(1) Objective: To review the criteria proposed by Cerero-Lapiedra et al. and to retrospectively identify the under-diagnosed disease in patients diagnosed with proliferative verrucous leukoplakia. (2) Materials and methods: In this study, we included patients who were diagnosed with leukoplakia (histological label consistent with the clinical diagnosis, n = 95), and cases with a final diagnosis within the spectrum of proliferative verrucous leukoplakia (n = 110) as defined by Batsakis et al. We applied the criteria proposed by Cerero-Lepiedra et al. to screen for the possible cases of proliferative verrucous leukoplakia. (3) Results: Although many of our patients satisfied specific isolated criteria, only 11 cases satisfied specific combinations of the guidelines to satisfy a diagnosis of proliferative verrucous leukoplakia. However, due to the lack of follow-up data, the disease is not confirmed in these 11 cases. (4) Conclusion: A limited number of cases of proliferative verrucous leukoplakia were diagnosed using the criteria given by Cerero-Lapiedra et al. The true natural history of the disease could not be studied due to the lack of follow-up data. (5) Clinical relevance: Proliferative verrucous leukoplakia presenting as hyperkeratosis or mild epithelial dysplasia are often not followed up, and they subsequently transform into carcinoma. Thus, clinicians must be vigilant whenever they encounter leukoplakia, especially with multifocal presentations. In such cases, the follow-up data are the key to understanding the true nature of the disease entity.
Keywords: leukoplakia; oral disease; oral pathology; proliferative verrucous leukoplakia.