4.5 Article

Optimization of long- term outcomes for patients with esthesioneuroblastoma

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/hed.23327

关键词

esthesioneuroblastoma; olfactory; surgical procedures; operative; radiotherapy; survival

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundEsthesioneuroblastoma is a rare cancer of the anterior cranial base that arises in the region of the olfactory rootlets. The purpose of this study was to review the long-term outcomes of patients diagnosed with esthesioneuroblastoma (ENB) treated at a single institution to determine factors associated with improved disease control and survival. MethodsA retrospective review of 70 patients with ENB treated at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center between 1992 and 2007 was undertaken. Survival and recurrence was analyzed and compared using the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank statistics. ResultsSeventy patients were reviewed. The majority (77%) had T3 or T4 disease at presentation, 38% identified as modified Kadish stage C or D. Ninety percent of patients received surgical resection as part of their treatment, and 66% received postoperative radiation or chemoradiation. The median follow-up was 91.4 months (7.6 years). Forty-eight percent of patients developed recurrent disease and the median time to recurrence was 6.9 years. Overall and disease-specific median survival was 10.5 and 11.6 years, respectively. Patients who were treated with surgery alone had a median disease-specific survival of 87.9 months, whereas those who were treated with surgery and postoperative radiation had a median disease-specific survival of 218.5 months (p = .047). ConclusionPatients with ENB can achieve favorable long-term survival, even if disease is locally advanced. Survival is improved considerably when surgical resection is followed by postoperative radiation. However, recurrence rates and mortality remain high, and therefore long-term observation in these patients is warranted. (c) 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Head Neck36: 524-530, 2014

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据