Background
Sinonasal cancers frequently involve the orbit with resulting controversies on whether to remove or preserve the orbital contents.
Methods
Retrospective review of patients with primary sinonasal cancer involving the orbit, treated according to a multidisciplinary protocol tailored to tumor histology and extent of orbital invasion in two tertiary care referral centers over a 20‐year period.
Results
The oncological and functional outcomes of 163 patients were analyzed. The degree of orbital involvement significantly affected both overall (P < .0001) and disease‐free (P < .0001) survival. Orbital apex invasion was an independent negative prognostic factor (5‐year overall survival, 14.6% ± 7.5%), with dismal prognosis regardless of the treatment adopted. An appropriate use of induction chemotherapy and endoscopic‐assisted surgery allowed for orbital preservation in 76.6% of cases; 96% of patients treated using an orbit‐sparing approach maintained a functional eye after treatment.
Conclusion
The multimodal treatment algorithm herein proposed was able to maximize orbital preservation rates with acceptable oncological and functional outcomes.
Purpose: The aim of this study was to assess the potential of pre-treatment cell kinetic parameters to predict outcome in head and neck cancer patients treated by conventional radiotherapy.Materials and methods: Data from 11 different centers were pooled. Inclusion criteria were such that the patients received radiotherapy alone, and that the radiotherapy was given in an overall time of at least 6 weeks with a dose of at least 60 Gy. All patients received a tracer dose of either iododeoxyuridine (IdUrd) or bromodeoxyuridine (BrdUrd) intravenously prior to treatment and a tumor biopsy was taken several hours later. The cell kinetic parameters labeling index (LI), DNA synthesis time (Ts) and potential doubling time (Tpot) were subsequently calculated from¯ow cytometry data, obtained on the biopsies using antibodies against I/BrdUrd incorporated into DNA. Each center carried out their own¯ow cytometry analysis.Results: From the 11 centers, a total of 476 patients conforming to the inclusion criteria were analyzed. Median values for overall time and total dose were 49 days and 69 Gy, respectively. Fifty one percent of patients had local recurrences and 53% patients had died, the majority from their disease. Median follow-up was 20 months; being 30 months for surviving patients. Multivariate analysis revealed that T-stage, maximum tumor diameter, differentiation grade, N-stage, tumor localization and overall time correlated with locoregional control, in decreasing order of signi®cance. For the cell kinetic parameters, univariate analysis showed that only LI was signi®cantly associated with local control (P 0:02), with higher values correlating with a worse outcome. Ts showed some evidence that patients with longer values did worse, but this was not signi®cant (P 0:06). Tpot showed no trend (P 0:8). When assessing survival in a univariate analysis, neither LI nor Tpot associated with outcome (P 0:4, 0.4, respectively). Surprisingly, Ts did correlate with survival, with longer values being worse (P 0:02). In the multivariate analysis of local control, LI lost its signi®cance (P 0:16). Conclusions: The only pretreatment kinetic parameter for which some evidence was found for an association with local control (the best end-point for testing the present hypothesis) was LI, not Tpot, and this evidence disappeared in a multivariate analysis. It therefore appears that pretreatment cell kinetic measurements carried out using¯ow cytometry, only provide a relatively weak predictor of outcome after radiotherapy in head and neck cancer. q
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.