Abstract: Journal of Clinical Dentistry and Oral Care

Abstract:
Actinic keratosis is the predecessor that advances to becoming obtrusive squamous cell carcinoma. It is identified in 97% of squamous cell carcinomas as an underlining disease. Actinic keratosis holds great significance since substantial mortality rates every year occur in the count of undetected Squamous cell carcinoma [1]. Therefore, early detection via screening is crucial at an early state of Actinic keratosis, which is efficiently treatable and less invasive; especially before the lesion progress towards becoming squamous cell carcinoma with a less favorable prognosis. The transformation and the association between these two lesions were spotted in the literature since the 19th century. Picascia and Robinson stated that squamous cell carcinoma of the lip is firmly associated with actinic keratosis, in which they are alike in most epidemiological data [2]. Further, in the late 19th century, Marks raised awareness of the fact that many carcinomas may resemble actinic keratosis [3]. This review addresses screening efficiency and controversies regarding the malignant potential of actinic keratosis. It is well established within the field specialists that actinic keratosis may progress to become invasive squamous cell carcinoma. However, it is still not known which histological subtypes are most susceptible towards transforming into an invasive malignancy. Thus, screening is crucial and potentially a life-saving process. Also, this review addresses the current and the more profound evidence of the link between the evolvement of actinic keratosis and early-stage squamous cell carcinomas. Nevertheless, many have argued regarding the rate of malignant transformation, the efficiency and adequateness of screening, and the cost-effectiveness of early treatment of actinic keratosis. All have raised considerable debate within the field, in addition to recapitulating the similarities between the two lesions and describing the lesions by providing background, recognizing the clinical appearance, effectiveness of screening, manifestations, pathogenesis, and genetics involved to have profound reasoning for the importance of fully understanding the so-called differences between the two lesions.