Efficacy of non-invasive diagnostic methods in the diagnosis and screening of oral cancer and precancer

Abstract

IntroductionTraditional meta-analyses on the diagnostic accuracy of oral lesions have been conducted, but they were inherently limited to direct pairwise comparisons between a single method and a single alternative, while multiple diagnostic options and the ranking thereof were methodologically not possible. ObjectiveTo evaluate the diagnostic values of various methods in patients with oral potential malignant disease by performing a network meta-analysis. MethodsTwo authors independently searched the databases (MEDLINE, SCOPUS, the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, and Google scholar) up to June 2020 for studies comparing the diagnostic accuracy of various tools (autofluorescence, chemiluminescence, cytology, narrow band imaging, and toluidine blue) with visual examination or other tools. The outcomes of interest for this analysis were sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, positive predictive value and accuracy. Both a standard pairwise meta-analysis and network meta-analysis were conducted. ResultsTreatment networks consisting of six interventions were defined for the network meta-analysis. The results of traditional meta-analysis showed that, among six methods, narrow band imaging showed higher sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, positive predictive value, and accuracy compared to visual examination. The results of network meta-analysis showed that autofluorescence, chemiluminescence, and narrow band imaging had higher sensitivity compared with visual examination, and that chemiluminescence and narrow band imaging had higher negative predictive value compared with visual examination. However, autofluorescence and chemiluminescence had lower specificity compared with visual examination. There were no significant differences in positive predictive value and accuracy among the six interventions. ConclusionThis study demonstrated that narrow banding imaging has superiority in terms of sensitivity and negative predictive value compared with the other five tested agents.