Treatment of esthesioneuroblastoma: A 16-year meta-analysis of 361 patients

Authors

  • Anand K. Devaiah MD,

    Corresponding author
    1. Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.A.
    2. Department of Neurological Surgery, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.A.
    • Boston Medical Center, Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, 820 Harrison Ave., FGH Building, 4th Floor, Boston, MA 02118
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Michael T. Andreoli BA

    1. Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.A.
    Search for more papers by this author

  • Presented at the Triological Society Eastern Section Meeting, Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.A., January 24, 2009.

Abstract

Objectives/Hypothesis:

This study reviews the published outcomes related to surgical (open, endoscopic, and endoscopic-assisted) and nonsurgical treatment for esthesioneuroblastoma.

Study design:

Literature meta-analysis.

Methods:

A meta-analysis of individual patient data for esthesioneuroblastoma publications between 1992 (the earliest identified description of endoscopic resection) and 2008 was conducted. A total of 49 journal articles, comprising 1,170 cases of esthesioneuroblastoma, were included in the study. Criteria for meta-analysis inclusion were five or more patients in a study with sufficient patient data resolution for analysis. Twenty-three studies comprising 361 patients met all inclusion criteria. The overall treatment and outcome at final follow-up of each patient was recorded. Patients were pooled according to treatment techniques and compared to one another using a Kaplan-Meier survival curve and the Mann-Whitney U test to examine differences in follow-up times and publication years.

Results:

Log-rank tests showed a greater published survival rate for endoscopic surgery compared to open surgery (P = .0019), even when stratifying for publication year (P = .0018). There was no significant difference in follow-up time. Review of Kadish tumor staging for each modality showed larger tumors were more often treated with an open approach, but open and endoscopic survival measures were comparable.

Conclusions:

These results suggest that endoscopic surgery is a valid treatment method with comparable survival to open surgery. Further prospective analysis will be beneficial. Laryngoscope, 2009

Ancillary