3.9 Article

Clinical Outcomes and Multidisciplinary Patterns of Failure for Olfactory Neuroblastoma: The Ohio State Experience

Journal

JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGICAL SURGERY PART B-SKULL BASE
Volume 81, Issue 3, Pages 287-294

Publisher

THIEME MEDICAL PUBL INC
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1692479

Keywords

olfactory neuroblastoma; radiation therapy; IMRT

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose Olfactory neuroblastoma (ONB) is a rare head and neck cancer believed to be originated from neural crest cells of the olfactory membrane located in the roof of the nasal fossa. This study evaluates clinical outcomes and failure patterns in ONB patients of those patients treated with surgical resection at a high-volume tertiary cancer center. Methods and Materials Thirty-nine ONB patients who underwent surgical resection at our institution from 1996 to 2017 were retrospectively identified. Univariate, multivariate, and survival analysis were calculated using Cox regression analysis and Kaplan-Meier log-rank. Results Median follow-up time was 59 months (range: 5.2-236 months). The median overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) for the entire cohort were 15 and 7.6 years, respectively. The 5-year cumulative OS and DFS were 83 and 72%, respectively. The 5-year OS for low Hyams grade (LHG) versus high Hyams grade (HHG) was 95 versus 61% (p = 0.041). LHG was found in 66% of the early Kadish stage patients compared with 28% in the advanced Kadish stage patients (p = 0.057). On multivariate analysis, HHG and positive node status predicted for worse OS and only HHG predicted for worse DFS. Of note, five patients (all Kadish stage A) who received surgical resection alone had no observed deaths or recurrences with a median follow-up of 44 months (range: 5-235 months). Conclusion In this retrospective cohort, patients with positive nodes or HHG have significantly worse clinical outcomes. Future studies should explore treatment intensification for HHG or positive nodes.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available