European Laryngological Society position paper on laryngeal dysplasia Part II: diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up

Purpose of review To give an overview of the current knowledge regarding the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of laryngeal dysplasia (LD) and to highlight the contributions of recent literature. Summary The diagnosis of LD largely relies on endoscopic procedures and on histopathology. Diagnostic efficiency of endoscopy may be improved using videolaryngostroboscopy (VLS) and bioendoscopic tools such as Narrow Band Imaging (NBI) or Storz Professional Image Enhancement System (SPIES). Current histological classifications are not powerful enough to clearly predict the risk to carcinoma evolution and technical issues such as sampling error, variation in epithelial thickness and inflammation hamper pathological examination. Almost all dysplasia grading systems are effective in different ways. The 2017 World Health Organization (WHO) system should prove to be an improvement as it is slightly more reproducible and easier for the non-specialist pathologist to apply. To optimize treatment decisions, surgeons should know how their pathologist grades samples and preferably audit their transformation rates locally. Whether carcinoma in situ should be used as part of such classification remains contentious and pathologists should agree with their clinicians whether they find this additional grade useful in treatment decisions. Recently, different studies have defined the possible utility of different biomarkers in risk classification. The main treatment modality for LD is represented by transoral laser microsurgery. Radiotherapy may be indicated in specific circumstances such as multiple recurrence or wide-field lesions. Medical treatment currently does not have a significant role in the management of LD. Follow-up for patients treated with LD is a fundamental part of their care and investigations may be supported by the same techniques used during diagnosis (VLS and NBI/SPIES).

European Laryngological Society position paper on laryngeal dysplasia Part I: aetiology and pathological classification

Purpose of review To give an overview of the current knowledge regarding the aetiology, epidemiology, and classification of laryngeal dysplasia (LD) and to highlight the contributions of recent literature. As most cases of dysplasia occur at the glottic level and data on diagnosis and management are almost exclusively from this location, laryngeal dysplasia in this position paper is taken to be synonymous with dysplasia of the vocal folds. Summary LD has long been recognized as a precursor lesion to laryngeal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). Tobacco and alcohol consumption are the two single most important etiological factors for the development of LD. There is currently insufficient evidence to support a role of reflux. Although varying levels of human papillomavirus have been identified in LD, its causal role is still uncertain, and there are data suggesting that it may be limited. Dysplasia has a varying presentation including leukoplakia, erythroleukoplakia, mucosal reddening or thickening with exophytic, “tumor-like” alterations. About 50% of leukoplakic lesions will contain some form of dysplasia. It has become clear that the traditionally accepted molecular pathways to cancer, involving accumulated mutations in a specific order, do not apply to LD. Although the molecular nature of the progression of LD to SCC is still unclear, it can be concluded that the risk of malignant transformation does rise with increasing grade of dysplasia, but not predictably so. Consequently, grading systems are inherently troubled by the weak correlation between the degree of the dysplasia and the risk of malignant transformation. The best data on LD grading and outcomes come from the Ljubljana group, forming the basis for the World Health Organization classification published in 2017.