Nasopharyngectomy: Does the approach to the nasopharynx influence survival?

Abstract

Objective To investigate whether the approach used to the nasopharynx to perform a salvage nasopharyngectomy for recurrent or residual nasopharyngeal carcinoma influences survival. Study Design A retrospective case series. Subjects and Methods Eighty patients underwent a nasopharyngectomy via a transpalatal, maxillary swing, or midfacial degloving approach. Local progression-free, locoregional progression-free, and overall survival rates were calculated for each approach. Results For the whole group (N = 80), there were no significant differences in the survival rates between the three approaches. For the subgroup of patients with recurrent T1 and T2 tumors (n = 68), the local progression-free and locoregional progression-free survival rates were significantly better when a maxillary swing approach was used than when a midfacial degloving approach was used. Conclusion The maxillary swing approach is associated with significantly better survival rates than the midfacial degloving approach when used to perform a salvage nasopharyngectomy for residual or recurrent T1 and T2 nasopharyngeal carcinoma.