Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 6, 2026

Intraoperative Assessment of Resection Margins in Oral Cavity Cancer: This is the Way
Published on: May 10, 2021
Diagnostic accuracy of oral cancer cytology in a pilot study
Joji Sekine1,2, Eiji Nakatani3, Katsumi Hideshima4
1Japanese Society of Clinical Cytology, Tokyo, Japan. georges@med.shimane-u.ac.jp.
Background:
Recently, cytology has been applied to the diagnosis of oral lesions. We aimed to explore the diagnostic accuracy of oral cytology based on the histological diagnosis.
Methods:
Histological diagnoses of 327 cases were classified as Negative, Borderline lesion -, Borderline lesion +, oral intraepithelial neoplasia/carcinoma in situ (OIN/CIS), or Positive. Cytological diagnoses were classified as NILM (negative for intraepithelial lesion or malignancy), LSIL (low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion), HSIL (high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion), or SCC (squamous cell carcinoma). The cytology slides were evaluated by 10 raters and the results were compared with the histology results.
Results:
In 142 cases that were histologically negative, the number of NILM, LSIL, HSIL, and SCC and other malignancy was 77 (54.2%), 47 (34.3%), 8 (5.6%), and 10 (7.0%), respectively. Among 32 cases of Borderline lesion -, the number of NILM, LSIL, HSIL, and SCC and other malignancy was 11 (34.3%), 11 (34.3%), 9 (28.1%), and 1 (3.1%), respectively. Also, in 4 cases of Borderline lesion +, the number of NILM, LSIL, HSIL, and SCC and other malignancy was 2 (50.0%), 0 (0.0%), 0 (0.0%), 2 (50.0%), respectively. Among 12 cases of OIN/CIS, the number of NILM, LSIL, HSIL, and SCC and other malignancy was 1 (8.3%), 2 (16.7%), 4 (33.3%), and 5 cases (41.7%), respectively. Among 137 cases with a histological diagnosis of Positive, the number of NILM, LSIL, HSIL, and SCC and other malignancy was 7 (5.1%), 22 (16.1%), 19 (13.9%), and 89 (65.0%), respectively. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive and negative predictive values were 93.5, 50.6, 62.4, and 89.8%, respectively, when the cytological diagnosis of Negative was assumed to be NILM; they were 77.8, 83.9, 81.0 and 81.1%, respectively, if the cytological diagnosis of Negative was assumed to be NILM and LSIL. The number of false-positive and false-negative diagnosis affected cases with LSIL and HSIL may indicate the difficulty in the cytological diagnosis of borderline lesions. While the negative predictive value was relatively high (89.8%) when cytological Negative was assumed to be NILM only.
Conclusion:
Histopathological examination should be recommended in cases with cytological diagnoses of LSIL, HSIL, and SCC.
More Related Videos
06:57Chromogenic In Situ Hybridization as a Tool for HPV-Related Head and Neck Cancer Diagnosis
Published on: June 14, 2019
07:43Four-color Fluorescence Immunohistochemistry of T-cell Subpopulations in Archival Formalin-fixed, Paraffin-embedded Human Oropharyngeal Squamous Cell Carcinoma Samples
Published on: July 29, 2017