4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Esthesioneuroblastoma: The University of Iowa experience 1978-1998

Journal

LARYNGOSCOPE
Volume 111, Issue 3, Pages 488-493

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00005537-200103000-00020

Keywords

esthesioneuroblastoma; outcome analysis; craniofacial resection; radiotherapy; salvage therapy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: Esthesioneuroblastoma is rare and the best treatment has yet to be defined. The purpose of this study is to analyze the natural history, treatment, and patterns of failure of esthesioneuroblastoma treated at one institution. Methods: Between 1978 and 1998, 13 patients with esthesioneuroblastoma were identified using the University of Iowa Tumor Registry. All patients were staged according to Kadish criteria. Mean follow-up was 6.3 years. Six patients had 5 or more years of follow-up and four had follow-up exceeding 9.5 years. One patient was lost to follow-up at 36 months. Results: No patients had Kadish stage A disease, five were stage B, and eight stage C, Overall actuarial 5- and 10-year survival rate was 61% and 24%, respectively. Disease-free survival rate at 5 and 10 years was 56% and 42%, respectively. Seven patients have died, three of intercurrent disease and three of disease progression, one with an unknown disease status. Six patients remain alive, three without evidence of disease and three have experienced a local or regional recurrence. Five patients who were initially controlled developed recurrence, three local only, one locoregional, and one regional and distant. Median time to failure was 96 months. All patients with follow-up exceeding 12 years have experienced either a local or regional recurrence. Survival after salvage therapy in these patients ranged from 3 to 12 years. Conclusion: Esthesioneuroblastoma has a long natural history characterized by frequent local or regional recurrence after conventional treatment. Successful retreatment can lead to prolonged survival.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available