Comparison of outcomes for open versus endoscopic approaches for olfactory neuroblastoma: A systematic review and individual participant data meta‐analysis. (30th October 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Fu, Terence S.; Monteiro, Eric; Muhanna, Nidal; Goldstein, David P.; de Almeida, John R.
• Other Names: Kraus Dennis sponsoringEditor.
• Is Part Of: Head & neck. Volume 38(2016)Supplement 1
• Page Start: E2306
• Page End: E2316
• Publication Date: 2015-10-30
• Subjects: olfactory neuroblastoma -- esthesioneuroblastoma -- endoscopic -- open -- outcomes; Head -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Neck -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Head -- Periodicals; Neck -- Periodicals; Face -- Periodicals; 617.51059
• DOI: 10.1002/hed.24233
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1043-3074

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Endoscopic approaches have been adopted as an alternative to craniofacial resection in the surgical management of olfactory neuroblastoma. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta‐analysis using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, and CINAHL (2000–2014) to compare outcomes for open versus endoscopic approaches. Results: Thirty‐six studies containing 609 patients were included. Meta‐analysis of (a) all patients, (b) Kadish C/D only, and (c) Hyams III/IV only, failed to show a difference in locoregional control and metastasis‐free survival between approaches. However, endoscopic approaches were associated with improved overall survival (OS) for all 3 groups ( p = .001, .04, and .001, respectively), and higher disease‐specific survival (DSS) for all patients ( p = .004) and Hyams III/IV only ( p = .002). Conclusion: The current study suggests that endoscopic approaches have comparable control rates to open approaches for olfactory neuroblastoma. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Head Neck 38 : E2306–E2316, 2016