Literature DB >> 23949352

Salvage surgery for recurrent cancers of the oropharynx: comparing TORS with standard open surgical approaches.

Hilliary White1, Samuel Ford, Benjamin Bush, F Christopher Holsinger, Eric Moore, Tamer Ghanem, William Carroll, Eben Rosenthal, Larissa Sweeny, J Scott Magnuson.   

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Surgical salvage may be the only viable treatment option for recurrent tumors of the oropharynx. To our knowledge, there have been no published reports directly comparing the oncologic and functional outcomes of patients with recurrent oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) treated with transoral robotic-assisted surgery (TORS) with those treated with traditional open surgical approaches.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the oncologic and functional outcomes of patients with recurrent oropharyngeal SCC treated with TORS with those treated with traditional open surgical approaches.
DESIGN: Retrospective multi-institutional case-control study; study dates, March 2003 through October 2011.
SETTING: Four tertiary care institutions (University of Alabama at Birmingham; M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota; and Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, Michigan). PARTICIPANTS Sixty-four patients who underwent salvage TORS for recurrent oropharyngeal SCC were matched by TNM stage to 64 patients who underwent open salvage resection. INTERVENTION OR EXPOSURE: Salvage TORS for recurrent SCC of the oropharynx. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: Patient demographics, operative data, functional, and oncologic outcomes were recorded and compared with a similarly TNM-matched patient group that underwent salvage surgical resection by traditional open surgical approaches. RESULTS Patients treated with TORS were found to have a significantly lower incidence of tracheostomy use (n = 14 vs n = 50; P < .001), feeding tube use (n = 23 vs n = 48; P < .001), shorter overall hospital stays (3.8 days vs 8.0 days; P < .001), decreased operative time (111 minutes vs 350 minutes; P < .001), less blood loss (49 mL vs 331 mL; P < .001), and significantly decreased incidence of positive margins (n = 6 vs n = 19; P = .007). The 2-year recurrence-free survival rate was significantly higher in the TORS group than in the open approach group (74% and 43%, respectively) (P = .01). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This study demonstrates that TORS offers an alternative surgical approach to recurrent tumors of the oropharynx with acceptable oncologic outcomes and better functional outcomes than traditional open surgical approaches. This adds to the growing amount of clinical evidence to support the use of TORS in selected patients with recurrent oropharyngeal SCC as a feasible and oncologically sound method of treatment.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23949352     DOI: 10.1001/jamaoto.2013.3866

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg        ISSN: 2168-6181            Impact factor:   6.223


  42 in total

1.  Comparison of fiber delivered CO2 laser and electrocautery in transoral robot assisted tongue base surgery.

Authors:  Murat Karaman; Taylan Gün; Burak Temelkuran; Engin Aynacı; Cem Kaya; Ahmet Mahmut Tekin
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2017-02-11       Impact factor: 2.503

2.  Salvage surgery for head and neck cancer: a plea for better definitions.

Authors:  Alvaro Sanabria; Luiz P Kowalski; Ashok R Shaha; Carl E Silver; Jochen A Werner; Magis Mandapathil; Robert P Takes; Primož Strojan; Alessandra Rinaldo; Alfio Ferlito
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2014-02-15       Impact factor: 2.503

3.  Salvage surgery for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.

Authors:  Magis Mandapathil; Marion Roessler; Jochen A Werner; Carl E Silver; Alessandra Rinaldo; Alfio Ferlito
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2014-04-23       Impact factor: 2.503

4.  Surgical salvage improves overall survival for patients with HPV-positive and HPV-negative recurrent locoregional and distant metastatic oropharyngeal cancer.

Authors:  Theresa Guo; Jesse R Qualliotine; Patrick K Ha; Joseph A Califano; Young Kim; John R Saunders; Ray G Blanco; Gypsyamber D'Souza; Zhe Zhang; Christine H Chung; Ana Kiess; Christine G Gourin; Wayne Koch; Jeremy D Richmon; Nishant Agrawal; David W Eisele; Carole Fakhry
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2015-03-17       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 5.  Current Role of Surgery in the Management of Oropharyngeal Cancer.

Authors:  Meghan T Turner; J Kenneth Byrd; Robert L Ferris
Journal:  J Oncol Pract       Date:  2016-11       Impact factor: 3.840

6.  Robotics in neurosurgery.

Authors:  Veejay Bagga; Dev Bhattacharyya
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2018-05       Impact factor: 1.891

7.  What should we expect from robotic surgery for second primary oropharyngeal cancer?

Authors:  Tuan-Jen Fang; Li-Ang Lee; Bing-Shan Huang; Chien-Yu Lin; Cheng-Lung Hsu; Joseph Tung-Chieh Chang; Tzu-Chen Yen; Chun-Ta Liao; Hui-Chen Chiang
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2017-05-09       Impact factor: 2.503

8.  Classification system for lateral pharyngotomy: systematic study of anatomic exposure in a human cadaver model.

Authors:  Courtney Shires; Aaron Smith; Jenn Lee; John Boughter; Merry Sebelik
Journal:  Surg Radiol Anat       Date:  2017-02-27       Impact factor: 1.246

Review 9.  The Role of Transoral Robotic Surgery in the Management of HPV Negative Oropharyngeal Squamous Cell Carcinoma.

Authors:  Ryan Sload; Natalie Silver; Basit Abjul Jawad; Neil D Gross
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2016-09       Impact factor: 5.075

10.  Survival and Gastrostomy Prevalence in Patients With Oropharyngeal Cancer Treated With Transoral Robotic Surgery vs Chemoradiotherapy.

Authors:  Arun Sharma; Sapna Patel; Fred M Baik; Grant Mathison; Brendan H G Pierce; Samir S Khariwala; Bevan Yueh; Stephen M Schwartz; Eduardo Méndez
Journal:  JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2016-07-01       Impact factor: 6.223

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.