Few studies have compared the different noninvasive diagnostic methods employed in the ancillary diagnosis of OSCC. Balevi, using a probabilistic statistical model, analyzed the PPV and false positive rate of AF, OralCDx, and TB in three clinical scenarios: total population, adults ( years), and adults affected by visually obvious oral lesions. In this last population (not similar to our study population), the Balevi’s results indicated a false positive rate of 98.68 (TB), 91.48 (AF), and 91.89 (OralCDx), while the PPVs were 1.32 (TB), 8.52 (AF), and 8.11 (OralCDx). The author concluded that TB staining, AF, and OralCDx are not specific enough to distinguish noncancerous lesions from true cancerous lesions in the general population, but they may be beneficial in opportunistic screening programs or in cancer referral clinics when the pretest probability of oral cancer is likely to be .12 Patton et al., in their systematic literature review, found that the sensitivity of TB as a diagnostic adjunct varied from 38 to 98% (median, 85%) and the specificity varied from 9 to 93% (median, 67%). PPV ranged from 33 to 93% (median, 85%) and NPV from 22 to 92% (median, 83%).13 Patton’s review considered only two studies eligible for AF6,14 in which the reported sensitivities of AF as an adjunct to visual examination were 98 and 100%; specificities were 100 and 78%; PPVs were 100 and 66%, and NPVs were 86 and 100%, respectively.