Literature DB >> 20026819

Endoscopic resection of sinonasal cancers with and without craniotomy: oncologic results.

Ehab Hanna1, Franco DeMonte, Samer Ibrahim, Dianna Roberts, Nicholas Levine, Michael Kupferman.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the oncologic outcomes of patients with sinonasal cancer treated with endoscopic resection.
DESIGN: Retrospective review.
SETTING: Tertiary care academic cancer center. PATIENTS: All patients with biopsy-proved malignant neoplasm of the sinonasal region who were treated with endoscopic resection between 1992 and 2007 were included in the study, and their charts were reviewed for demographics, histopathologic findings, treatment details, and outcome. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Oncologic outcomes, including disease recurrence and survival.
RESULTS: Of a total of 120 patients, 93 (77.5%) underwent an exclusively endoscopic approach (EEA) and 27 (22.5%) underwent a cranioendoscopic approach (CEA) in which the surgical resection involved the addition of a frontal or subfrontal craniotomy to the transnasal endoscopic approach. Of the 120 patients, 41% presented with previously untreated disease, 46% presented with persistent disease that had been partially resected, and 13% presented with recurrent disease after prior treatment. The most common site of tumor origin was the nasal cavity (52%), followed by the ethmoid sinuses (28%). Approximately 10% of the tumors had an intracranial epicenter, most commonly around the olfactory groove. Tumors extended to or invaded the skull base in 20% and 11% of the patients, respectively. An intracranial epicenter (P < .001) and extension to (P = .001) or invasion of (P < .001) the skull base were significantly more common in patients treated with CEA than in those treated with EEA. The primary T stage was evenly distributed across all patients as follows: T1, 25%; T2, 25%; T3, 22%; and T4, 28%. However, the T-stage distribution was significantly different between the EEA group and the CEA group. Approximately two-thirds (63%) of the patients treated with EEA had a lower (T1-2) disease stage, while 95% of patients treated with CEA had a higher (T3-4) disease stage (P < .001). The most common tumor types were esthesioneuroblastoma (17%), sarcoma (15%), adenocarcinoma (14%), melanoma (14%), and squamous cell carcinoma (13%). Other, less common tumors included adenoid cystic carcinoma (7%), neuroendocrine carcinoma (4%), and sinonasal undifferentiated carcinoma (2%). Microscopically positive margins were reported in 15% of patients. Of the 120 patients, 50% were treated with surgery alone, 37% received postoperative radiation therapy, and 13% were treated with surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy. The overall surgical complication rate was 11% for the whole group. Postoperative cerebrospinal fluid leakage occurred in 4 of 120 patients (3%) and was not significantly different between the CEA group (1 of 27 patients) and the EEA group (3 of 93 patients) (P > .99). The cerebrospinal fluid leak resolved spontaneously in 3 patients, and the fourth patient underwent successful endoscopic repair. With a mean follow-up of 37 months, 18 patients (15%) experienced local recurrence, with a local disease control of 85%. Regional and distant failure occurred as the first sign of disease recurrence in 6% and 5% of patients, respectively. The 5- and 10-year disease-specific survival rates were 87% and 80%, respectively. Disease recurrence and survival did not differ significantly between the EEA group and the CEA group.
CONCLUSIONS: To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest US series to date of patients with malignant tumors of the sinonasal tract treated with endoscopic resection. Our results suggest that, in well-selected patients and with appropriate use of adjuvant therapy, endoscopic resection of sinonasal cancer results in acceptable oncologic outcomes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 20026819     DOI: 10.1001/archoto.2009.173

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg        ISSN: 0886-4470


  55 in total

Review 1.  Mucosal melanoma: pathogenesis, clinical behavior, and management.

Authors:  Michael A Postow; Omid Hamid; Richard D Carvajal
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 5.075

2.  Feasibility of a robotic surgical approach to reconstruct the skull base.

Authors:  Michael E Kupferman; Franco Demonte; Nicholas Levine; Ehab Hanna
Journal:  Skull Base       Date:  2011-03

Review 3.  Chinese Guidelines on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Melanoma (2015 Edition).

Authors:  Jun Guo; Shukui Qin; Jun Liang; Tongyu Lin; Lu Si; Xiaohong Chen; Zhihong Chi; Chuanliang Cui; Nan Du; Yun Fan; Kangsheng Gu; Fang Li; Junling Li; Yongheng Li; Houjie Liang; Jiwei Liu; Man Lu; Aiping Lu; Kejun Nan; Xiaohui Niu; Hongming Pan; Guoxin Ren; Xiubao Ren; Yongqian Shu; Xin Song; Min Tao; Baocheng Wang; Wenbin Wei; Di Wu; Lingying Wu; Aiwen Wu; Xiaolin Xu; Junyi Zhang; Xiaoshi Zhang; Yiping Zhang; Huiyan Zhu
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2015-12

Review 4.  Comprehensive review on rhino-neurosurgery.

Authors:  Werner Hosemann; Henry W S Schroeder
Journal:  GMS Curr Top Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2015-12-22

5.  Impact of Dural Resection on Sinonasal Malignancies with Skull Base Encroachment or Erosion.

Authors:  Hedyeh Ziai; Eugene Yu; Terence Fu; Nidal Muhanna; Eric Monteiro; Allan Vescan; Gelareh Zadeh; Ian J Witterick; David P Goldstein; Fred Gentili; John R de Almeida
Journal:  J Neurol Surg B Skull Base       Date:  2017-12-29

6.  Quality of life following endoscopic resection of skull base tumors.

Authors:  Oren Cavel; Avraham Abergel; Nevo Margalit; Dan M Fliss; Ziv Gil
Journal:  J Neurol Surg B Skull Base       Date:  2012-04

7.  Perioperative outcomes in patients undergoing the transglabellar/subcranial approach to the anterior skull base.

Authors:  Jon-Paul Pepper; P Daniel Ward; Erin M Lin; Stephen E Sullivan; Sarah L Hecht; Lawrence J Marentette
Journal:  Skull Base       Date:  2011-07

8.  Endoscopic surgery for inverted papilloma with carcinoma change of lacrimal drainage apparatus and nasal cavity.

Authors:  Yin-Hung Chang; Tsan-Jen Chiu; Wei-Cherng Hsu
Journal:  Int J Ophthalmol       Date:  2014-06-18       Impact factor: 1.779

9.  Impact of Chemoradiotherapy on CSF Leak Repair after Skull Base Surgery.

Authors:  Marcus V Ortega Alves; Dianna Roberts; Nicholas B Levine; Franco DeMonte; Ehab Y Hanna; Michael E Kupferman
Journal:  J Neurol Surg B Skull Base       Date:  2014-06-04

10.  An Algorithm for Surgical Approach to the Anterior Skull Base.

Authors:  Matthew R Naunheim; Neerav Goyal; Matthew M Dedmon; Kyle J Chambers; Ahmad R Sedaghat; Benjamin S Bleier; Eric H Holbrook; William T Curry; Stacey T Gray; Derrick T Lin
Journal:  J Neurol Surg B Skull Base       Date:  2016-03-18
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.