LAUSR

OBJECTIVES The aim of this systematic review was to examine the evidence of the binary histologic grading system capacity for predicting malignant transformation and to compare it with that of the WHO systems. MATERIAL AND METHODS A systematic review was conducted, using PubMed, EMBASE, LILACS, Web of Science, Scopus, and LIVIVO databases without any language or timeframe restrictions. Studies were included if they compared the binary and the WHO histologic grading systems in the prediction of malignant transformation of oral epithelial dysplasia (OED). RESULTS The capacity of the WHO and binary grading systems to predict malignant transformation ranged from 16 to 80% and from 5 to 80%, respectively. The pooled malignant transformation rate of lesions classified as severe dysplasia or carcinoma in situ by the WHO grading was 40% (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.02-0.87; I2 = 92%; P = 0.00), while the corresponding value for lesions classified as high-risk by the binary grading system was 31% (95% CI, 0.00-0.84; I2 = 97%; P = 0.00). Overall, there was no significant difference in prognostication accuracy between the WHO and the binary systems (odds ratio = 2.02; 95% CI, 0.88-4.64). CONCLUSIONS Although some studies suggest that the binary system is associated with lower inter-rater variability when grading OED, the evidence remains inconclusive on whether this system is superior to that of the WHO at predicting malignant transformation. CLINICAL RELEVANCE The reproducibility of the binary system has the potential to be better for prognostic purposes. However, there is no high-quality evidence to confirm if this advantage may assist clinicians in decision-making.