4.5 Review

Neck Recurrence and Mortality in Esthesioneuroblastoma: Implications for Management of the N0 Neck

期刊

LARYNGOSCOPE
卷 126, 期 6, 页码 1373-1379

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/lary.25803

关键词

Esthesioneuroblastoma; olfactory neuroblastoma; Kadish; neck recurrence; elective neck treatment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives/Hypothesis: To review the literature on neck recurrence in esthesioneuroblastoma. Study Design: PubMed database. Methods: A PubMed database search was performed using keywords esthesioneuroblastoma, olfactory neuroblastoma, and esthesioneuroblastoma neck metastasis. Articles written in English with greater than 10 subjects that had data regarding the association of neck recurrence and mortality and/or the association of neck recurrence with Kadish stage were included for analysis. Results: Thirteen studies met inclusion criteria with information regarding the association of neck recurrence and mortality, and 15 studies had data associating neck recurrence and Kadish stage. The neck recurrence rate was 14.1% in studies analyzing mortality. Among those patients who developed regional metastases, mortality was 60%. Of patients without regional recurrence, the mortality rate from disease was 26% (P < 0.0001) and overall mortality was 32% (P < 0.0001). The rate of neck recurrence within each Kadish stage was 0%, 11%, 21%, and 18% for Kadish stages A, B, C, and D, respectively. The trend toward an increased incidence of neck recurrence from stage A to stage D is statistically significant, with P value 0.003. Conclusion: The rate of neck recurrence in esthesioneuroblastoma is close to 15%. There is a strong association of recurrence with Kadish stage B and C. Mortality from disease in patients with recurrence in cervical lymph nodes is significant when compared to those who never develop neck disease. Prospective studies are needed to evaluate a potential role for elective neck dissection versus elective neck radiation for patients with esthesioneuroblastoma.

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