4.5 Review

Long-term carcinologic results of advanced esthesioneuroblastoma: a systematic review

Journal

EUROPEAN ARCHIVES OF OTO-RHINO-LARYNGOLOGY
Volume 273, Issue 1, Pages 21-26

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00405-014-3320-z

Keywords

Esthesioneuroblastoma; Meta-analysis; Advanced tumour; Endoscopic resection; Chemotherapy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Surgical resection followed by radiotherapy can be considered like the optimal treatment modality for limited esthesioneuroblastoma. However, therapeutic management of locally advanced tumors remains a challenge. The aim of our study was to access and compare the oncologic results of the different treatment modalities in advanced esthesioneuroblastoma. We performed a systematic review using the Medline, and Cochrane database in accordance with PRISMA criteria and included all the cases of advanced esthesioneuroblastoma published between 2000 and 2013. We also retrospectively included 15 patients with an advanced esthesioneuroblastoma managed at our tertiary care medical center. Long-term survival rates defined as the time from diagnosis or randomization to the date of death or last follow-up were evaluated for each treatment with Kaplan-Meier survival curve analyses. 283 patients have been included. The mean follow-up was 78 months. Five-year highest survival rates were obtained in patients treated by surgery associated with radiotherapy. Ten-year highest survival rates were obtained in patients treated by the association of surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy (p = 0.0008). Within the surgical group, 5-year highest survival rates were obtained in patients treated by endoscopic resection (p = 0.003). Surgical resection combined with radiotherapy offers the gold standard of care. Adjuvant chemotherapy seems to improve the long-term survival in patients with locally advanced esthesioneuroblastoma. Endoscopic resection in advanced tumors should be discussed on a case-by-case basis.

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