspicious oral mucosal lesions. This chapter describes the adequacy criteria and minimum cellularity specifications of oral cytologic specimens, and proposes an oral cytologic grading system analogous to the Bethesda System for reporting cervical cytology based on LBC techniques. Using this classification, the terminology for reporting results obtained by oral cytology examination of class I and class II oral mucosal lesions is discussed with ample illustrations of the morphologic criteria and diagnostic categories. These include normal, reactive changes, changes including probably atypical reactive/low-grade lesions, low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesions, atypical probably high-grade changes, high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion and invasive squamous carcinoma. While still at its infancy, this grading system provides a standardised and uniform method of reporting for the practising pathologist. To further validate the newly proposed classification scheme and discover the best cut-off value for distinguishing reactive/low grade lesions from high grade/squamous cell carcinoma, a simple and easy scoring method based on nine cytologic characteristics is proposed. This may well increase the specificity of the oral cytology test in a manner similar to that of the robust Papanicolaou test.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Papanicolaou GN, Traut HF. The diagnostic value of vaginal smears in carcinoma of the uterus. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1941;42:193–206.

    Google Scholar 

  2. National Cancer Institute Workshop. The 1988 Bethesda System for reporting cervical/vaginal cytologic diagnoses. JAMA. 1989;262:931–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Reagan JW, Seidemann IL, Saracusa Y. The cellular morphology of carcinoma in situ and dysplasia or atypical hyperplasia of the uterine cervix. Cancer. 1953;6:224–35.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Koss LG. Diagnostic cytology and its histopathologic bases. 4th ed. Philadelphia: J.B. Lipincott Co; 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Richart RM. Natural history of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1967;10:748–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. The Bethesda System for reporting cervical/vaginal cytologic diagnoses: report of the 1991 Bethesda Workshop. JAMA. 1992; 267: 1892.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Solomon D, Davey DD, Kurman R, et al. The 2001 Bethesda System: terminology for reporting results of cervical cytology. JAMA. 2002;287:2114–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Nichols ML, Quinn FB, Schnadig VJ, Zaharopoulos P, Hokanson JA, Des Jardins L, et al. Interobserver variability in the interpretation of brush cytologic studies from head and neck lesions. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1991;117:1350–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Kaugars GE, Silverman S, Ray AK, Page DG, Abbey LM, Burns JC, et al. The use of exfoliative cytology for the early diagnosis of oral cancers: is there a role for it in education and private practice? J Cancer Educ. 1998;13:85–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Feldman PS, Kaplan MJ, Johns ME, Cantrell RW. Fine-needle aspiration in squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Arch Otolaryngol. 1983;109:735–42.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Scher RL, Oostingh PE, Levine PA, Cantrell R, Feldman PS. Role of fine needle aspiration in the diagnosis of lesions of the oral cavity, oropharynx, and nasopharynx. Cancer. 1988;62:2602–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Sciubba JJ. Improving detection of precancerous and cancerous oral lesions: computer-assisted analysis of the oral brush biopsy. J Am Dent Assoc. 1999;130:1445–57.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Hayama FH, Motta AC, Silva AG, Migliari DA. Liquid-based preparations versus conventional cytology: specimen adequacy and diagnostic agreement in oral lesions. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2005;10:115–22.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kujan O, Desai M, Sargent A, Bailey A, Turner A, Sloan P, et al. Potential applications of oral brush cytology with liquid-based technology: results from a cohort of normal oral mucosa. Oral Oncol. 2006;42:810–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Navone R, Burlo P, Pich A, Pentenero M, Broccoletti R, Marsico A, et al. The impact of liquid-based oral cytology on the diagnosis of oral squamous dysplasia and carcinoma. Cytopathology. 2007;18:356–60.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Jones AC, Pink FE, Sandow PL, Stewart CM, Migliorati CA, et al. The Cytobrush Plus cell collector in oral cytology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1994;77:101–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Driemel O, Dashe R, Hakim G, Tsioutsias T, Pistner H, Reichert TE, Kosmehl H. Laminin-5 immunocytochemistry: a new tool for identifying dysplastic cells in oral brush biopsies. Cytopathology. 2007;18:348–55.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Hutchinson ML, Isenstein LM, Goodman A, Hurley AA, Douglass KL, Mui KK, et al. Homogeneous sampling accounts for the increased diagnostic accuracy using the Thin Prep processor. Am J Clin Pathol. 1994;101:215–9.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Afrogheh A, Wright CA, Sellars SL, Pelsar A, Wetter J, Schubert PT, Hille J. An evaluation of the Shandon PapSpin liquid based oral test utilizing a novel cytologic scoring system. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 2012;113:799–807.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Solomon D, Nayar R, editors. The Bethesda system for reporting cervical cytology. 2nd ed. New York: Springer; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Christian DC. Computer-assisted of oral brush biopsies at and oral cancer screening program. J Am Dent Assoc. 2002;133:357–62.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Drinnan AJ. Screening for oral cancer and precancer – a valuable new technique. Gen Dent. 2000;48:656–60.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Ogden GR, Cowpe JG, Green MW. Effect of radiotherapy on oral mucosa assessed by quantitative exfoliative cytology. J Clin Pathol. 1989;42:940–3.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Bhattathiri NV, Bharathykkutty C, Prathapan R, et al. Prediction of radiosensitivity of oral cancers by serial cytological assay of nuclear changes. Radiother Oncol. 1998;49:61–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Bhattathiri N, Bindu L, Remani P, et al. Radiation induced acute immediate nuclear abnormalities in oral cancer cells: serial cytologic evaluation. Acta Cytol. 1998;42:1084–90.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Mehrotra R, Madhu R, Singh M. Serial scrape smear cytology of radiation response in normal and malignant cells of oral cavity. Indian J Pathol Microbiol. 2004;47:497–502.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Koss LG. Cytologic diagnosis of oral, esophageal, and peripheral lung cancer. J Cell Biochem. 1993;17F(Suppl):66–81.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Van der Waal I. Potentially malignant disorders of the oral and oropharyngeal mucosa; terminology, classification and present concepts of management. Oral Oncol. 2009;45:317–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Hirshberg A, Yarom N, Amariglio N, et al. Detection of non-diploid cells in premalignant and malignant oral lesions using combined morphological and FISH analysis-a new method for early detection of suspicious oral lesions. Cancer Lett. 2007;253:282–90.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Torres-Rendon A, Stewart R, Craig CT, Wells M, Speight PM. DNA ploidy analysis by image cytometry helps to identify oral epithelial dysplasias with high risk of malignant progression. Oral Oncol. 2009;45:468–73.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Prof CA Wright, Dr PT Schubert and Mrs G Neethling, Cytology unit, Division of Anatomical Pathology, University of Stellenbosch and NHLS Tygerberg, Cape Town, South Africa.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. TBH Laboratories, Oral & Maxillofacial Pathology, National Health Laboratory Service, University of the Western Cape, Cape Town, South Africa

    Amir Afrogheh & Jos Hille

  2. Institute of Cytology and Preventive Oncology (ICPO), I-7, Sector - 39, Noida, 201301, Uttar Pradesh, India

    Ravi Mehrotra

Authors
  1. Amir Afrogheh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jos Hille
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ravi Mehrotra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jos Hille .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Director, I-7, Sector - 39, Institute of Cytology and Preventive Onc, Noida - 201301, Allahabad, 211001, Uttar Pradesh, India

    Ravi Mehrotra

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Afrogheh, A., Hille, J., Mehrotra, R. (2013). The Development of a Novel Oral Cytologic Grading System. In: Mehrotra, R. (eds) Oral Cytology. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5221-8_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5221-8_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-5220-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-5221-8

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation