xRead - Nasal Obstruction (September 2024) Full Articles

20426984, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/alr.23262, Wiley Online Library on [02/01/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

101

ICAR SINONASAL TUMORS

TABLE XII.1 (Continued)

Clinical endpoints 1. Five- and 10-year 2. OS

Study

Year LOE Study design Study groups

Conclusions

Lepera et al. 370

1. No difference in PM between younger and elderly 2. Five- and 10-year OS and DSS of elderly were comparable to younger and poorer when compared with elderly with NM 3. Margins (PM vs. NM) were independent predictive factors for OS, DSS, and RFS 5-year OS rate significantly lower in cases with PM (45%) versus NM (80%)

2018 4

Retrospective case series

Patients who

underwent EEA for SNMandASB malignancies who were either younger ( < 70years) ( n = 397; PM = 42,NM = 355) or elderly ( ≥ 70years) ( n = 206; PM = 26,NM = 180) maxillary sinus carcinoma who underwent open CFRwithPM ( n = 9) versus NM ( n = 26)

3. DSS 4. RFS

Nishio et al. 186

2015 4

Retrospective case series

Patients with locally advanced T4

5-yearOS

ChiuandMa 384

1. Overall false-negative rate for intraoperative frozen sections was 6.5%, both were SNMM 2. False-negative rate for SNMM was 25% versus 0% for all other histological subtypes examined

2013 4

Retrospective case series

SNM with EEA ( n = 31)

Accuracy of

intraoperative frozen sections

Cantu et al. 163

2012 4

Retrospective case series

Patients who

1. LR 2. DSS

PM impacted LR and DSS

underwent open CFR approach for resection of ASBM withPM( n = 95) versusNM( n = 271)

Hoppe et al. 395

MS was not predictive of LPFS, RPFS, DMFS, or OS

1. LPFS 2. RPFS 3. DMFS 4. OS

2007 4

Retrospective case series

Patient with SNM treated with

surgery + RTwith PM( n = 32) versus NM( n = 53)

Qureshi et al. 405

2006 4

Retrospective case series

Patients with non-SCC malignancies of the maxillary sinus treated with curative intent with PM ( n = 15) versus NM ( n = 18)

OS

Survival was not significantly different depending on MS

Suarez et al. 177

OS

Survival was not affected in patients with PM versus NM

2004 4

Retrospective case series

Patients who

underwent CFR for SNM( n = 100)

Bilsky et al. 403

1997 4

Retrospective case series

Patients with ASB

1. DSS 2. LRC

1. Difference in DSS between NM andPM 2. No difference in local control LRC (58%) versus PM (55%)

malignancies with intracranial involvement with PM( n = 12) versus NM( n = 14)

(Continues)