Comparison of outcomes for open versus endoscopic approaches for olfactory neuroblastoma: A systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis

• Published in: Head & neck Vol. 38; no. S1; pp. E2306 - E2316
• Main Authors: Fu, Terence S., Monteiro, Eric, Muhanna, Nidal, Goldstein, David P., de Almeida, John R.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01.04.2016
• Subjects: endoscopic; esthesioneuroblastoma; Esthesioneuroblastoma, Olfactory - surgery; Humans; Nasal Cavity - pathology; Nasal Cavity - surgery; Nasal Surgical Procedures - methods; Nose Neoplasms - surgery; olfactory neuroblastoma; open; outcomes; Retrospective Studies; Watchful Waiting; endoscopic; olfactory neuroblastoma; outcomes; open; esthesioneuroblastoma
• ISSN: 1043-3074; 1097-0347
• DOI: 10.1002/hed.24233

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