Skip to main content
  • AACR Publications
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

  • Register
  • Log in
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
    • Reviewing
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Collections
      • Editors' Picks
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • OnlineFirst
    • Editors' Picks
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • AACR Publications
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

User menu

  • Register
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
Cancer Prevention Research
Cancer Prevention Research

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
    • Reviewing
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Collections
      • Editors' Picks
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • OnlineFirst
    • Editors' Picks
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
Different Perspective

Early Detection of Oral Neoplasia: Watching with New Eyes

Gary J. Kelloff, Caroline C. Sigman and Christopher H. Contag
Gary J. Kelloff
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Caroline C. Sigman
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Christopher H. Contag
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-09-0064 Published May 2009
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Perspective on Roblyer et al.,p. 423

Editor's Note: The editors invited two perspectives—one more detailed, one more open-ended—on the important article in this issue of the journal by Roblyer et al. on new imaging technology for neoplasia screening in the oral cavity. Whereas the perspective by the Rosin group (Poh et al.) puts autofluorescence imaging and the Roblyer et al. report under a figurative microscope, this different perspective both examines the Roblyer et al. study and the broader implications of evolving imaging technology for detecting cancer and intraepithelial neoplasia.

Yogi Berra said, “You can observe a lot just by watching.” Since an estimated 47,560 new cases and 11,260 deaths from cancers of the oral cavity, oropharynx, and larynx (3% of all new cancers and 2% of all cancer deaths) occurred in the United States in 2008 (1), it is time to start “watching” these sites with new tools and insights. Despite advances in diagnostic tools and treatment modalities, overall survival rates for these cancers have improved little over the last three decades (2). The main reasons for treatment failure are second primary tumors in patients with early-stage disease (stages I and II) and local recurrence and metastases in patients with locally advanced disease (2). These cancers result from multistep carcinogenesis, which involves increasing degrees of mucosal atypia and dysplasia and molecular (epigenetic and genetic) alterations (3) and “field cancerization,” in which the multistep changes occur over large areas of the carcinogen-exposed upper aerodigestive tract epithelium [the seminal field hypothesis was proposed over 50 years ago by Slaughter et al. (4) based on work in the oral cavity]. Therefore, there are three potential approaches to reduce the incidence of head and neck cancer: first, early detection and local control of high-risk focal precursor lesions; second, decrease an individual's exposure to carcinogens; and third, systemic chemopreventive agents to halt or reverse carcinogenesis in individuals exposed to a risk factor(s) and/or diagnosed with a precursor lesion (5, 6). The effect of local control by removing head and neck precursor lesions has not been established as a method of reducing cancer risk (7). Although numerous changes contribute to epithelial carcinogenesis, histologically defined intraepithelial neoplasia (IEN), or premalignant lesions, is still considered to be better than any individual molecular marker for predicting cancer risk (8, 9).

Among head-and-neck cancers, oral neoplasia is particularly amenable to imaging because of the accessibility of its epithelial surface and the frequency of its routine screening by dentists. Once established for oral cancer screening, successful imaging tools could also be used in other cancers. Oral IEN initially appears as white or red patches (oral leukoplakia or erythroplakia, respectively) and carries a 17.5% risk of malignant transformation, or 36.4% in cases of dysplastic oral IEN, at 8 years (10). More precise definitions of risk are necessary; however, because carcinogenesis is multifocal and multiclonal, even within the same lesion, not all IEN progresses to cancer or can be readily detected and measured, and, at present, no specific drug can target all the causative genetic changes preceding or within IEN. To proceed with screen-detected lesions and determine if excision or chemopreventive intervention is warranted, more definitive screening and risk-assessment measures are required.

Loss of heterozygosity profiling is one of the better current methodologies for refining the risk of progression of histologic IEN. Loss of heterozygosities at specific loci in the genome encoding tumor suppressor genes are powerful predictors of oral cancer development. Several allelic losses have been shown to be early events of head and neck tumorigenesis (7, 11–13). Loss of heterozygosity at 3p and 9p is not only frequent but also predicts progression to invasive cancer (7, 11–13) and is a very powerful predictor of a second oral malignancy at previously treated oral cancer sites (13). Moreover, loss of heterozygosity findings have genetically confirmed the concept of field cancerization by showing the clonal relationship of transformed cells in large areas of mucosa (11, 14). Microsatellite analysis at the 9p, 3p, 17p, 8p, 13q, and 18q chromosomal regions and mutation analysis for p53 have shown that genetically altered mucosa remains after treatment in a majority of patients, a finding with potentially significant clinical implications (15). These findings confirmed earlier studies of the feasibility of p53 alterations as a tool for molecular staging and fingerprinting of head and neck tumors and underscore the need for a molecular basis for risk characterization (11). Despite the great potential of this type of approach, reagents and devices that can detect these molecular markers are not suitable at present as rapid screening tools for cancers of epithelial surfaces (i.e., they require tissue sampling and are too costly, time consuming, and labor intensive), and development of alternatives that complement loss of heterozygosity are necessary.

Although some progress has been made in reducing carcinogen exposure (e.g., through tobacco use cessation) and in chemopreventive interventions, clearly more work is needed. There also remain several limitations to current oral cancer screening methods that could be addressed by improved cytologic methods and new imaging approaches. Current screening approaches rely too heavily on clinical experience for visual recognition because early neoplastic lesions have the appearance of more common benign lesions and many patients are reluctant to undergo biopsy (16). Staining with vital dyes has been used to increase screening sensitivity, but it has low specificity (i.e., also detects nonneoplastic lesions) and also requires expertise for interpretation. The alternative of using brush biopsy for cytology delays diagnosis relative to visual inspection with or without vital dyes and has an unknown false-negative rate. Better cytologic methods, including measurements of allelic imbalance in tissue from visible lesions as well as from normal-appearing mucosa, have improved screening accuracy in detecting oral neoplasia (17) but are still limited by delayed diagnosis. Optical technologies offer promising new ways to detect the changes associated with carcinogenesis. For example, the recently Food and Drug Administration–approved VELscope (LED Dental, Inc.; refs. 18, 19) offers a marked improvement over previous devices for measuring autofluorescence; the interpretation of its findings, however, still relies heavily on subjective evaluations from the image reader. Optical fibers and microscopes also have limitations, including the inherent limitation of small fields of view, which requires measurements on small areas that are deemed suspect by visual inspection. Interrogation of small regions, or point measurements, offered by microscopic or spectroscopic methods are only useful for visually obvious lesions because the user needs to determine the position of the optical device before making the measurements. Therefore, a wide-field optical method for efficiently detecting intrinsic changes in the appearance of neoplastic tissue, relative to normal tissue, which does not allow user bias or require user interpretation, is required for effectively screening and interrogating large epithelial surfaces areas.

The work from the laboratory of Richards-Kortum published by Roblyer et al. (20) in this issue of the journal describes the use of a computer algorithm that has been trained with clinical data to interpret data from a wide-field autofluorescence optical system. This algorithm provides a quantitative and objective assessment of differences in the appearance of normal and neoplastic tissue. This system is a significant improvement over previous approaches because much of the guesswork is removed through the use of a trained algorithm. This study evaluated the optical system in 56 patients with oral lesions and 11 normal subjects, establishing a classification algorithm using learning and test sets. It was used to quantify the decrease in the ratio of red-to-green autofluorescence in neoplasia relative to normal tissue, assessing it on a pixel-by-pixel basis within the regions of interest for each patient. Use of autofluorescence is an excellent and logical approach to early detection because it has long been established that neoplasia “looks different” than normal tissue, and the strategy described here aims to quantify this difference in appearance using specific colors (i.e., wavelengths of light) and accumulated experience from known data sets for oral cancer cases.

The optical approaches that are based on the inherently different “look” between neoplasia and normal tissue can be powerful strategies because the use of intrinsic optical properties obviates the need for exogenous dyes and probes (21). Moreover, the physiologic and molecular changes that cause these differences in appearance have been studied intensively, enabling molecular assessments from the optical properties. Intrinsic differences in the optical properties of tissue can be due to changes in absorbance (22), scatter (23), or fluorescence (24–28), and these changes can result from inflammation, increased cellularity, altered cellular anatomy (e.g., cell shape and nuclear volume), appearance of tumor stroma, and biochemical differences associated with cellular proliferation and tissue reorganization. The study by Roblyer et al. shows us a way of looking at neoplasia with a highly sensitive and unbiased eye. This study focuses on autofluorescence, or changes in fluorescence without the addition of exogenous fluorescent dyes, which is largely a function of tissue composition attributable to changes in collagen and elastin, and in concentrations of biomolecules such as hemoglobin and other porphyrins. Detection strategies based on intrinsic changes have the advantage of not requiring use of extrinsic dyes or contrast agents; however, the interpretation of subtle changes in optical properties of tissues has caused ambiguity in the past. The contribution of this study to the field is the development and testing of a well-trained algorithm for interpreting the data and removing user error. Optical differences can be very specific for a given change in the tissue, but the differences are often slight and subject to variation. The algorithm described here accounts for nuances and variability in the signal, resulting in a screening tool that is both user-friendly and low-cost. These advances will enable reliable, wide-spread use of autofluorescence screening that potentially will reach the patients in greatest need.

Alternative approaches would largely require the use of exogenous contrast agents. Developing exogenous contrast agents is a focus for many research groups looking at a variety of cancer types (29–33). Because many epithelial surfaces are readily available for optical inspection and exogenous probes may be applied topically, a large number of these probes use markers that can be detected with visible and near-IR light. The molecular etiologies of many cancers are shared; therefore, the large number of emerging molecular probes will likely have utility in the early detection of oral and other cancers.

The autofluorescence study of Roblyer et al. highlights the importance of standardization in imaging and the use of automated analyses for cancer screening. Imaging tools that target cellular processes, such as proliferation and apoptosis, or physiologic changes such as hypoxia and angiogenesis have been developed. Alternatively, key cell-surface markers of neoplasia or dysregulated cellular physiology associated with rapid cellular proliferation can be targeted with specific molecular probes. Examples of imaging both physiologic and molecular changes are seen in the study of angiogenesis, where changes in blood flow can be assessed or localization of molecular probes that target a mediator of angiogenesis (e.g., vascular endothelial growth factor) are determined (34). Optical imaging approaches are being developed in other IEN settings, for example, to enhance early detection in the cervix and colon-rectum (16). The use of changes in autofluorescence and the use of probes for epidermal growth factor receptor have been evaluated in cervical IEN. These tools will enhance standard screening and may complement established screening approaches for these tissues (35). Colonoscopy with IEN removal (polypectomy) is the standard of care for colorectal cancer risk reduction and has been proven to be significantly effective in this regard (8, 9). Despite the anatomic changes associated with colon carcinogenesis that are readily detected (e.g., raised polyps), a number of flat lesions can be missed and cancers can be hidden behind folds in the colon (36). Dye-spray chromoendoscopy has been used to reduce the number of missed lesions, and further studies will determine if it will further reduce cancer risk (36). Chromoendoscopy is a method of anatomic imaging that reveals changes in tissue structure, but it does not detect molecular changes. The development and use of molecular-imaging probes and the microscopes and cameras that detect binding will complement these methods, further decreasing miss rates and identifying more-aggressive adenomas of any size or surface contour (30). This strategy is being actively investigated, and such molecular probes will help in detecting aggressive IEN at other tissue sites including the oral cavity.

Molecular probes can be designed in various ways so that they are activated, or “light up,” when they interact with their molecular target (34). This is an effective means of reducing noise and improving detection. A variety of labels can be used to create optical probes that include fluorescent dyes (33) and dots (37, 38), chromogens (39) and scattering particles (40). These probes enhance the optical differences between normal and malignant tissues and can be used to molecularly phenotype the cancer. The molecular specificity of the probes gives them the potential for image-guidance and to predict and monitor responses to specific therapies. As such, these new tools will have tremendous clinical potential; however, there will be significant barriers to translation given the regulatory requirements for using molecular diagnostic tools in patients and high-risk subjects. Although already useful for screening, imaging tools based on tissue autofluorescence cannot reveal the molecular basis of neoplasia with the specificity needed for guiding molecularly targeted drug interventions. However, the practical ease of translation gives these tools a significant advantage over approaches that require the use of exogenous reagents for contrast. The development of multiparameter optical methods will enable the complementary use of methods such as those described by Roblyer et al. and any number of molecularly targeted probes. These probes could help in selecting patients most likely to benefit from a specific molecular-targeted intervention. Therefore, this complementary use will present the best of both worlds and offer the greatest opportunity for early detection and personalized intervention by building on the strengths of each approach.

Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest

No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

  • Received March 10, 2009.
  • Accepted April 3, 2009.
  • ©2009 American Association for Cancer Research.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Jemal A,
    2. Siegel R,
    3. Ward E,
    4. et al
    . Cancer statistics, 2008. CA Cancer J Clin 2008;58:71–96.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Vokes EE,
    2. Weichselbaum RR,
    3. Lippman SM,
    4. Hong WK
    . Head and neck cancer. N Engl J Med 1993;328:184–94.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Mao L,
    2. Hong WK,
    3. Papadimitrakopoulou VA
    . Focus on head and neck cancer. Cancer Cell 2004;5:311–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Slaughter DP,
    2. Southwick HW,
    3. Smejkal W
    . Field cancerization in oral stratified squamous epithelium; clinical implications of multicentric origin. Cancer 1953;6:963–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Hong WK,
    2. Sporn MB
    . Recent advances in chemoprevention of cancer. Science 1997;278:1073–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    1. Kelloff GJ
    . Perspectives on cancer chemoprevention research and drug development. Adv Cancer Res 2000;78:199–334.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Zhang L,
    2. Poh CF,
    3. Lam WL,
    4. et al
    . Impact of localized treatment in reducing risk of progression of low-grade oral dysplasia: molecular evidence of incomplete resection. Oral Oncol 2001;37:505–12.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Kelloff GJ,
    2. Lippman SM,
    3. Dannenberg AJ,
    4. et al
    . Progress in chemoprevention drug development: the promise of molecular biomarkers for prevention of intraepithelial neoplasia and cancer-a plan to move forward. Clin Cancer Res 2006;12:3661–97.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. ↵
    1. O'Shaughnessy JA,
    2. Kelloff GJ,
    3. Gordon GB,
    4. et al
    . Treatment and prevention of intraepithelial neoplasia: an important target for accelerated new agent development. Clin Cancer Res 2002;8:314–46.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. ↵
    1. Silverman S Jr.,
    2. Gorsky M,
    3. Lozada F
    . Oral leukoplakia and malignant transformation. A follow-up study of 257 patients. Cancer 1984;53:563–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Lippman SM,
    2. Lee JJ
    . Reducing the “risk” of chemoprevention: defining and targeting high risk-2005 AACR Cancer Research and Prevention Foundation Award Lecture. Cancer Res 2006;66:2893–903.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Partridge M,
    2. Pateromichelakis S,
    3. Phillips E,
    4. Emilion GG,
    5. A'Hern RP,
    6. Langdon JD
    . A case-control study confirms that microsatellite assay can identify patients at risk of developing oral squamous cell carcinoma within a field of cancerization. Cancer Res 2000;60:3893–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. ↵
    1. Rosin MP,
    2. Lam WL,
    3. Poh C,
    4. et al
    . 3p14 and 9p21 loss is a simple tool for predicting second oral malignancy at previously treated oral cancer sites. Cancer Res 2002;62:6447–50.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. ↵
    1. Califano J,
    2. van der Riet P,
    3. Westra W,
    4. et al
    . Genetic progression model for head and neck cancer: implications for field cancerization. Cancer Res 1996;56:2488–92.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. ↵
    1. Tabor MP,
    2. Brakenhoff RH,
    3. van Houten VM,
    4. et al
    . Persistence of genetically altered fields in head and neck cancer patients: biological and clinical implications. Clin Cancer Res 2001;7:1523–32.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. ↵
    1. Kelloff GJ,
    2. Sullivan DC,
    3. Baker H,
    4. et al
    . Workshop on imaging science development for cancer prevention and preemption. Cancer Biomark 2007;3:1–33.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Bremmer JF,
    2. Graveland AP,
    3. Brink A,
    4. et al
    . Screening for oral precancer with noninvasive genetic cytology. Cancer Prev Res (Phila Pa) 2009;2:128–33.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Lane PM,
    2. Gilhuly T,
    3. Whitehead P,
    4. et al
    . Simple device for the direct visualization of oral-cavity tissue fluorescence. J Biomed Opt 2006;11:024006.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Poh CF,
    2. Zhang L,
    3. Anderson DW,
    4. et al
    . Fluorescence visualization detection of field alterations in tumor margins of oral cancer patients. Clin Cancer Res 2006;12:6716–22.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  19. ↵
    1. Roblyer D,
    2. Kurachi C,
    3. Stepanek V,
    4. et al
    . Objective detection and delineation of oral neoplasia using autofluorescence imaging. Cancer Prev Res (Phila Pa) 2009;2:423–31.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Anandasabapathy S
    . Endoscopic imaging: emerging optical techniques for the detection of colorectal neoplasia. Curr Opin Gastroenterol 2008;24:64–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Piazza C,
    2. Dessouky O,
    3. Peretti G,
    4. Cocco D,
    5. De Benedetto L,
    6. Nicolai P
    . Narrow-band imaging: a new tool for evaluation of head and neck squamous cell carcinomas. Review of the literature. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 2008;28:49–54.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Sharwani A,
    2. Jerjes W,
    3. Salih V,
    4. et al
    . Assessment of oral premalignancy using elastic scattering spectroscopy. Oral Oncol 2006;42:343–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Fedele S
    . Diagnostic aids in the screening of oral cancer. Head Neck Oncol 2009;1:5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Roblyer D,
    2. Richards-Kortum R,
    3. Sokolov K,
    4. et al
    . Multispectral optical imaging device for in vivo detection of oral neoplasia. J Biomed Opt 2008;13:024019.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Pavlova I,
    2. Williams M,
    3. El-Naggar A,
    4. Richards-Kortum R,
    5. Gillenwater A
    . Understanding the biological basis of autofluorescence imaging for oral cancer detection: high-resolution fluorescence microscopy in viable tissue. Clin Cancer Res 2008;14:2396–404.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Schwarz RA,
    2. Gao W,
    3. Daye D,
    4. Williams MD,
    5. Richards-Kortum R,
    6. Gillenwater AM
    . Autofluorescence and diffuse reflectance spectroscopy of oral epithelial tissue using a depth-sensitive fiber-optic probe. Appl Opt 2008;47:825–34.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. Mallia RJ,
    2. Thomas SS,
    3. Mathews A,
    4. et al
    . Laser-induced autofluorescence spectral ratio reference standard for early discrimination of oral cancer. Cancer 2008;112:1503–12.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    1. Veiseh M,
    2. Gabikian P,
    3. Bahrami SB,
    4. et al
    . Tumor paint: a chlorotoxin:Cy5.5 bioconjugate for intraoperative visualization of cancer foci. Cancer Res 2007;67:6882–8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. ↵
    1. Hsiung PL,
    2. Hardy J,
    3. Friedland S,
    4. et al
    . Detection of colonic dysplasia in vivo using a targeted heptapeptide and confocal microendoscopy. Nat Med 2008;14:454–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    1. Kelly KA,
    2. Setlur SR,
    3. Ross R,
    4. et al
    . Detection of early prostate cancer using a hepsin-targeted imaging agent. Cancer Res 2008;68:2286–91.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Kelly KA,
    2. Bardeesy N,
    3. Anbazhagan R,
    4. et al
    . Targeted nanoparticles for imaging incipient pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. PLoS Med 2008;5:e85.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Weissleder R
    . Molecular imaging in cancer. Science 2006;312:1168–71.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  28. ↵
    1. Kelloff GJ,
    2. Krohn KA,
    3. Larson SM,
    4. et al
    . The progress and promise of molecular imaging probes in oncologic drug development. Clin Cancer Res 2005;11:7967–85.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  29. ↵
    1. Thekkek N,
    2. Richards-Kortum R
    . Optical imaging for cervical cancer detection: solutions for a continuing global problem. Nat Rev Cancer 2008;8:725–31.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. ↵
    1. Stoffel EM,
    2. Turgeon DK,
    3. Stockwell DH,
    4. et al
    . Chromoendoscopy detects more adenomas than colonoscopy using intensive inspection without dye spraying. Cancer Prev Res (Phila Pa) 2008;1:507–13.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  31. ↵
    1. Larocque J,
    2. Bharali DJ,
    3. Mousa SA
    . Cancer Detection and Treatment: The Role of Nanomedicines. Mol Biotechnol 2009.
  32. ↵
    1. Xing Y,
    2. Rao J
    . Quantum dot bioconjugates for in vitro diagnostics & in vivo imaging. Cancer Biomark 2008;4:307–19.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  33. ↵
    1. Lingen MW,
    2. Kalmar JR,
    3. Karrison T,
    4. Speight PM
    . Critical evaluation of diagnostic aids for the detection of oral cancer. Oral Oncol 2008;44:10–22.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. ↵
    1. El-Sayed I,
    2. Huang X,
    3. Macheret F,
    4. Humstoe JO,
    5. Kramer R,
    6. El-Sayed M
    . Effect of plasmonic gold nanoparticles on benign and malignant cellular autofluorescence: a novel probe for fluorescence based detection of cancer. Technol Cancer Res Treat 2007;6:403–12.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top
Cancer Prevention Research: 2 (5)
May 2009
Volume 2, Issue 5
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by Author

Sign up for alerts

View this article with LENS

Open full page PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for sharing this Cancer Prevention Research article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Early Detection of Oral Neoplasia: Watching with New Eyes
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Cancer Prevention Research
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Cancer Prevention Research.
Citation Tools
Early Detection of Oral Neoplasia: Watching with New Eyes
Gary J. Kelloff, Caroline C. Sigman and Christopher H. Contag
Cancer Prev Res May 1 2009 (2) (5) 405-408; DOI: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-09-0064

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Early Detection of Oral Neoplasia: Watching with New Eyes
Gary J. Kelloff, Caroline C. Sigman and Christopher H. Contag
Cancer Prev Res May 1 2009 (2) (5) 405-408; DOI: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-09-0064
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Advertisement

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Oral-Specific Chemical Carcinogenesis in Mice
Show more Different Perspective
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Feedback
  • Privacy Policy
Facebook   Twitter   LinkedIn   YouTube   RSS

Articles

  • Online First
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues

Info for

  • Authors
  • Subscribers
  • Advertisers
  • Librarians
  • Reviewers

About Cancer Prevention Research

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Permissions
  • Submit a Manuscript
AACR logo

Copyright © 2019 by the American Association for Cancer Research.

Cancer Prevention Research
eISSN: 1940-6215
ISSN: 1940-6207

Advertisement