Long-term oncological outcomes for endoscopic endonasal versus open surgical approaches for anatomically matched, locally advanced stage T4 sinonasal malignancies with skull base involvement

Abstract

OBJECTIVE Expanded endoscopic approaches (EEAs) are increasingly used for the definitive management of sinonasal malignancies. EEAs, in appropriately selected cases, provide similar oncological outcomes but are associated with lower complication rates compared with open surgical approaches. Selection bias is a limitation reported in previous studies comparing EEAs and open surgical approaches for the management of sinonasal malignancies. To address this issue, in this study the authors compared the long-term oncological outcomes of an anatomically matched cohort of patients with locally advanced sinonasal malignancies with skull base involvement (T4 stage). The specific objective of this study was to investigate the extent of resection (EOR), overall survival (OS), and disease progression between the EEA and open surgical cohorts. METHODS A cohort of 42 patients with locally advanced sinonasal malignancies and skull base involvement (stage T4) and operated on via an EEA was matched anatomically with a cohort of 54 patients who had undergone open surgery. A retrospective chart review was conducted on these 96 patients who were treated between September 1993 and June 2020. All patients in the cohort were eligible for either an EEA or open surgery according to anatomical criteria. Patients of all ages were included, and the minimum follow-up required for eligibility was 4 months. Patients were excluded if surgery was not offered for curative intent and preoperative imaging did not demonstrate that gross-total resection was achievable. RESULTS There were more complications in the conventional surgery cohort than in the EEA cohort (33.33% vs 14.29%, p = 0.033). There was no significant difference in the EOR between the EEA and conventional surgery cohorts, as demonstrated by comparable rates of positive margins in both groups (5.56% vs 2.38%, respectively). Disease progression (hazard ratio [HR] 0.47, 95% CI 0.17–1.27, p = 0.137) was lower and OS (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.26–1.29, p = 0.183) was higher in the EEA cohort, but these findings did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS The EEA was found to be associated with lower risks of complications than conventional craniofacial surgical approaches. There were no significant differences in OS and progression-free survival between the EEA and conventional surgical cohorts when comparing anatomically matched cohorts of patients with stage T4 sinonasal malignancies and skull base involvement.