@misc{10481/69339,
year = {2021},
month = {5},
url = {http://hdl.handle.net/10481/69339},
abstract = {Aims To discuss the terminology to define and classify actinic cheilitis (AC) and to build a consensus on the diagnostic and therapeutic approaches to AC.

Methods Two-round Delphi study using a questionnaire including 34 closed sentences (9 on terminology and taxonomy, 5 on potential for malignant transformation, 12 on diagnostic aspects, 8 on treatment) and 8 open questions. Experts' agreement was rated using a Likert scale (1-7).

Results A consensus was reached on 24 out 34 statements (73.5%) and on 5 out of 8 (62.5%) close-ended questions. The response rate was identical in both rounds (attrition of 0%). AC is the term with the highest agreement (median of 7 (strongly agree; IQR: 6-7)) and the lowest dispersion (VC = 21.33). 'Potentially malignant disorder' was the preferred classification group for AC (median of 7) and 85.6% of participants showing some level of agreement (CV < 50). Experts (66.75%) consider AC a clinical term (median: 7; IQR: 4-7) and believe definitive diagnosis can be made clinically (median: 6; IQR: 5-7), particularly by inspection and palpation (median: 5; IQR: 4-6). Histopathological confirmation is mandatory for the management of AC (median: 5; IQR: 2.5-7), even for homogeneous lesions (median: 5; IQR: 3.5-6). Consensus was reached on all treatment statements (VC < 50).

Conclusions AC is a potentially malignant disorder with a significant lack of agreement on diagnostic criteria, procedures, biopsy indications and the importance of techniques to assist in biopsy. A consensus was reached on nomenclature and management of this disorder.},
publisher = {Wiley-Blackwell Publishing},
keywords = {Actinic cheilitis},
keywords = {Consensus},
keywords = {Delphi study},
keywords = {Potentially malignant oral disorder},
title = {Assembling a consensus on actinic cheilitis: A Delphi study},
doi = {10.1111/jop.13200},
author = {Seoane, Juan and González Moles, Miguel Ángel},
}