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

265

ICAR SINONASAL TUMORS

TABLE XXIV.D.1 (Continued)

Clinical endpoints

Study

Year LOE Study design Study groups

Conclusion

Amit et al. 1568

1. 5-year OS 38% 2. 5-year DSS 58% 3. 5-year DFS 27% 4. 5-year OS better for nasal cavity primary (43%) versus paranasal sinus (20%) 5. Distant metastasis most common cause of treatment failure 6. Presentation with distant metastasis associated with poor survival 1. 5-year OS survival 28% 2. No difference in OS between endoscopic and open resection 1. No difference in OS between endoscopic and open resection 2. No difference in DFS between endoscopic and open resection Nasal cavity primary tumor with improved survival over paranasal sinus primary 1. No difference in 5-year OS and DFS between endoscopic resection and open 2. Local control improved in endoscopic resection

1. OS 2. DSS 3. DFS

2018 4

Retrospective case series

SNMM patients at a single institution ( n = 198)

Lundberg et al. 274

2018 4

Retrospective case series

SNMM patients at a single institution ( n = 58) SNMM patients at a single institution ( n = 34) SNMM patients at a single institution ( n = 44) SNMM patients at a single institution ( n = 22) SNMM patients in NCDB 2004–2010 ( n = 695) SNMM patients at a single institution ( n = 58)

OS

Caoet al. 267

OS

2017 4

Retrospective case series

Dreno et al. 1583

2017 4

Retrospective case series

OS

Miglani et al. 272

1. OS 2. DFS

2017 4

Retrospective case series

Konuthula et al. 1384

2016 4

Retrospective database study (NCDB) Retrospective case series

OS

5-year OS 22%, mean survival 38.4 ± 1.7months

Lombardi et al. 1504

OS

1. 3-year OS 44% 2. 5-year OS 29% 3. Increased risk of death with positive margins and male sex 4. No difference in OS between endoscopic and open approaches

2016 4

Wonet al. 269

2015 4

Retrospective case series

SNMM patients from 15 hospitals in South Korea ( n = 155)

1. OS 2. Recurrence rate 3. Rateof satellite/skip lesions

1. 3-year OS 49% 2. 5-year OS 40% 3. Increased survival and

decreased local recurrence in those undergoing endoscopic resection versus open 4. RT decreased local recurrence, no impact on survival 5. 26% had skip or satellite lesions (Continues)

open approaches including craniofacial resections and lat eral rhinotomies were the preferred surgical technique. However, the development of endoscopic techniques has introduced an alternative surgical option. Many SNMM

tumors are amenable to purely endoscopic techniques with the ability to achieve a negative margin resection. 1085,1508 Yet, open or combined open/endoscopic approaches may be preferred if there is tumor invasion into the soft tissue of