Endoscopic Resection of Sinonasal Cancers With and Without Craniotomy: Oncologic Results | Head and Neck Cancer | JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 35.175.212.130. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
1.
Roh  HJBatra  PSCitardi  MJLee  JBolger  WELanza  DC Endoscopic resection of sinonasal malignancies: a preliminary report.  Am J Rhinol 2004;18 (4) 239- 246PubMedGoogle Scholar
2.
Unger  FHaselsberger  KWalch  CStammberger  HPapaefthymiou  G Combined endoscopic surgery and radiosurgery as treatment modality for olfactory neuroblastoma (esthesioneuroblastoma).  Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2005;147 (6) 595- 602PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Castelnuovo  PBignami  MDelù  GBattaglia  PBignardi  MDallan  I Endonasal endoscopic resection and radiotherapy in olfactory neuroblastoma: our experience.  Head Neck 2007;29 (9) 845- 850PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Dave  SPBared  ACasiano  RR Surgical outcomes and safety of transnasal endoscopic resection for anterior skull tumors.  Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2007;136 (6) 920- 927PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Suriano  MDe Vincentiis  MColli  ABenfari  GMascelli  AGallo  A Endoscopic treatment of esthesioneuroblastoma: a minimally invasive approach combined with radiation therapy.  Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2007;136 (1) 104- 107PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Folbe  AHerzallah  IDuvvuri  U  et al.  Endoscopic endonasal resection of esthesioneuroblastoma: a multicenter study.  Am J Rhinol Allergy 2009;23 (1) 91- 94PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Dulguerov  PJacobsen  MSAllal  ASLehmann  WCalcaterra  T Nasal and paranasal sinus carcinoma: are we making progress? a series of 220 patients and a systematic review.  Cancer 2001;92 (12) 3012- 3029PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Ganly  IPatel  SGSingh  B  et al.  Craniofacial resection for malignant paranasal sinus tumors: report of an international collaborative study.  Head Neck 2005;27 (7) 575- 584PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Patel  SGSingh  BPolluri  A  et al.  Craniofacial surgery for malignant skull base tumors: report of an international collaborative study.  Cancer 2003;98 (6) 1179- 1187PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Ganly  IPatel  SGSingh  B  et al.  Complications of craniofacial resection for malignant tumors of the skull base: report of an international collaborative study.  Head Neck 2005;27 (6) 445- 451PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Bristol  IJAhamad  AGarden  AS  et al.  Postoperative radiotherapy for maxillary sinus cancer: long-term outcomes and toxicities of treatment.  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2007;68 (3) 719- 730PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Snyderman  CHCarrau  RLKassam  AB  et al.  Endoscopic skull base surgery: principles of endonasal oncological surgery.  J Surg Oncol 2008;97 (8) 658- 664PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Levine  PA Would Dr. Ogura approve of endoscopic resection of esthesioneuroblastomas? an analysis of endoscopic resection data versus that of craniofacial resection.  Laryngoscope 2009;119 (1) 3- 7PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Nicolai  PBattaglia  PBignami  M  et al.  Endoscopic surgery for malignant tumors of the sinonasal tract and adjacent skull base: a 10-year experience.  Am J Rhinol 2008;22 (3) 308- 316PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Feiz-Erfan  ISuki  DHanna  EDeMonte  F Prognostic significance of transdural invasion of cranial base malignancies in patients undergoing craniofacial resection.  Neurosurgery 2007;61 (6) 1178- 1185PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Snyderman  CHKassam  ABCarrau  RMintz  A Endoscopic reconstruction of cranial base defects following endonasal skull base surgery.  Skull Base 2007;17 (1) 73- 78PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Fortes  FSCarrau  RLSnyderman  CH  et al.  The posterior pedicle inferior turbinate flap: a new vascularized flap for skull base reconstruction.  Laryngoscope 2007;117 (8) 1329- 1332PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Kassam  ABThomas  ACarrau  RL  et al.  Endoscopic reconstruction of the cranial base using a pedicled nasoseptal flap.  Neurosurgery 2008;63 (1) ((suppl 1)) ONS44- ONS53Google ScholarCrossref
Original Article
December 21, 2009

Endoscopic Resection of Sinonasal Cancers With and Without Craniotomy: Oncologic Results

Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Departments of Head and Neck Surgery (Drs Hanna, Ibrahim, Roberts, and Kupferman) and Neurosurgery (Drs DeMonte and Levine), The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston.

Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2009;135(12):1219-1224. doi:10.1001/archoto.2009.173
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.

×