4.7 Article

ESTHESIONEUROBLASTOMA: IS THERE A NEED FOR ELECTIVE NECK TREATMENT?

Journal

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2011.03.036

Keywords

Esthesioneuroblastoma; Olfactory neuroblastoma; Craniofacial resection; Subcranial resection; Elective neck irradiation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To assess the risk of cervical lymph node metastases after definitive treatment for esthesioneuroblastoma (ENB) that did not include elective neck therapy. Methods and Materials: This was a retrospective analysis of 26 ENB patients treated at the University of Michigan between 1995 and 2007. Tumor stage was Kadish A in 1 patient, B in 19, C in 5, and unknown in 1. Craniofacial or subcranial resection was performed in 24 patients (92%), with negative margins in 22 (92%). Postoperative radiotherapy (RT) to the primary site was given in 12 patients (46%), and 14 patients (54%) had surgery alone. All patients had clinically N0 disease, and no patient underwent elective neck dissection or radiation. Median follow-up was 72 months. Results: Local relapse-free survival was significantly better for patients who received postoperative RT compared with those who had surgery alone: 100% vs. 29% at 5 years, respectively (p = 0.005). Five-year disease-free survival was 87.5% in the RT group vs. 31% in the surgery-alone group (p = 0.05). Regional failure was observed in 7 patients (27%), 6 with Kadish Stage B and 1 with Stage C disease. The most common site of nodal failure was Level II, and 3 patients failed in the contralateral neck. Only 3 patients with regional failure were successfully salvaged. Conclusion: The high rate of regional failures when the neck is not electively treated justifies elective nodal RT in patients with both Kadish Stages B and C. In addition, our experience confirms the beneficial effect on local control of adjuvant RT to the tumor bed. (C) 2011 Elsevier Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available