189189 Dental Journal (Majalah Kedokteran Gigi) 2023 September; 56(3): 189–196 Review article Oral field cancerization: Genetic profiling for a prevention strategy for oral potentially malignant disorders Karlina Puspasari1, Togu Andrie Simon Pasaribu1, Meircurius Dwi Condro Surboyo2, Nurina Febriyanti Ayuningtyas2, Arvind Babu Rajendra Santosh2,3, Diah Savitri Ernawati2 1Oral Medicine Specialist Program, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia 2Department of Oral Medicine, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia 3School of Dentistry, Faculty of Medical Sciences, The University of the West Indies, Mona Campus, Kingston, Jamaica ABSTRACT Background: Oral cancer therapy, such as radiation or surgical treatment, has pernicious long-term effects that patients suffer throughout their life, the disability being considerable with delayed diagnosis. It is well known that many oral cancers develop from oral potentially malignant disorders (OPMDs). Patients diagnosed with OPMDs may have an increased risk of developing cancer anywhere in the oral cavity. Early detection and intervention could be essential prevention strategies to inhibit oral cancer progression. OPMDs may not immediately develop into carcinoma. However, this condition provides a “field” of specific abnormalities wherein evolving altered genetic cells can be explained with the “field cancerization” concept. Purpose: This review aims to describe the “field cancerization” concept in oral cancer and OPMD, which is expected to contribute to a better clinical management strategy for oral cancer prevention. Review: “Oral field cancerization” describes oral cancers that develop in multifocal areas of pre-cancerous changes. It can be found as histologically abnormal tissue surrounding the tumor, suggesting that oral cancer often consists of multiple independent lesions. Conclusion: The oral field cancerization concept should prompt healthcare professionals to remind their patients that frequent oral examination with histological studies and molecular testing is mandatory for those at high risk of developing malignancies. Keywords: genetically altered field; oral cancer; oral field cancerization; oral potentially malignant disorders Article history: Received 30 November 2022; Revised 5 January 2023; Accepted 27 January 2023; Published 1 September 2023 Correspondence: Diah Savitri Ernawati, Department of Oral Medicine, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Universitas Airlangga. Jl Mayjen Prof. Dr. Moestopo No. 47, Surabaya, 60132, Indonesia. Email: diah-s-e@fkg.unair.ac.id INTRODUCTION Oral cancer is one of the most common malignancies worldwide, with approximately 5% of those with diagnosed cancer coming from developing countries. The prevalence of head-and-neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) worldwide is about 20 cases per 100,000 population per year.1 Oral cancer, notably that induced by tobacco and alcohol consumption, may develop from an oral potentially malignant disorder (OPMD) or pre-cancerization lesion.2–4 Some OPMDs might disappear, while others result in oral cancer. The proportion of cases of OPMD in oral cancers ranges from 3–50%.5 While the management of OPMD might improve the outcome, standard therapy does not prevent cancer transformation from OPMD.6 Oral cancer therapies have pernicious long-term effects throughout the life of patients. These effects are substantial when the diagnosis is delayed.7 The HNSCC 5-year survival rate is the lowest among aggressive cancers. The prognosis of oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) depends on the presence of new tumor growth.1 In 1953, Slaughter published an article emphasizing the importance of examining and investigating the “field” surrounding an oral cancer lesion.8 This should be done at the risk-assessment stage and must be part of the comprehensive management of oral cancer. Since then, many studies have used molecular techniques to explore this concept. The nature of oral cancer is genetically altered cells. During cancerization, several epithelial cells may undergo an altered genetic makeup called a field with a typical clinical appearance. These cells can provoke a process called “field cancerization.”9 Copyright © 2023 Dental Journal (Majalah Kedokteran Gigi) p-ISSN: 1978-3728; e-ISSN: 2442-9740. Accredited No. 158/E/KPT/2021. Open access under CC-BY-SA license. Available at https://e-journal.unair.ac.id/MKG/index DOI: 10.20473/j.djmkg.v56.i3.p189–196 mailto:diah-s-e@fkg.unair.ac.id https://e-journal.unair.ac.id/MKG/index https://doi.org/10.20473/j.djmkg.v56.i3.p189-196 190 Puspasari et al. Dent. J. (Majalah Kedokteran Gigi) 2023 September; 56(3): 189–196 Some oral lesions display field cancerization and are classified as OPMDs or pre-cancerization lesions. Common OPMDs are leukoplakia with a transformation possibility of 0.13–40.8%,10–12 erythroplakia with 33.1%,13 and oral lichen planus with 1.1–2.28%.14,15 The differences in transformation depend on the predisposing or risk factors.16 Patients may develop cancer in the field of cancerization. Unfortunately, this condition is only confirmed with invasive excisional surgery. There is no effective intervention for preventing transformation and cancerization.17 The purpose of this review is to discuss oral field cancerization, cancerization mechanisms, and deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), ribonucleic acid (RNA), and tissue markers to be considered as cancerization biomarkers to provide recommendations for dentists, oral medicine specialists, and oral surgeons for better patient management. Oral cancers The carcinogenesis process begins with a stem cell with one or more genetic or epigenetic alterations. Then, a clone from the altered cells forms a patch or cluster. Due to further genetic alteration, stem cells deviate from standard growth control patterns and enjoy advantages for the development of expanding clones. Furthermore, lesions develop and become a field that replaces normal epithelium laterally. This field has genetically altered clonal units and advantages in proliferation activity, and finally dominates the overall process. Additional genetic alterations occur along with enlargement of the lesion, creating various sub- clones within the field. Because of divergence and clonal selection, clones are altered at different times and produce adequate modified stem cells. However, these cells share the same clonal origin. This process culminates in invasive cancer formation.18 Histologically, it is considered a local recurrence when the distance between tumors is less than 2 cm; if it is more than 2 cm, it is regarded as a second primary tumor.19 Even a single altered cell caused by tumor- suppressor gene inactivation and oncogene activation can overgrow and expand to form a clonal mass of tumor cells. Clinically, this is a dynamic process. Genetic alteration occurs from the accumulation of cell-growth phases and progresses from the benign to the pre-malignant and malignant stages.20 Oral field cancerization The terms “field effect” and “field cancerization” are used when the pre-neoplastic process is in several locations.21 This was previously assumed to be multiple conditions developing independently. However, this was challenged due to the clinical diagnosis of a second primary tumor located distant from the original tumor, found on genetic analysis to be arising from the clonal spreading of the initial lesion.1 Field pre-cancerization and its correlation with oral cancers are explained in Figure 1. Figure 1. Field cancerization shows mucosal areas with normal cells (blue) and cells with cancer-associated genetic or epigenetic alterations (gray). A pre-neoplastic field is monoclonal in origin and does not show invasive growth or metastatic behavior, which are the hallmarks of invasive carcinoma (dark gray cells). Copyright © 2023 Dental Journal (Majalah Kedokteran Gigi) p-ISSN: 1978-3728; e-ISSN: 2442-9740. Accredited No. 158/E/KPT/2021. Open access under CC-BY-SA license. Available at https://e-journal.unair.ac.id/MKG/index DOI: 10.20473/j.djmkg.v56.i3.p189–196 https://e-journal.unair.ac.id/MKG/index https://doi.org/10.20473/j.djmkg.v56.i3.p189-196 191Puspasari et al. Dent. J. (Majalah Kedokteran Gigi) 2023 September; 56(3): 189–196 Oral cancers, especially OSCCs, develop in pre- cancerous cells with clonal expansion of normal keratinocytes that have been altered genetically. The genetically unstable pre-cancerous keratinocyte manifests as aneuploidy, gaining or losing chromosomal material, or nucleotide sequence alteration. The instability of genomic support and further acquisition in genetic alteration leads to the growth superiority or inferiority of affected cells. Genetically inherited cells eventually acquire a cancerous phenotype. Although other oral cancers can develop from blood vessels or salivary glands, this mechanism underlies all cancer events. The probability of cancer development from genetically altered stem cells depends on the nature of the stem cells and the additional alteration. The proposed carcinogenesis model is based on a monoclonal origin and involves three stages.22,23 The first stage of patch formation is the conversion of a single stem cell (Figure 2A) into a cell cluster with genetic alteration and without appropriate growth-pattern control. The second stage, or clonal expansion, is additional genetic alteration; the patch proliferates and forms a field that replaces normal epithelium (Figure 2B). After exposure to another carcinogenic event, these cells turn to cancer cells with invasive growth or metastatic behavior, the third stage of tumor transition (Figure 2C, 2D). Surgical treatment is usually carried out at this stage (Figure 2E). Without proper molecular examination and prediction of field cancerization, cells with cancer-associated genetic or epigenetic alterations may be left behind (Figure 2F). Over time, with exposure to multiple carcinogenic events (unavoidable predisposing and risk factors), the remaining cells with cancer-associated genetics can develop into a second-field tumor, becoming overt carcinoma with invasive growth and metastases (Figure 2G, 2H). Markers of field cancerization Carcinogenesis is a complex phenomenon with multiple genetic lesions and interactions.24 Since every tumor has a Figure 2. Second field tumor model; A. A normal clonal unit. A stem cell (S) exposed to the carcinogenic event becomes a genetically altered cell. B. Transit-amplifying cells (T) and daughter cells of the stem cell have the same genetic alteration. C. Genetically altered cells with uncontrolled growth develop. D. Cancer cells with invasive and metastatic behavior start to grow. E. The surgeon removes the carcinoma. F. Post-surgery, without a proper genetic examination, the surgeon has left a field behind. G. A cell in the field turns into a cancer cell after another series of carcinogenic exposures. H. Carcinoma develops in the same field: a second-field tumor.1 Copyright © 2023 Dental Journal (Majalah Kedokteran Gigi) p-ISSN: 1978-3728; e-ISSN: 2442-9740. Accredited No. 158/E/KPT/2021. Open access under CC-BY-SA license. Available at https://e-journal.unair.ac.id/MKG/index DOI: 10.20473/j.djmkg.v56.i3.p189–196 https://e-journal.unair.ac.id/MKG/index https://doi.org/10.20473/j.djmkg.v56.i3.p189-196 192 Puspasari et al. Dent. J. (Majalah Kedokteran Gigi) 2023 September; 56(3): 189–196 unique alteration pattern, information about these markers can be used to measure the clonal correlation between lesions in a single patient. The presence of a field with genetically altered cells is a risk factor for cancer. Many pre-cancerization cells within the proliferating area may increase cancer risk significantly. The early genetic event can lead to clonal expansion from pre-malignant daughter cells in specific tumor fields. Subsequent genomic alteration in a few cells can induce a malignant phenotype.1 Biomarkers can be used to monitor tumor progression, thus preventing invasive cancer transformation in pre- cancerous lesions. The standard markers for identifying field cancerization are loss of heterozygosity, microsatellite alterations, chromosomal instability, and p53 gene mutations, generally detected by polymerase chain reaction, immunohistochemistry, and in situ hybridization.9 More specifically, some alteration or modification can detect both pre-cancerization and cancerization. In some instances of pre-cancerization, known as OPMDs, biomolecular markers have a significant role in detecting transformation to oral cancers. Available data state that the intratumoral heterogeneity,25 proteome and lipidome profile,26 myofibroblasts,27 and cytokeratin markers like tissue polypeptide antigen (TPA) and tissue polypeptide specific antigen (TPS),28 are the current biomarkers of pre-cancerization lesions. Further, extensive analysis at the tissue and DNA level has been developed. DNA aneuploidy 29 and chromosome aberrations30 are commonly used to detect field cancerization at the DNA level. Several markers (p53, Ki-67,31 cytokeratin fragments 21‐1,28 variations in nucleolar organizer regions,32 phosphatases and tensin homolog deleted on chromosome 10 allelic loss,33 DEK overexpression,34 micro RNA [hsa-miR-221, hsa-miR-21, hsa-miR-135b, and hsa-miR-29c] detection,35 ATP-binding cassette subfamily G member 2,36 MutL protein homolog 1, methylguanine-methyltransferase methylation,37 interferon- stimulated gene 15,38 aldehyde dehydrogenase, Notch1,39 and Bmi140) have been identified in pre-cancerization transformation into oral cancer, stimulating the cell cycle and promoting DNA replication (Figure 3). Various protein expressions or markers have been revealed at the tissue level and may be easier to replicate in clinical settings than DNA analysis. These include the expression of Ki-67,38 kaiso, e-cadherin,41 stathmin,42 Oct4+, Sox2+,43 GLUT-3, GLUT 4,44 substance p, NK- 1R,45 podoplanin,36 matrix metalloproteinase 9 (MMP-9), tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase 1 (TIMP-1), vimentin (VIM),46 cornulin,38 transforming growth factor (TGF- β1) and interleukin 17-A (IL-17A).47 These markers are essential in detecting oral cancer, especially OSCC. All these markers have demonstrated strong reactivity, and detecting these markers increased the survival rate (Figure 3). The specific techniques to obtain satisfactory results are whole-exome sequencing and targeted ultra-deep sequencing,48 DNA high-resolution flow cytometry, array- comparative genomic hybridization,30 mass spectrometry imaging based on matrix-assisted desorption-ionization,26 and liquid biopsy.49 DISCUSSION The World Health Organization has proposed the term OPMD for classifying fifteen conditions, including leukoplakia, erythroplakia, proliferative verrucous leukoplakia, oral submucous fibrosis, and oral lichen Figure 3. The markers of OSCC, including DNA analysis and tissue expression, are purposed for field cancerization to prevent malignant transformation or recurrence. Copyright © 2023 Dental Journal (Majalah Kedokteran Gigi) p-ISSN: 1978-3728; e-ISSN: 2442-9740. Accredited No. 158/E/KPT/2021. Open access under CC-BY-SA license. Available at https://e-journal.unair.ac.id/MKG/index DOI: 10.20473/j.djmkg.v56.i3.p189–196 https://e-journal.unair.ac.id/MKG/index https://doi.org/10.20473/j.djmkg.v56.i3.p189-196 193Puspasari et al. Dent. J. (Majalah Kedokteran Gigi) 2023 September; 56(3): 189–196 planus.5 OPMDs are determined to be pre-cancerization lesions because some of the cells carry cancer-associated genetic or epigenetic alterations. Some oral cancer specimens from the border of malignant lesions, showing a histologically normal appearance, have a genetic alteration, indicating that not all pre-cancerous fields can be identified histologically.50 Genetic markers must be used to identify all potentially malignant areas.5 Alteration can happen within the epithelium and/or the stroma.1 In the oral cavity, tobacco and alcohol work synergistically as primary carcinogens in developing OSCCs. Environmental carcinogens reach a broader area simultaneously, destroy in more significant proportions and contribute to pre- malignant conditions within the exposed area and can manifest as micro-metastatic deposits.51 A pre-malignant field often needs a long time, about 67–96 months, to develop and become invasive carcinoma. An analysis of 783 patients by Slaughter suggested that exposure to carcinogen-induced mucosal changes causes vulnerability of the surrounding area to multiple malignant foci.52 Oral field cancerization is caused by either cell migration or from an independent cell. Multiple tumors from the original primary cells and genetically altered cells from the primary cell are brought to their progenitor cells. Investigating the development of primary lesions and their progression through cell expansion is crucial for measuring clonal markers based on the early identification of genetic events.18 Clinically, oral cancer lesions may appear as white plaques, red plaques, ulcers, or verrucous forms, with a low degree of hyperplasia. However, the surrounding tissue may have a well-differentiated, verrucous hyperplasia, severe dysplasia, and even a carcinoma in situ.53 Why the surrounding tissues transform into cancer is still not fully understood. The possible mechanism is that the adjacent tumor microenvironment and cancer occur through dynamic interactions by direct cell-to-cell communication or extracellular and intracellular agents. Some hypotheses for cancer transformation are cell fusion, horizontal gene transfer, genetic instability, and microenvironment involvement.54 Noncoding and microRNAs represent the dynamic interaction between tumor and nontumor cells.55 This process may induce cancer-associated fibroblasts, the dominant cell type within the reactive stroma of many tumor types.56 Other causal factors include cytokine involvement, growth factors, and reactive oxygen species (ROS) as cell signaling molecules that aid cell-to-cell communication.57 Field cancerization replaces the normal cell population with a histologically nondysplastic but pro-tumorigenic mutant cell clone.58 This mechanism is demonstrated in Figure 2E; after surgical treatment, the surrounding tissue can progress to oral cancer because a single cell with cancer-associated genetic or epigenetic alterations can induce a neighboring cell to transform (Figure 4). During the biopsy, it suggested that the sample should be larger than a single clonal unit, i.e., containing at least 200 cells in width and reaching 10 cm in diameter.19 This could identify pre-cancerization at the periphery of the incision, making the examination of possible areas of field cancerization more precise and adequate. However, it should be noted that some lesions and anatomical locations are a barrier to carrying out comprehensive biopsies. Comprehensive biopsies aid in the adequate detection of field cancerization. Clinical symptoms do not correlate with the pathogenesis and development of oral cancer in the early stages. Thus, diagnostic biomarkers are crucial for determining histopathology grading and prognosis. When cancer has invaded, there are increased clinical symptoms, and the need for biomarker diagnostics is decreased. Since Figure 4. Mechanism of field cancerization and cell transformation through noncoding RNA, microRNA, cytokines, growth factors, and reactive oxygen species. Copyright © 2023 Dental Journal (Majalah Kedokteran Gigi) p-ISSN: 1978-3728; e-ISSN: 2442-9740. Accredited No. 158/E/KPT/2021. Open access under CC-BY-SA license. Available at https://e-journal.unair.ac.id/MKG/index DOI: 10.20473/j.djmkg.v56.i3.p189–196 https://e-journal.unair.ac.id/MKG/index https://doi.org/10.20473/j.djmkg.v56.i3.p189-196 194 Puspasari et al. Dent. J. (Majalah Kedokteran Gigi) 2023 September; 56(3): 189–196 the cancer is already in the final stage, the clinician focuses on the diagnosis and treatment plan with the possibility of a poor prognosis (Figure 5). Management strategies for OPMD or pre-cancerization lesions should follow a strict protocol, including counseling emphasizing the patient’s commitment to discontinuing their bad habits. The clinician must provide a long-term follow-up and patient monitoring with an estimation of 67 – 96 months to detect invasive carcinoma transformation. Based on the clinical characteristics, it is essential to examine and observe the entire oral area and not just the area with lesions. Specific biomarkers must be used appropriately.17 These steps should contribute to improving prognosis.17 Identifying molecular markers is essential in genetically transformed cells with normal histological appearance.59 Thus, tumor-specific biomarker identification has an excellent role in monitoring tumor progression and, if possible, preventing invasive cancer transformation. Early identification and management of field cancerization are critical for cancer mortality and morbidity prevention. In the clinical setting, oral field cancerization should prompt healthcare professionals to remind patients that frequent oral examination with histological studies and molecular testing is mandatory for those at high risk of developing malignancies. REFERENCES 1. Mallegowda H, Theresa R, Amberkar V. Oral field cancerization: Tracking the invisible. Int J Oral Heal Sci. 2019; 9(1): 28–35. 2. Hecht SS, Hatsukami DK. Smokeless tobacco and cigarette smoking: chemical mechanisms and cancer prevention. Nat Rev Cancer. 2022; 22(3): 143–55. 3. Bhandari A, Bhatta N. Tobacco and its relationship with oral health. J Nepal Med Assoc. 2021; 59(243): 1204–6. 4. Vassoler T, Dogenski LC, Sartori VK, Presotto JS, Cardoso MZ, Zandoná J, Trentin MS, Linden MS, Palhano HS, Vargas JE, De Carli JP. Evaluation of the genotoxicity of tobacco and alcohol in oral mucosa cells: a pilot study. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2021; 22(7): 745–50. 5. Bouaoud J, Bossi P, Elkabets M, Schmitz S, van Kempen LC, Martinez P, Jagadeeshan S, Breuskin I, Puppels GJ, Hoffmann C, Hunter KD, Simon C, Machiels J-P, Grégoire V, Bertolus C, Brakenhoff RH, Koljenović S, Saintigny P. Unmet needs and perspectives in oral cancer prevention. Cancers (Basel). 2022; 14(7): 1815. 6. Abati S, Bramati C, Bondi S, Lissoni A, Trimarchi M. Oral cancer and precancer: A narrative review on the relevance of early diagnosis. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020; 17(24): 9160. 7. Patil VM, Noronha V, Joshi A, Abhyankar A, Menon N, Dhumal S, Prabhash K. Beyond conventional chemotherapy, targeted therapy and immunotherapy in squamous cell cancer of the oral cavity. Oral Oncol. 2020; 105: 104673. 8. Desai RS, Shirsat PM, Bansal S, Prasad P, Satish Arvandekar A. Oral field cancerization: A critical appraisal. Oral Oncol. 2021; 118: 105304. 9. Poh CF, Zhang L, Anderson DW, Durham JS, Williams PM, Priddy RW, Berean KW, Ng S, Tseng OL, MacAulay C, Rosin MP. Fluorescence visualization detection of field alterations in tumor margins of oral cancer patients. Clin Cancer Res. 2006; 12(22): 6716–22. 10. Warnakulasuriya S, Ariyawardana A. Malignant transformation of oral leukoplakia: a systematic review of observational studies. J Oral Pathol Med. 2016; 45(3): 155–66. 11. Aguirre‐Urizar JM, Lafuente‐Ibáñez de Mendoza I, Warnakulasuriya S. Malignant transformation of oral leukoplakia: Systematic review and meta‐analysis of the last 5 years. Oral Dis. 2021; 27(8): 1881–95. 12. Pinto AC, Caramês J, Francisco H, Chen A, Azul AM, Marques D. Malignant transformation rate of oral leukoplakia—systematic review. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2020; 129(6): 600-611.e2. 13. Brignardello-Petersen R. Proliferative verrucous leukoplakia and erythroplakia are probably the disorders with the highest rate of malignant transformation. J Am Dent Assoc. 2020; 151(8): e62. Figure 5. Carcinogenesis model and clinical need for diagnostic biomarkers. Copyright © 2023 Dental Journal (Majalah Kedokteran Gigi) p-ISSN: 1978-3728; e-ISSN: 2442-9740. Accredited No. 158/E/KPT/2021. Open access under CC-BY-SA license. Available at https://e-journal.unair.ac.id/MKG/index DOI: 10.20473/j.djmkg.v56.i3.p189–196 https://e-journal.unair.ac.id/MKG/index https://doi.org/10.20473/j.djmkg.v56.i3.p189-196 195Puspasari et al. Dent. J. (Majalah Kedokteran Gigi) 2023 September; 56(3): 189–196 14. Aghbari SMH, Abushouk AI, Attia A, Elmaraezy A, Menshawy A, Ahmed MS, Elsaadany BA, Ahmed EM. Malignant transformation of oral lichen planus and oral lichenoid lesions: A meta-analysis of 20095 patient data. Oral Oncol. 2017; 68: 92–102. 15. González‐Moles MÁ, Ramos‐García P, War nakulasuriya S. An appraisal of highest quality studies reporting malignant transformation of oral lichen planus based on a systematic review. Oral Dis. 2021; 27(8): 1908–18. 16. Offen E, Allison JR. What is the malignant transformation potential of oral lichen planus? Evid Based Dent. 2022; 23(1): 36–7. 17. Sathiasekar A, Mathew D, Jaish Lal M, Arul Prakash A, Goma Kumar K. Oral field cancerization and its clinical implications in the management in potentially malignant disorders. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2017; 9(5): 23. 18. Mohan M, Jagannathan N. Oral field cancerization: an update on current concepts. Oncol Rev. 2014; 8(1): 244. 19. Angadi P V., Savitha JK, Rao SS, Sivaranjini Y. Oral field cancerization: current evidence and future perspectives. Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012; 16(2): 171–80. 20. Ha PK, Califano JA. The molecular biology of mucosal field cancerization of the head and neck. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med. 2003; 14(5): 363–9. 21. Curtius K, Wright NA, Graham TA. An evolutionary perspective on field cancerization. Nat Rev Cancer. 2018; 18(1): 19–32. 22. Simple M, Suresh A, Das D, Kuriakose MA. Cancer stem cells and field cancerization of Oral squamous cell carcinoma. Oral Oncol. 2015; 51(7): 643–51. 23. Braakhuis BJM, Tabor MP, René Leemans C, van der Waal I, Snow GB, Brakenhoff RH. Second primary tumors and field cancerization in oral and oropharyngeal cancer: Molecular techniques provide new insights and definitions. Head Neck. 2002; 24(2): 198–206. 24. Escher A, Piotet E, Waridel F, Iggo R, Monnier P. p53 mutation in histologically normal mucosa of the aero-digestive tract is not a marker of increased risk for second primary carcinoma in head and neck cancer patients. Eur Arch Oto-Rhino-Laryngology. 2009; 266(4): 547–51. 25. Gabusi A, Gissi DB, Montebugnoli L, Asioli S, Tarsitano A, Marchetti C, Balbi T, Helliwell TR, Foschini MP, Morandi L. Prognostic impact of intra-field heterogeneity in oral squamous cell carcinoma. Virchows Arch. 2020; 476(4): 585–95. 26. Bednarczyk K, Gawin M, Chekan M, Kurczyk A, Mrukwa G, Pietrowska M, Polanska J, Widlak P. Discrimination of normal oral mucosa from oral cancer by mass spectrometry imaging of proteins and lipids. J Mol Histol. 2019; 50(1): 1–10. 27. Angadi P V., Patil P V., Kale AD, Hallikerimath S, Babji D. Myofibroblast presence in apparently normal mucosa adjacent to oral squamous cell carcinoma associated with chronic tobacco/areca nut use: evidence for field cancerization. Acta Odontol Scand. 2014; 72(7): 502–8. 28. Amer HW, Waguih HM, El-Rouby DH. Development of field cancerization in the clinically normal oral mucosa of shisha smokers. Int J Dent Hyg. 2019; 17(1): 39–45. 29. Giaretti W, Pentenero M, Gandolfo S, Castagnola P. Chromosomal instability, aneuploidy and routine high-resolution DNA content analysis in oral cancer risk evaluation. Futur Oncol. 2012; 8(10): 1257–71. 30. Pentenero M, Donadini A, Di Nallo E, Maffei M, Marino R, Familiari U, Castagnola P, Gandolfo S, Giaretti W. Field effect in oral precancer as assessed by DNA flow cytometry and array-CGH. J Oral Pathol Med. 2012; 41(2): 119–23. 31. Peralta-Mamani M, Terrero-Pérez Á, Tucunduva RMA, Rubira CMF, Santos PS da S, Honório HM, Rubira-Bullen IRF. Occurrence of field cancer ization in clinically nor mal oral mucosa: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Oral Biol. 2022; 143: 105544. 32. López-Blanc SA, Collet AM, Gandolfo MS, Femopase F, Hernández SL, Tomasi VH, Paparella ML, Itoiz ME. Nucleolar organizer regions (AgNOR) and subepithelial vascularization as field cancerization markers in oral mucosa biopsies of alcoholic and smoking patients. Oral Surgery, Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endodontology. 2009; 108(5): 747–53. 33. Chaves FN, Bezerra TMM, Moraes DC, Costa SF dos S, Silva PGB, Alves APNN, Costa FWG, Bernardes VF, Pereira KMA. Loss of heterozygosity and immunoexpression of PTEN in oral epithelial dysplasia and squamous cell carcinoma. Exp Mol Pathol. 2020; 112: 104341. 34. Nakashima T, Tomita H, Hirata A, Ishida K, Hisamatsu K, Hatano Y, Kanayama T, Niwa A, Noguchi K, Kato K, Miyazaki T, Tanaka T, Shibata T, Hara A. Promotion of cell proliferation by the proto- oncogene DEK enhances oral squamous cell carcinogenesis through field cancerization. Cancer Med. 2017; 6(10): 2424–39. 35. Lopes CB, Magalhães LL, Teófilo CR, Alves APNN, Montenegro RC, Negrini M, Ribeiro-dos-Santos Â. Differential expression of hsa-miR-221, hsa-miR-21, hsa-miR-135b, and hsa-miR-29c suggests a field effect in oral cancer. BMC Cancer. 2018; 18(1): 721. 36. Yang X, Shi L, Zhou Z, Liu W. Podoplanin and ABCG2 expression in oral erythroplakia revisited: Potential evidence for cancer stem cells driving the process of field cancerization. Oral Oncol. 2020; 101: 104368. 37. Padin-Iruegas E, Chamorro-Petronacci CM, Sines-Cajade I, Lorenzo-Pouso AI, Blanco-Carrión A, Pérez-Jardón A, Gándara-Vila P, Pérez-Sayans M. DNA methylation by bisulfite next-generation sequencing for MLH1 and MGMT in oral squamous cell carcinomas and potentially malignant disorders: An integrative analysis towards field cancerization. Medicina (B Aires). 2022; 58(7): 878. 38. Govindaraj PK, Kallarakkal TG, Mohd Zain R, Tilakaratne WM, Lew HL. Expression of Ki-67, Cornulin and ISG15 in non-involved mucosal surgical margins as predictive markers for relapse in oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC). Ha P, editor. PLoS One. 2021; 16(12): e0261575. 39. de Freitas Filho SAJ, Coutinho-Camillo CM, Oliveira KK, Bettim BB, Pinto CAL, Kowalski LP, Oliveira DT. Prognostic implications of ALDH1 and Notch1 in different subtypes of oral cancer. Santhekadur PK, editor. J Oncol. 2021; : 6663720. 40. Feng J, Zhou Z, Shi L, Yang X, Liu W. Cancer stem cell markers ALDH1 and Bmi1 expression in oral erythroplakia revisited: Implication for driving the process of field cancerization. J Oral Pathol Med. 2020; 49(1): 96–9. 41. Ahmed S, Khan S, Qureshi MA, Bukhari U, Anis M, Mughal MN. Expressional variations of Kaiso: an association with pathological characteristics and field cancerization of OSCC. BMC Cancer. 2022; 22(1): 990. 42. Vadla P, Yeluri S, Deepthi G, Guttikonda VR, Taneeru S, Naramala S. Stathmin! An immunohistochemical analysis of the novel marker in oral squamous cell carcinoma and oral leukoplakia. Asian Pacific J Cancer Prev. 2020; 21(11): 3317–23. 43. Qiao B, He B, Cai J, Yang W. The expression profile of Oct4 and Sox2 in the carcinogenesis of oral mucosa. Int J Clin Exp Pathol. 2014; 7(1): 28–37. 44. Feitosa SG, Viana KF, Luna ECM, Costa FWG, Cavalcante RB, Chaves FN, Chaves HV, Pereira KMA. Immunohistochemical evaluation of GLUT-3 and GLUT-4 in oral epithelial dysplasia and oral squamous cell carcinoma. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2018; 19(7): 1779–83. 45. Gonzalez-Moles. Substance P and NK-1R expression in oral precancerous epithelium. Oncol Rep. 2009; 22(6): 1325–31. 46. M ig u e l A F P, E m b a l ó B, A lve s D i a s H B, R ive r o E RC . I m munoh istochem ica l expression of M MP-9, T I MP-1, a nd vimentin and its correlation with inflammatory reaction and clinical parameters in oral epithelial dysplasia. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2021; 29(5): 382–9. 47. Yu T, Tang Q, Chen X, Fan W, Zhou Z, Huang W, Liang F. TGF‐β1 and IL‐17A comediate the protumor phenotype of neutrophils to regulate the epithelial‐mesenchymal transition in oral squamous cell carcinoma. J Oral Pathol Med. 2021; 50(4): 353–61. 48. Tabatabaeifar S, Larsen MJ, Larsen SR, Kruse TA, Thomassen M, Sørensen JA. Investigating a case of possible field cancerization in oral squamous cell carcinoma by the use of next-generation sequencing. Oral Oncol. 2017; 68: 74–80. 49. Pérez-Ruiz E, Gutiérrez V, Muñoz M, Oliver J, Sánchez M, Gálvez- Carvajal L, Rueda-Domínguez A, Barragán I. Liquid biopsy as a tool for the characterisation and early detection of the field cancerization Copyright © 2023 Dental Journal (Majalah Kedokteran Gigi) p-ISSN: 1978-3728; e-ISSN: 2442-9740. Accredited No. 158/E/KPT/2021. Open access under CC-BY-SA license. Available at https://e-journal.unair.ac.id/MKG/index DOI: 10.20473/j.djmkg.v56.i3.p189–196 https://e-journal.unair.ac.id/MKG/index https://doi.org/10.20473/j.djmkg.v56.i3.p189-196 196 Puspasari et al. Dent. J. (Majalah Kedokteran Gigi) 2023 September; 56(3): 189–196 effect in patients with oral cavity carcinoma. Biomedicines. 2021; 9(10): 1478. 50. Gabusi A, Morandi L, Asioli S, Foschini MP. Oral field cancerization: history and future perspectives. Pathologica. 2017; 109(1): 60–5. 51. van Oijen MG, Slootweg PJ. Oral field cancerization: carcinogen- induced independent events or micrometastatic deposits? Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2000; 9(3): 249–56. 52. Nelem-Colturato CB, Cury PM, Pereira TM, Cosso IS, Pivato K, Volpato LER, Borges AH. Sextuple tumors in head and neck area: evidence of field cancerization. Case Rep Pathol. 2018; 2018: 8428395. 53. Fortuna G, Mignogna MD. Oral field cancerization. Can Med Assoc J. 2011; 183(14): 1622–1622. 54. Bansal R, Nayak B, Bhardwaj S, Vanajakshi C, Das P, Somayaji N, Sharma S. Cancer stem cells and field cancerization of head and neck cancer - An update. J Fam Med Prim Care. 2020; 9(7): 3178–82. 55. Pirlog R, Cismaru A, Nutu A, Berindan-Neagoe I. Field cancerization in NSCLC: A new perspective on microRNAs in macrophage polarization. Int J Mol Sci. 2021; 22(2): 746. 56. Liao Z, Tan ZW, Zhu P, Tan NS. Cancer-associated fibroblasts in tumor microenvironment – Accomplices in tumor malignancy. Cell Immunol. 2019; 343: 103729. 57. Liao Z, Chua D, Tan NS. Reactive oxygen species: a volatile driver of field cancerization and metastasis. Mol Cancer. 2019; 18(1): 65. 58. Graham TA, McDonald SA, Wright NA. Field cancerization in the GI tract. Futur Oncol. 2011; 7(8): 981–93. 59. Gadaleta E, Thorn GJ, Ross‐Adams H, Jones LJ, Chelala C. Field cancerization in breast cancer. J Pathol. 2022; 257(4): 561–74. Copyright © 2023 Dental Journal (Majalah Kedokteran Gigi) p-ISSN: 1978-3728; e-ISSN: 2442-9740. Accredited No. 158/E/KPT/2021. Open access under CC-BY-SA license. Available at https://e-journal.unair.ac.id/MKG/index DOI: 10.20473/j.djmkg.v56.i3.p189–196 https://e-journal.unair.ac.id/MKG/index https://doi.org/10.20473/j.djmkg.v56.i3.p189-196