Abstract
Endoscopic endonasal surgery has been demonstrated to be effective in the treatment of selected cases of sinonasal cancers. However, in cases of locally advanced neoplasms, as well as recurrences, the most appropriate approach is still debated. The present review aims to summarize the current state of knowledge on the utility of open approaches to resect sinonasal malignant tumours. Published comparative studies and meta-analyses suggest comparable oncological results with lower morbidity for the endoscopic approaches, but selection biases cannot be excluded. After a critical analysis of the available literature, it can be concluded that endoscopic surgery for selected lesions allows for oncologically safe resections with decreased morbidity. However, when endoscopic endonasal surgery is contraindicated and definitive chemoradiotherapy is not appropriate, craniofacial and transfacial approaches remain the best therapeutic option.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Sinonasal malignancies, in general, are rare tumours with poor prognosis, despite advances in surgical techniques, radiotherapy and systemic therapy. |
The therapeutic modality used should be tailored individually according to tumour stage, histology, previous treatments and patient conditions as well as the multidisciplinary team preferences. |
Surgery is the mainstay of treatment both in management of the primary tumour and recurrences. Currently, whenever possible, endoscopic approaches should be used in order to minimize the surgical morbidity for the patients. |
There appears to be no difference in risk of unfavourable outcomes with endoscopic compared to open approaches in appropriately selected patients. |
When endoscopic endonasal surgery is contraindicated and conservative chemoradiotherapy is not appropriate, craniofacial and transfacial approaches still represent an option to consider, despite the non-negligible morbidity. Traditional open surgical approaches have become less destructive, with surgeons disguising the incisions. |
Introduction
The sinonasal cavities represent an anatomical region affected by a variety of tumours with clinical, aetiological, pathological, and genetic features distinct from tumours at other sites of the upper aerodigestive tract [1]. Neither smoking nor alcohol nor human papilloma virus (HPV) is definitively associated with sinonasal cancers [2]. As a result of their insidious symptoms in the early stages, patients are frequently diagnosed with locally advanced disease.
Based on evidence from a number of retrospective studies, it is commonly accepted that a complete surgical resection, when feasible, often combined with adjuvant therapies [radiotherapy (RT) with or without chemotherapy (ChT)], is the mainstay of treatment of sinonasal malignant tumours (SNMT). The therapeutic modality should be tailored according to tumour stage, histology, previous treatments, patient comorbidities as well as the multidisciplinary team preferences [3, 4]. Numerous improvements in modern imaging have made diagnosis and surgical planning more accurate but imaging can also be misleading. Also, contemporary technical advances in surgical tools, including high-resolution endoscopes, powered instrumentation and neuronavigation, facilitate more extensive and safer tumour resections with reduced risk of neurovascular injuries [5]. However, as a result of close proximity to critical neurovascular structures, variable sinonasal anatomy, challenging reconstruction of the skull base and cosmesis surgical challenges still abound [1, 6].
Once multidisciplinary teams have decided on surgical resection, the choice of open versus endoscopic procedure should be based on the extent of the tumour as well as the patient’s general condition. Consensus on contraindications to an exclusive endoscopic approach includes extensive brain or orbital invasion, infiltration of the superficial tissues (skin, nasal bones, and subcutaneous tissue), hard or soft palate invasion, extensive involvement of the frontal sinus, extensive erosion of the anterior, inferior, or lateral bony walls of the maxillary sinus, extensive involvement of the lacrimal duct, and significant extension to the infratemporal fossa, masticatory, and parapharyngeal spaces [7]. It should be noted that a hybrid, combined cranioendoscopic approach may be beneficial in improving surgical resection for selected complex lesions as well as multiportal approaches [8].
Though surgery is generally still the workhorse of the therapeutic armamentarium, histology-driven protocols are now recognized as state-of-the-art for management, which has contributed to the reduction in surgical resection as an upfront treatment strategy, particularly in the case of poorly differentiated neoplasms [9]. On the other hand, the growing experience acquired in endonasal endoscopic surgery has led to its widespread use in the surgical treatment of selected SNMT and the concept of tumour "oriented disassembling” has definitively demonstrated its validity in terms of oncological safety with results comparable to those of en bloc resection [10,11,12,13,14]. However, in interpreting published reports, one needs to be cognizant of the fact that there is significant selection bias in selecting a particular surgical approach. Thus, comparison of various surgical approaches with outcomes would be inappropriate. Further, traditional open surgical approaches, such as maxillectomy, with the standard Weber Fergusson incision, have become less deforming, with surgeons modifying the standard incision respecting the nasal subunits or avoiding the incisions altogether by using facial-degloving approaches, when feasible for selected patients and minimizing morbidity with regional or free flap reconstruction [15, 16].
There is no high-level clinical evidence to guide decision-making and only a few studies have compared open versus endoscopic resections using historical records. Published studies have mostly been single-institution, retrospective studies hampered by limited sample sizes [17,18,19,20]. Indirect comparisons lead to the possibility of selection bias in establishing the indication for the type of approach. Tumours of small volume which are accessible without involving critical structures are usually selected for endonasal endoscopic surgery. It is plausible that the improved outcomes seen with endoscopic surgery are a result of this selection bias. The study by Fu et al. [21] illustrates the consequences of heterogeneity in the management of SNMT. As a result of imbalance in the numbers of various groups, their cohort was largely biased toward an open approach (greater than 80%). In addition, the histological diversity of SNMT, which implies different tumours with different biological behaviour, makes comparisons tenuous [22,23,24]. The purpose of this comprehensive literature review is to present the most current evidence on indications and contraindications for traditional open surgery. This article is based on previously conducted studies and does not involve any new studies of human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.
Surgical Trends
The use of endoscopic techniques is rising, and consequently the utility of open techniques has fallen. Husain et al. [25], in 2019, using the National Cancer Database (NCDB), identified trends and outcomes associated with surgical management of SNMT. They reported that from a total of 10,193 patients with SNMT treated between 2010 and 2015, about 71.9% of patients had an open approach (most of them with T3–T4 tumours) and 28.1% had a purely endoscopic procedure (most of them with T1–T2 tumours). This study included patients treated between 2010 and 2015, so the figures may well be different today. Hence, in a more recent meta-analysis carried out by Lu et al. in 2019 [24], the differences between the percentages of use of both approaches are smaller. They included 900 patients in total where endoscopic and open resections were utilized in 399 (44%) and 501 (56%) cases, respectively. In another systematic review and meta-analysis, Jiang et al. [23] found that out of a sample of 1373 patients, 47.6% were operated on endoscopically (mainly early-stage tumours) and 52.4% by an open approach (mainly advanced-stage tumours). These data seem to confirm the trend towards a more frequent use of endoscopic surgery mostly in early-stage tumours. Nonetheless, open craniofacial or transfacial procedures still find indications in cases of advanced-stage disease. Table 1 shows indications and contraindications of surgical approaches according to the anatomical sites involved. These indications may not be accepted by all head and neck surgeons, as personal experience may affect these general recommendations. In addition, the anatomical characteristics of each patient may influence the type of approach indicated.
Endoscopic Approaches
The development of new endoscopic techniques, as well as the availability of specific instrumentation for the management of challenging regions such as the frontal [26], maxillary sinus [27, 28] and infratemporal fossa [29], and the increase in surgical expertise and skills have progressively reduced the need for external approaches to achieve radical SNMT resection, even for locally advanced cancers. The description of endoscopic approaches and their indications is beyond of the scope of this manuscript.
Indications for Open Approaches
Infiltration of the dura over the orbital roof or infiltration of the brain parenchyma is usually considered a contraindication to the purely endoscopic approach as craniotomy could provide better control of surgical margins [30]. However, limited dural infiltration has been resected using purely endoscopic techniques, but this needs to be undertaken with caution [31]. This paper underlines that invasion of the dura is a more important factor to be considered than limited brain invasion, as achieving free margins in the dura mater is even more challenging and a frequent site of local failure. This exclusive endoscopic approach was associated with limited morbidity, with few minor complications and no major postoperative problems. However, even Mattavelli et al.’s paper recommended an open approach in case of tumour invasion largely exceeding the rectus gyrus, the medial orbital gyrus, or invading into the sagittal sinus [31].
Infiltration of the orbital contents is a poor prognostic factor in terms of local control and survival [32]. Diagnosis can be challenging, and extrinsic compression can be difficult to distinguish from true invasion of orbital contents despite imaging techniques [32, 33]. In a study of 82 patients by Patel et al. [34], the positive predictive value (PPV) of computed tomography (CT) scanning for periorbital involvement from an experienced institution was only 33%, and the negative predictive value (NPV) was only 63%. The European Position Paper on Endoscopic Management of Tumours of Nose, Paranasal Sinus and Skull Base [11] noted that while MRI can correctly predict the presence of perineural spread with 95% sensitivity, it can only map the entire extent of spread in around 60% of cases. Orbit management has been discussed by several authors and various classifications have been proposed to establish performance criteria [32, 35,36,37,38,39]. When necessary, surgical removal of the orbital contents can be performed. Orbital exenteration involves removal of the entire contents of the orbit and eyelids whereas the term orbital clearance is used when the eyelids and palpebral conjunctiva are preserved. With respect to orbital invasion, the surgical indications have evolved considerably over time. Initially, invasion of the orbital periosteum was an indication for orbital exenteration. However, since oncological outcomes were similar in cases where the orbit was preserved, indications for orbital exenteration became more limited [37, 40, 41]. Some authors argue that orbital preservation is oncologically safe even in case of periorbital and extraconal fat invasion [42], while others argue that orbital exenteration may improve oncological outcomes of these conditions, considering that postoperative RT does not improve the results of radical surgery while increasing the risk of a post-treatment non-functional eye [43]. Invasion of the extrinsic eye muscles, the orbital apex or the globe seems to be a clear indication for orbital exenteration [39]. However, the lack of precision about the degree of orbital invasion on imaging often does not always allow a consensus for preoperative counselling so frozen sections remain essential for the most accurate intraoperative decision-making process. However, the limitations of intraoperative biopsy must be also considered, as there are contents in the orbit that cannot be sampled without causing damage. Intraoperative assessment of periorbital invasion was only slightly better than imaging, with a PPV of 34% and NPV of 70% [34]. Tumour histology will also influence the decision to undertake orbital exenteration depending on whether the disease is otherwise resectable and patient curable. Castelnuovo et al. [39] have proposed an algorithm which stratifies by grade of orbital invasion, grade of tumour and, in the case of high-grade tumours, the likely response to ChT.
Induction ChT (mostly combinations of taxanes and platinum) has been considered an option for orbital preservation since the pioneering publication by Hanna et al. [44]. They reported a series of 46 patients with advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the paranasal sinuses that underwent induction ChT followed by surgery and RT or chemoradiotherapy (ChRT) or definitive RT/ChRT. The overall response rate to induction ChT was 67%, and the 2-year overall survival (OS) was 67%. Conservative surgery with orbital preservation was possible in 87% of the patients. These results are superior to some historical series that analysed the combination of surgery and postoperative RT [6, 45, 46].
Finally, although an endoscopic endonasal approach may be a feasible surgical option for the management of selected recurrent SNMT [47], external approaches are the preferred salvage treatment for local recurrences after previous surgery, because local failures often occur in sites no longer manageable with minimally invasive techniques (e.g. orbital content, maxillary sinus floor, critical areas of the skull base). The need to reconstruct with a microvascularised free flap is also an indication for an external approach, especially in case of previous ChRT [15].
Based on all these considerations, a proposed surgical treatment algorithm according to anatomical location is shown in Fig. 1.
Surgical Strategy According to Histology
One of the determining criteria in the election of surgical strategy is the histology of the tumour, given the differential biological behaviour of the diverse SNMT and their different sites of origin. Although not always possible, histological confirmation of the lesion should be carried out prior to selecting a particular therapeutic approach. It is important to properly diagnose newer variants of SNMT that have aggressive biological behaviour with poor prognosis [48].
Squamous cell carcinomas are aggressive tumours usually originating from the nasal fossa or maxillary sinuses [49]. They are aggressive lesions with a tendency to local invasion and perineural spread, so open approaches are usually necessary. Involvement of the sinus walls, infratemporal fossa, masticatory and/or parapharyngeal spaces extension or to the orbit justify the use of open approaches, at least in combination with an initial endonasal delineation of the nasal neoplastic component. Achieving free margins is essential and confirmation of negative histologic margins should be confirmed by frozen section regardless of surgical approach. Endoscopic surgery is still useful in specific cases with limited extension [49,50,51,52].
Adenocarcinomas usually originate in the roof of the ethmoid. The mainstay of treatment is surgery with negative margins. In case of poor prognostic features, adjuvant RT may be indicated [53], although the role of RT is much debated. Nicolai et al. [54] could not show benefit for RT after endoscopic surgery whereas Camp et al. [55] did, both looking at reasonable size cohorts with good long-term follow-up. Craniofacial resection (uni- or bilateral) is the standard surgery and can be undertaken by an endoscopic, open, or combined approach [19, 56, 57]. Endoscopic surgical excision has been shown to have comparable oncological results to external approaches with less morbidity [19]. However, external or combined approaches are still indicated on certain occasions. Extensive invasion of the orbit, dura mater, brain, lacrimal system of the nasal bones or soft tissues of the face are still indications for the open approach to be discussed on an individual basis.
Adenoid cystic carcinomas originate in minor salivary glands and are common in the maxillary sinus. Their main characteristic is a tendency for perineural invasion, with frequent extension to the skull base. They are tumours with a poor prognosis despite their slow progression [58]. Both open and endoscopic routes appear to be useful for the treatment of these tumours but endoscopic approach with adjuvant RT offers similar survival with less morbidity to that reported by other studies (including open surgery) [59,60,61,62].
Olfactory neuroblastoma or esthesioneuroblastoma develops in the olfactory cleft. Treatment is multimodal, including surgery in combination with postoperative RT [63,64,65,66,67]. For high-grade olfactory neuroblastoma (Hyams 3–4), induction ChT could be considered, followed by ChRT in case of good response [68]. Uni- or bilateral craniofacial resection is the technique of choice. Endoscopic surgery can achieve similar or even better oncological results than open surgery [20, 66, 69]. Endoscopic approaches were also associated with fewer complications than open approaches [21]. Invasion of the maxillary infrastructure and facial structures, the orbital floor lateral to the infraorbital nerve, the intraconal orbital compartment, invasion of the dura mater laterally to the medial plane of the orbit or extensive brain invasion would condition a purely endoscopic approach [70]. An external approach can then be combined to complete such extended resections. Minimal invasion of the frontal lobe does not appear to be a poor prognostic factor for these patients, and endoscopic resection combined with RT could be an effective therapeutic method [71].
Mucosal melanomas are one of the SNMTs with the worst prognosis [72]. They originate most frequently from the lateral nasal wall, followed by the septum and maxillary sinus [72]. Melanomas should be surgically removed whenever possible. RT, or less frequently adjuvant ChT or immunotherapy, may be indicated [73,74,75,76]. Endoscopic surgery has been associated with similar oncologic outcomes compared to more invasive surgery [77,78,79]. Some studies have found better survival and improved local control in patients treated endoscopically compared to those managed by open craniofacial surgery [80, 81], but these results remain controversial and may reflect a selection bias or may be related to the lower morbidity associated with this surgery. Resection with clear margins does not provide a survival benefit in these tumours [75] and, therefore, potentially aggressive procedures such as orbital exenteration, amputation of the nasal pyramid, or maxillectomy should be limited [73]. These indications must therefore be discussed individually, according to the presentation of the tumour and the patient’s wishes. Endoscopic procedures, which are associated with less morbidity, can be proposed if they allow complete macroscopic removal [79]. Regardless of surgical approach, these patients remain at high risk for local and distant failure.
Sinonasal undifferentiated (SNUC) and neuroendocrine carcinomas (SNEC) are aggressive malignancies usually diagnosed at a locally advanced stage [82,83,84,85]. Surgery alone for resectable well-differentiated SNEC, surgery followed by RT for moderately differentiated tumours, and induction ChT followed by local therapy (surgery or consolidative RT/ChT) for poorly differentiated SNEC may be a reasonable treatment strategy. SNUC are likely best managed by induction ChT with subsequent definitive therapy (surgery versus ChRT) according to initial response. Within the multimodal management necessary for the treatment of these tumours, endoscopic surgery, when deemed feasible, gives good oncological results and with less morbidity [82,83,84,85,86].
Soft tissue sarcomas are rare tumours frequently arising in the maxillary sinus. Tumour resection with wide margins, recommended in other anatomical locations, is frequently not achievable because of the anatomical proximity of the brain and the orbit but it should always be performed when feasible [87]. The recommended wide resection is hardly ever achieved with an endoscopic approach [88].
Which Open Approaches Are Currently Available?
There are multiple open approaches, and their description is beyond the scope of this review. Nowadays, as a result of the implementation of endoscopic surgery and the technical refinements developed, open approaches can be reduced to two main surgical routes, with some technical variations. The modifications introduced in these approaches are aimed at reducing morbidity and improving cosmesis.
Transfacial Approaches
These surgical procedures expose the bony structure of the midface. They can be used to resect tumours in all sinonasal regions even with a limited extension to the skull base. There are two main types of transfacial surgery: the lateral rhinotomy approach with its variations, and the sublabial approach. They can be combined with a coronal incision for a more extended craniofacial approach or an infratemporal fossa approach. Their indications have significantly decreased in favour of less invasive endoscopic resections.
Lateral rhinotomy [89] primarily provides access to the maxilla, ethmoid, sphenoid, and may also provide access to the frontal sinus and anterior skull base when combined with other incisions. By performing various osteotomies, it is possible to expose the ventral skull base, the infratemporal fossa and to control the internal carotid artery [90]. Lip-splitting incision, which does not seem to be of great advantage, should be avoided whenever possible to avoid cosmetic sequelae.
In the sublabial approach, an incision is made at the level of the mucosa of the upper vestibule, directly to the bone, elevating the facial soft tissues and exposing the midfacial bony skeleton. Access is limited, especially to the upper facial territory, but the main advantage is the avoidance of skin incisions. The sublabial approaches are essentially the Rouge-Denker and degloving approaches. In the Rouge-Denker approach, the lateral border of the piriform aperture and the lateral nasal wall are resected to gain extended access to the maxillary sinus and ethmoid. The midfacial degloving approach [91] allows the anterior aspect of one or both maxillary sinuses to be exposed from one maxillary tuberosity to the other. Through various osteotomies, the ethmoid, sphenoid, and maxillary sinuses can be approached. A disadvantage of this approach is the relatively poor access to the skull base behind the tumour.
Craniofacial Resection
When SNMT extend to the skull base, with or without intracranial invasion, a combined transfacial and coronal approach allows access to the sinonasal part of the tumour and its intracranial component, as well as orbital resection if necessary [92,93,94]. Craniofacial resection is contraindicated when there is bilateral involvement of the orbital apex, invasion of the optic chiasm, the sella turcica and cavernous sinus or extensive disease in the floor of the anterior fossa or brain, as in these cases the prognosis is extremely poor and non-surgical (palliative) treatment remains the rule rather than the exception [95].
Through a lateral rhinotomy approach, the portion of the tumour involving the nose and paranasal sinuses is resected and the cribriform plate is exposed from below. Subsequently, a frontal craniotomy is performed through a coronal incision, the frontal lobe is retracted, and the floor of the anterior cranial fossa is exposed up to the dorsum of the sella turcica. Transfrontal craniotomy may include resection of the anterior and posterior frontal walls, or a frontal osteoplastic flap may be performed, which decreases the risk of osteomyelitis [90]. To avoid frontal cerebral lobe retraction, a subcranial approach can be used. In this type of approach, the inferior transfrontal osteotomy is performed by including the nasal bones in continuity with the superior orbital rims. This allows access to the base of the skull in the same plane. Although scarring on the face due to the transfacial incision is not prominent, it can be avoided in cases of tumours with moderate intranasal progression by using a midfacial degloving approach instead of lateral rhinotomy or by resection using the intracranial route, through a subfrontal transcranial approach, with or without the aid of an endoscope [10].
After the craniotomy is performed, the frontal lobes are retracted, allowing exposure of the frontal sinus, the floor of the anterior cranial fossa, the roof of both orbits and the sphenoid planum. This manoeuvre allows exposure of the intracranial tumour component and, depending on the degree of dural invasion, dissection is performed extradurally or intradurally, removing the dura mater and, possibly, the invaded brain tissue. The dura must be reconstructed to achieve an airtight seal and avoid cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak.
All these different approaches can be extended to other regions depending on the specific tumour extensions. They can be enlarged to involve the orbit and even to allow its exenteration [30], or to complete an anterolateral approach to the skull base [96].
Complications of Open Approaches
Open craniofacial surgery is definitively a major head and neck procedure and thus carries potential for considerable postoperative morbidity and mortality. This type of surgery is in fact associated with significant rates of complications [45, 97], ranging between 12% and 47%, with an average mortality of 4% as demonstrated by the systematic review of König et al. [98]. The morbidity associated with open resections and the extent of cranial base defects may also delay adjuvant treatments. These aspects have been receiving growing attention in the last decades and reduced morbidity has been advocated as one of the main advantages of endoscopic resection over external procedures [18]. Meccariello et al. [19] observed that endoscopic and endoscopic-assisted surgery had low rates of major complications (6.6% and 25.9%, respectively) compared to open approaches alone (36.4%; p < 0.01). Abdelmeguid et al. [13] reported a complication rate of 29% for endoscopic resections, mainly minor (seroma, sinusitis, etc.) and Lund et al. [99] reported resolvable complications in 11%. However, the different studies directly comparing the complication rates between open and endoscopic approaches did not find any significant difference [20, 100]. Lu et al. [24] observed that, although a reduction in complications has been associated with endoscopic resections, no statistical difference was observed when the comparative studies were pooled overall (with incidences of 18% and 24% in endoscopic and open approaches, respectively). However, it appears evident that endoscopic approach is associated with a significantly shorter hospital stay than open surgery, with average lengths of stay of 3–6 days vs. 6–12 days for open surgery [20, 21, 48, 99,100,101]. This reduction in hospital stay should be associated with a reduction in costs, but this has yet to be shown with statistical significance, particularly when considering the high costs of state-of-the-art technologies routinely needed for modern endoscopic approaches [13, 102]. The endoscopic approach was also associated with a better postoperative quality of life compared to patients operated on with traditional open techniques [103,104,105,106].
In a pivotal study, among 1193 patients who underwent a craniofacial resection, Ganly et al. [45] reported a postoperative mortality rate of 5% and a morbidity rate of 36.3%. The main complications were postoperative CSF leak, pneumocephalus, intracranial infectious and haemorrhagic complications, and frontal lobe syndrome due to frontal lobe retraction. Further ophthalmological complications were observed. Osteoradionecrosis of the frontal flap has also been described after RT. Main factors associated with the development of complications were the presence of medical comorbidities, previous RT, dural and/or brain tumour invasion. It is important to note that the complication rate in open surgery may also increase if free flap reconstruction is required [15]. These data highlight that expanding the surgical field can increase the chances to obtain radical removal of tumours not amenable to endoscopic endonasal resection, but this comes at a cost of increased risk of mortality and morbidity, which should always be discussed preoperatively with the patient, and balanced considering his/her performance status, comorbidities, and expected residual quality of life.
Some authors highlight the specific incidence of CSF leak in the endoscopic vs. open approach [20, 21]. While this represented an issue a few years ago, there have been important technical advances in the reconstruction of skull base defects and, as a consequence, postoperative CSF leak rates have significantly dropped [107]. The use of multilayer techniques with pedicled mucosal flaps and “minimally invasive” pericranial flaps [108] to close the endoscopic dural defects has greatly contributed to the observed decreases of the CSF leak rate, which now come close to those observed after open approaches [109, 110]. This underlines that the ability to perform an adequate reconstruction of the skull base is critical in the indication for endoscopic resection.
Comparing Outcomes of Open and Endoscopic Approaches Revisited
The current data are insufficient to draw robust conclusions regarding any potential differences in OS between various resection approaches for SNMT. However, the available evidence suggests at least equivalent survival outcomes between open and endoscopic approaches for patients with similar early-stage tumours. Five-year OS and disease-specific survival (DSS) rates from the largest series reporting on craniofacial resection, which analysed a total of 1307 patients in 2003, were 53.6% and 59.9% for open and endoscopic approaches, respectively [111]. A recent review of patients treated by open craniofacial or transfacial surgery shows similar outcomes, reporting 5-year OS ranging from 46% to 72% (median 54%) and 5-year DSS rates from 46% to 78% (median 60%). These same authors carried out a meta-analysis in which they analysed 2603 patients and the results confirmed a trend with the 5-year OS rate ranging from 46% to 72% (median 54%) and the 5-year DSS rates ranged from 46% to 78% (median 60%) [98]. All these data corroborate the appropriateness of the modern open approaches, but also emphasize that there is still space for improvement of outcomes, considering that only small advancements in survival rates have been observed in the last decades when considering advanced-stage SNMT. These results are in accordance with those observed in meta-analyses of endoscopic approaches. Rawal et al. [112], for example, demonstrated that optimal survival outcomes could also be achieved with an endoscopic approach. A 5-year OS rate of 72.3% was observed, which is comparable and even greater than that from open craniofacial resections. However, one must bear in mind that these are selected patients suitable for endoscopic resection with limited extent or early-stage disease.
Some authors have conducted studies comparing open and endoscopic approaches [19, 22, 24, 48, 101, 113,114,115]. Higgins et al. [22] conducted a systematic review with a pooled-data analysis to compare outcomes of endoscopic vs. craniofacial resection of SNMT. The 5-year OS was 87.4% (SE ± 5.3) in the endoscopic group vs. 76.8% (SE ± 8.3) for open approaches (p = 0.351); DSS was 94.7% (SE ± 3.7) vs. 87.7% (SE ± 6.7; p = 0.258); and locoregional control rate was 89.5% (SE ± 5.0) vs. 77.2% (SE ± 10.4; p = 0.251). One of the weaknesses of this study is that the number of papers involving endoscopic resection of high-grade tumours remains only moderate. Therefore, the authors concluded that although endoscopic resection is a reasonable alternative to open approaches in the management of early-stage SNMT, open surgery remains an alternative to achieve complete resection in high-grade tumours. Lu et al. [24] conducted a meta-analysis based on comparative studies only to critically evaluate endoscopic vs. open approaches, and to identify and compare clinical outcomes between both approaches in the treatment of SNMT. The results showed that, with respect to various surgical outcomes and recurrence rate, the current literature does not indicate either endoscopic or open approaches as statistically superior. Therefore, until a more sound validation of these associations can be proven, according to these authors, expectations that endoscopic resection for SNMT confers superior surgical outcomes compared to open approaches should be tempered. Meccariello et al. [19] performed a pooled analysis of 1826 patients comparing endoscopic vs. open approach for the management of sinonasal adenocarcinoma. They observed that the incidence of local failure was lower in the endoscopic surgery group as compared with open approach patients (17.8% vs. 38.5%; p < 0.01, respectively). However, worse survival was observed in advanced stage tumours with an open approach, which likely represents a selection bias in favour of endoscopic approaches. To control the possible influence of confounding factors, Farquhar et al. [101] utilized a propensity score matching approach to account for disease stage, locoregional spread, and presenting comorbidities, and found that OS outcomes were comparable between both approaches. This highlighted the high likelihood that variations in the reported OS were confounded by those parameters Farquhar et al. accounted for, confirming the decision not to pool the OS data in the case studies. Povolotskiy et al.’s study [115], which included 1595 patients with non-squamous sinonasal carcinomas, found an OS of 65.2% in patients treated by endoscopic surgery and 65.4% in those treated via an external route (p = 0.59). Finally, Kılıç et al. [49] using the National Cancer Database analysed all cases of sinonasal squamous cell carcinoma included, dividing them according to the surgical approach adopted: open or endoscopic. A total of 1483 patients were identified, of which 23.8% received an endoscopic and 76.2% an open surgical procedure. The authors found that open surgery was more common in academic centres (62.8% vs. 54.2%; p = 0.004), less common for tumours of the ethmoid and sphenoid sinus (p < 0.0001), less common for stage IVB tumours, and associated with longer hospital stay (mean 4.67 days vs. 2.50 days; p < 0.0001). Five-year OS was not significantly different between the two approaches (p = 0.953; open: 5-year OS, 56.5%; 95% confidence interval, 51.3–61.6%; endoscopic: 5-year OS, 46.0%; 95% confidence interval, 33.2–58.8%). Endoscopic surgery appears to be an effective alternative to open surgery, even after taking into account confounding factors that may favour its use. However, the aforementioned meta-analyses cannot exclude important selection biases, such as endoscopic surgery being more frequently chosen for smaller tumours, tumours with different histologies being compared with each other, etc. In addition, as this is highly specialised surgery, pooling and comparing results from surgical teams with different expertise may not be appropriate.
Although almost all survival analysis confirmed the role of pT classification, surgical margins status, dural invasion and orbital apex infiltration as the most important prognostic factors, histological grade also plays an important role. Significant OS difference is found between low- and high-grade cancers [112], and in these high-grade tumours more extensive approaches could be necessary, taking into account the potential morbidity caused by the surgery. However, some studies [49, 116] have observed no differences between the outcomes of open or endoscopic resections in patients with a high-grade tumour.
It is universally accepted that a free-margins resection should be achievable in patients considered suitable for surgery to reduce the risk of recurrence rates and maximize oncologic outcomes. Achieving negative surgical margins seems to be the most important prognostic factor regarding survival, regardless of surgical techniques [98]. However, resection of SNMT with wide margins is not always possible because of the adjacent cranial nerves, orbit, internal carotid artery, or brain. Thus, attempts to remove a tumour with wider surgical margins could cause unacceptable morbidity and would be technically difficult, if not impossible, either by open or endoscopic techniques. Moreover, no evidence suggests that a mutilating approach would substantially increase survival. Radical resection correlates with improved prognosis both for tumours resected through an endoscopic or open approach [17, 98, 111]. Some authors have compared the rate of positive margins between tumours operated by open and those operated by endoscopic surgery, and most have found no difference between these techniques [20, 101, 117]. Endoscopic approaches allow complete resection of tumours in most cases and avoid an excessive resection of healthy tissue. However, some authors criticise piecemeal tumour removal and argue that a significantly higher proportion of gross total resection with negative microscopic margins is obtained when resection is performed in a truly en bloc fashion, as opposed to piecemeal technique [98]. Although piecemeal resection adheres to oncological principles [14], it requires close collaboration with pathologists to ensure accurate analysis of the histological margins [118]. An en bloc unfragmented resection through an open approach in high-grade tumours and in complex locations has the potential to achieve a higher rate of free margins [98], so, in certain cases, open approaches continue to play an important role in skull base surgery. However, it should be acknowledged that removing an en bloc specimen may not always be possible. In conclusion, achieving negative surgical margins is significantly more important than the way a tumour is removed (en bloc vs. piecemeal resection), and it should be the surgical goal regardless of the technique chosen, whenever possible.
Dural and intracranial extension have been recognized as the most adverse prognostic factors in malignant SNMT [119, 120]. Although dural and intracranial resections are possible through an endoscopic approach, open routes allow, in certain cases, safer removal and better control of possible intraoperative complications. Orbital invasion results in a high-risk negative prognostic factor for almost all the survival endpoints, with decreased 5-year OS from 65–55% to 20–30% [107]. In particular, orbital apex infiltration significantly worsens outcomes because a free-margin resection is virtually impossible, regardless of the type of surgery performed [14].
Local recurrence often occurs within 2 years of follow-up and is the main contributor to SNMT mortality, followed by distant failure [111, 121]. Patel et al. [111] reported 3- and 5-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) rates of 50.4% and 45.8%, with a median time to recurrence of 7 months, using open surgery. Recurrence was not significantly different between endoscopic and open approaches with incidences of 42% (n = 399) and 50% (n = 501), respectively, according to Lu et al. [22]. Dural infiltration and pT classification are factors associated with increased risk of recurrence and systemic dissemination of disease [119]. This was also the case with histological classification, as poorly differentiated tumours or melanomas are more prone to develop distant metastasis [79, 122, 123].
Conclusions
To provide the best possible care, patients with SNMT should be treated at specialised referral clinical centres for skull base pathology; such centres should include a multidisciplinary team including the key professional figures of otorhinolaryngologists, maxillofacial surgeons, neurosurgeons, plastic and reconstructive surgeons, neuroradiologists, radiation and medical oncologists as well as specialised histopathologists, radiologists, cancer nurses, and prosthodontists. Decision-making is often quite complex and based on multiple factors such as tumour location, extent and stage of disease, histology, orbit and skull base involvement, as well as institutional practice and multidisciplinary board preference.
Progress in multimodal treatment strategies as well as refinements in endoscopic techniques have progressively reduced the role of craniofacial and transfacial resections during the last decades; the latter are still associated with significant rates of perioperative morbidity and significant impact on postoperative quality of life. Moreover, there appears to be no difference in risk of unfavourable outcomes with endoscopic compared to open approaches in appropriately selected patients.
Nevertheless, there is still a role for open surgery which remains an important part of the surgical arsenal of the head and neck surgeon to increase the chances of obtaining radical resection in advanced stage diseases not amenable to exclusive endoscopic approach. Maintaining training and expertise in these techniques may prove an issue in the future.
Open approaches could be also used to treat selected cases of local recurrences involving areas not amenable to salvage endoscopic surgical resection, which are nowadays increasingly observed in view of the growing population of survivors following multidisciplinary treatment strategies.
In conclusion, selected surgical approaches for SNMT are patient- and surgeon-dependent, which argues that both approaches continue to have a place in the management of SNMT.
References
JL Llorente F López C Suárez MA Hermsen 2014 Sinonasal carcinoma: clinical, pathological, genetic and therapeutic advances Nat Rev Clin Oncol 11 460 472
S Sjöstedt C Buchwald von TK Agander K Aanaes 2021 Impact of human papillomavirus in sinonasal cancer—a systematic review Acta Oncol 60 1175 1191
KT Robbins A Ferlito CE Silver 2011 Contemporary management of sinonasal cancer Head Neck 33 1352 1365
TP Robin BL Jones OM Gordon 2017 A comprehensive comparative analysis of treatment modalities for sinonasal malignancies Cancer 123 3040 3049
IL Schmale LJ Vandelaar AU Luong MJ Citardi WC Yao 2021 Image-guided surgery and intraoperative imaging in rhinology: clinical update and current state of the art Ear Nose Throat J 100 475 486
O Guntinas-Lichius MP Kreppel H Stuetzer R Semrau HE Eckel RP Mueller 2007 Single modality and multimodality treatment of nasal and paranasal sinuses cancer: a single institution experience of 229 patients Eur J Surg Oncol 33 222 228
EW Wang AM Zanation PA Gardner 2019 ICAR: endoscopic skull-base surgery Int Forum Allergy Rhinol 9 145 365
E Hanna F DeMonte S Ibrahim D Roberts N Levine M Kupferman 2009 Endoscopic resection of sinonasal cancers with and without craniotomy: oncologic results Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 135 1219 1224
F López VJ Lund C Suárez 2017 The impact of histologic phenotype in the treatment of sinonasal cancer Adv Ther 34 2181 2198
P Castelnuovo P Battaglia M Turri-Zanoni 2014 Endoscopic endonasal surgery for malignancies of the anterior cranial base World Neurosurg 82 22 31
VJ Lund H Stammberger P Nicolai 2010 European position paper on endoscopic management of tumours of the nose, paranasal sinuses and skull base Rhinol Suppl 22 1 143
AA Dmytriw IJ Witterick E Yu 2013 Endoscopic resection of malignant sinonasal tumours: current trends and imaging workup OA Minim Invasive Surg 1 3
AS Abdelmeguid SM Raza SY Su 2020 Endoscopic resection of sinonasal malignancies Head Neck 42 645 652
CH Snyderman RL Carrau AB Kassam 2008 Endoscopic skull base surgery: principles of endonasal oncological surgery J Surg Oncol 97 658 664
JL Llorente F López D Camporro 2013 Outcomes following microvascular free tissue transfer in reconstructing skull base defects J Neurol Surg B Skull Base 74 324 330
DJ Howard VJ Lund 1999 The role of midfacial degloving in modern rhinological practice J Laryngol Otol 113 885 887
T Albonette-Felicio GG Rangel R Martinéz-Pérez DA Hardesty RL Carrau DM Prevedello 2020 Surgical management of anterior skull-base malignancies (endoscopic vs. craniofacial resection) J Neurooncol 150 429 436
PS Batra MJ Citardi S Worley J Lee DC Lanza 2005 Resection of anterior skull base tumors: comparison of combined traditional and endoscopic techniques Am J Rhinol 19 521 558
G Meccariello A Deganello O Choussy 2016 Endoscopic nasal versus open approach for the management of sinonasal adenocarcinoma: a pooled-analysis of 1826 patients Head Neck 38 2267 2274
J Hagemann J Roesner S Helling 2019 Long-term outcome for open and endoscopically resected sinonasal tumors Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 160 862 869
TS Fu E Monteiro N Muhanna DP Goldstein JR Almeida de 2016 Comparison of outcomes for open versus endoscopic approaches for olfactory neuroblastoma: a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis Head Neck 38 2306 2316
TS Higgins B Thorp BA Rawlings JK Han 2011 Outcome results of endoscopic vs craniofacial resection of sinonasal malignancies: a systematic review and pooled-data analysis Int Forum Allergy Rhinol 1 255 261
S Jiang R Fan H Zhang W Jiang Z Xie 2021 Outcomes of endoscopic and open resection of sinonasal malignancies: a systematic review and meta-analysis Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 20 1808-8694(21)00127-0
VM Lu K Ravindran K Phan 2019 Surgical outcomes of endoscopic versus open resection for primary sinonasal malignancy: a meta-analysis Am J Rhinol Allergy 33 608 616
Q Husain RR Joshi JR Cracchiolo 2019 Surgical management patterns of sinonasal malignancy: a population-based study J Neurol Surg B Skull Base 80 371 379
JA Eloy A Vázquez JK Liu S Baredes 2016 Endoscopic approaches to the frontal sinus: modifications of the existing techniques and proposed classification Otolaryngol Clin North Am 49 1007 1018
AD Arosio M Turri-Zanoni G Sileo 2022 Maxillary sinus floor infiltration: results from a series of 118 maxillary sinus cancers Laryngoscope 132 26 35
M Turri-Zanoni P Battaglia A Karligkiotis 2017 Transnasal endoscopic partial maxillectomy: operative nuances and proposal for a comprehensive classification system based on 1378 cases Head Neck 39 754 766
A Deganello M Ferrari A Paderno 2019 Endoscopic-assisted maxillectomy: operative technique and control of surgical margins Oral Oncol 93 29 38
P Nicolai P Battaglia M Bignami 2008 Endoscopic surgery for malignant tumors of the sinonasal tract and adjacent skull base: a 10-year experience Am J Rhinol 22 308 316
D Mattavelli M Ferrari A Bolzoni Villaret 2019 Transnasal endoscopic surgery in selected nasal-ethmoidal cancer with suspected brain invasion: Indications, technique, and outcomes Head Neck 41 1854 1862
M Ferrari S Migliorati M Tomasoni 2021 Sinonasal cancer encroaching the orbit: ablation or preservation? Oral Oncol 114 105185
MD Eisen DM Yousem LA Loevner ER Thaler WB Bilker AN Goldberg 2000 Preoperative imaging to predict orbital invasion by tumor Head Neck 22 456 462
PN Patel T Khoury C Chitguppi 2020 Radiological findings of medial orbital wall bony and periorbital dehiscence in sinonasal malignancies as a predictor of final histopathologic orbital invasion J Neurol Surg B Skull Base 81 1 272
GS Neel TH Nagel JM Hoxworth D Lal 2017 Management of orbital involvement in sinonasal and ventral skull base malignancies Otolaryngol Clin N Am 50 347 364
M Turri-Zanoni A Lambertoni S Margherini 2019 Multidisciplinary treatment algorithm for the management of sinonasal cancers with orbital invasion: a retrospective study Head Neck 41 2777 2788
C Suárez A Ferlito VJ Lund 2008 Management of the orbit in malignant sinonasal tumors Head Neck 30 242 250
R Li S Tian Y Zhu W Zhu S Wang 2020 Management of orbital invasion in sinonasal squamous cell carcinoma: 15 years' experience Int Forum Allergy Rhinol 10 243 255
P Castelnuovo A Lambertoni G Sileo 2021 Critical review of multidisciplinary approaches for managing sinonasal tumors with orbital involvement Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 41 76 89
MJ Imola VL Schramm Jr 2002 Orbital preservation in surgical management of sinonasal malignancy Laryngoscope 112 1357 1365
VJ Lund DJ Howard WI Wei AD Cheesman 1998 Craniofacial resection for tumors of the nasal cavity and paranasal sinuses—a 17-year experience Head Neck 20 97 105
Q Lisan F Kolb S Temam Y Tao F Janot A Moya-Plana 2016 Management of orbital invasion in sinonasal malignancies Head Neck 38 1650 1656
AF Safi L Behn D Rothamel 2017 Therapy of sinonasal malignancies invading the orbit-orbital exenteration versus preservation of the orbit plus radiotherapy J Craniomaxillofac Surg 45 258 261
EY Hanna AD Cardenas F DeMonte 2011 Induction chemotherapy for advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the paranasal sinuses Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 137 78 81
I Ganly SG Patel B Singh 2005 Complications of craniofacial resection for malignant tumors of the skull base: report of an international collaborative study Head Neck 27 445 451
LL Myers B Nussenbaum CR Bradford TN Teknos RM Esclamado GT Wolf 2002 Paranasal sinus malignancies: an 18-year single institution experience Laryngoscope 112 1964 1969
DJ Kaplan JH Kim E Wang C Snyderman 2016 Prognostic indicators for salvage surgery of recurrent sinonasal malignancy Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 154 104 112
LDR Thompson A Franchi 2018 New tumor entities in the 4th edition of the World Health Organization classification of head and neck tumors: nasal cavity, paranasal sinuses and skull base Virchows Arch 472 315 330
S Kılıç SS Kılıç S Baredes 2018 Comparison of endoscopic and open resection of sinonasal squamous cell carcinoma: a propensity score-matched analysis of 652 patients Int Forum Allergy Rhinol 8 421 434
Y Nakamaru M Suzuki S Kano 2021 The role of endoscopic resection for selected patients with sinonasal squamous cell carcinoma Auris Nasus Larynx 48 131 137
SJ Torabi T Spock B Cardoso 2020 Margins in sinonasal squamous cell carcinoma: predictors, outcomes, and the endoscopic approach Laryngoscope 130 388 396
A Homma Y Nakamaru VJ Lund 2021 Endonasal endoscopic surgery for sinonasal squamous cell carcinoma from an oncological perspective Auris Nasus Larynx 48 41 49
VJ Lund EJ Chisholm RP Takes 2012 Evidence for treatment strategies in sinonasal adenocarcinoma Head Neck 34 1168 1178
P Nicolai A Schreiber A Bolzoni Villaret 2016 Intestinal type adenocarcinoma of the ethmoid: outcomes of a treatment regimen based on endoscopic surgery with or without radiotherapy Head Neck 38 96 E1003
S Camp L Gerven Van VV Poorten 2016 Long-term follow-up of 123 patients with adenocarcinoma of the sinonasal tract treated with endoscopic resection and postoperative radiation therapy Head Neck 38 294 300
M Ferrari P Bossi D Mattavelli L Ardighieri P Nicolai 2020 Management of sinonasal adenocarcinomas with anterior skull base extension J Neurooncol 150 405 417
AB Villaret A Yakirevitch A Bizzoni 2010 Endoscopic transnasal craniectomy in the management of selected sinonasal malignancies Am J Rhinol Allergy 24 60 65
L Volpi M Bignami D Lepera 2019 Endoscopic endonasal resection of adenoid cystic carcinoma of the sinonasal tract and skull base Laryngoscope 129 1071 1077
Q Husain VV Kanumuri PF Svider 2013 Sinonasal adenoid cystic carcinoma: systematic review of survival and treatment strategies Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 148 29 39
P Castelnuovo M Turri-Zanoni 2020 Adenoid cystic carcinoma Adv Otorhinolaryngol 84 197 209
R Kashiwazaki MT Turner M Geltzeiler 2020 The endoscopic endonasal approach for sinonasal and nasopharyngeal adenoid cystic carcinoma Laryngoscope 130 1414 1421
YC Lee TJ Lee NM Tsang Y Huang 2018 Cavernous sinus involvement is not a risk factor for the primary tumor site treatment outcome of sinonasal adenoid cystic carcinoma J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 47 12
M Veyrat B Vérillaud D Fiaux-Camous 2020 Olfactory neuroblastoma Adv Otorhinolaryngol 84 154 167
S Kiyofuji V Agarwal JD Hughes 2021 Delaying postoperative radiotherapy in low-grade esthesioneuroblastoma: is it worth the wait? J Neurol Surg B Skull Base 82 166 171
B Fiani SA Quadri A Cathel 2019 Esthesioneuroblastoma: a comprehensive review of diagnosis, management, and current treatment options World Neurosurg 126 194 211
J Rimmer VJ Lund T Beale WI Wei D Howard 2014 Olfactory neuroblastoma: a 35-year experience and suggested follow-up protocol Laryngoscope 124 1542 1549
M Lechner Y Takahashi M Turri-Zanoni 2021 Clinical outcomes, Kadish-INSICA staging and therapeutic targeting of somatostatin receptor 2 in olfactory neuroblastoma Eur J Cancer 31 0959-8049(21)01149-7
P Bossi NF Saba JB Vermorken 2015 The role of systemic therapy in the management of sinonasal cancer: a critical review Cancer Treat Rev 41 836 843
RJ Harvey S Nalavenkata R Sacks 2017 Survival outcomes for stage-matched endoscopic and open resection of olfactory neuroblastoma Head Neck 39 2425 2432
GU Mehta EY Hanna F DeMonte SM Raza 2018 Endoscopic endonasal resection of sinonasal/anterior skull base malignancy (Kadish C esthesioneuroblastoma) Acta Neurochir (Wien) 160 361 366
J Wang L Wang H He Y Li X Song 2021 The treatment outcomes of olfactory neuroblastoma patients with frontal lobe invasion Front Oncol 11 640892
MA Moreno DB Roberts ME Kupferman 2010 Mucosal melanoma of the nose and paranasal sinuses, a contemporary experience from the M. D. Anderson Cancer Center. Cancer 116 2215 2223
A Moya-Plana A Aupérin R Obongo 2019 Oncologic outcomes, prognostic factor analysis and therapeutic algorithm evaluation of head and neck mucosal melanomas in France Eur J Cancer 123 1 10
P Nenclares D Ap Dafydd I Bagwan 2020 Head and neck mucosal melanoma: the United Kingdom national guidelines Eur J Cancer 138 11 18
A Ganti A Raman A Shay 2020 Treatment modalities in sinonasal mucosal melanoma: a national cancer database analysis Laryngoscope 130 275 282
M Amit S Na'ara EY Hanna 2018 Contemporary treatment approaches to sinonasal mucosal melanoma Curr Oncol Rep 20 10
W Swegal S Koyfman J Scharpf 2014 Endoscopic and open surgical approaches to locally advanced sinonasal melanoma: comparing the therapeutic benefits JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 140 840 845
NI Farber RD Bavier MM Crippen N Vatsa WD Hsueh JA Eloy 2019 Comparing endoscopic resection and open resection for management of sinonasal mucosal melanoma Int Forum Allergy Rhinol 9 1492 1498
VJ Lund EJ Chisholm DJ Howard WI Wei 2012 Sinonasal malignant melanoma: an analysis of 115 cases assessing outcomes of surgery, postoperative radiotherapy and endoscopic resection Rhinology 50 203 210
K Hur P Zhang A Yu N Kim-Orden L Kysh B Wrobel 2019 Open versus endoscopic approach for sinonasal melanoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis Am J Rhinol Allergy 33 162 169
A Miglani SH Patel HE Kosiorek ML Hinni RE Hayden D Lal 2017 Endoscopic resection of sinonasal mucosal melanoma has comparable outcomes to open approaches Am J Rhinol Allergy 1 31 200 204
TP Laan van der R Iepsma MJ Witjes BF Laan van der BE Plaat GB Halmos 2016 Meta-analysis of 701 published cases of sinonasal neuroendocrine carcinoma: the importance of differentiation grade in determining treatment strategy Oral Oncol 63 1 9
GU Mehta SM Raza SY Su EY Hanna F DeMonte 2020 Management of olfactory neuroblastoma, neuroendocrine carcinoma, and sinonasal undifferentiated carcinoma involving the skull base J Neurooncol 150 367 375
K Issa F Ackall SH Jung 2021 Survival outcomes in sinonasal carcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation: a NCDB analysis Am J Otolaryngol 42 102851
AS Abdelmeguid D Bell EY Hanna 2020 Neuroendocrine carcinoma and sinonasal undifferentiated carcinoma Adv Otorhinolaryngol 84 168 184
PC Revenaugh R Seth JB Pavlovich PD Knott PS Batra 2011 Minimally invasive endoscopic resection of sinonasal undifferentiated carcinoma Am J Otolaryngol 32 464 469
E Martin S Radomski E Harley 2019 Sarcomas of the paranasal sinuses: an analysis of the SEER database Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol 4 70 75
V Szablewski A Neuville P Terrier 2015 Adult sinonasal soft tissue sarcoma: analysis of 48 cases from the French Sarcoma Group database Laryngoscope 125 615 623
A Dinnoo C Vacher P Herman B Verillaud 2019 Gain of exposure provided by extended incision in lateral rhinotomy approach: a cadaveric study Morphologie 103 32 36
F Chatelet F Simon V Bedarida 2021 Surgical management of sinonasal cancers: a comprehensive review Cancers (Basel) 13 3995
DJ Howard VJ Lund 1992 The midfacial degloving approach to sinonasal disease J Laryngol Otol 106 1059 1062
AS Ketcham RH Wilkins JM Vanburen RR Smith 1963 A combined intracranial facial approach to the paranasal sinuses Am J Surg 106 698 703
C Suárez JL Llorente R Fernández de León R Cabanillas V Suárez A López 2004 Anterior craniofacial resection: oncologic outcome and complications in a series of 111 cases Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp 55 27 33
AD Cheesman VJ Lund DJ Howard 1986 Craniofacial resection for tumors of the nasal cavity and paranasal sinuses Head Neck Surg 8 429 435
JP Shah DH Kraus MH Bilsky PH Gutin LH Harrison EW Strong 1997 Craniofacial resection for malignant tumors involving the anterior skull base Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 123 1312 1317
SJ Hentschel Y Vora D Suki EY Hanna F DeMonte 2010 Malignant tumors of the anterolateral skull base Neurosurgery 66 102 112
DH Kraus JP Shah E Arbit JH Galicich EW Strong 1994 Complications of craniofacial resection for tumors involving the anterior skull base Head Neck 16 307 312
M König T Osnes P Jebsen TR Meling 2018 Craniofacial resection of malignant tumors of the anterior skull base: a case series and a systematic review Acta Neurochir (Wien) 160 2339 2348
VJ Lund WI Wei 2015 Endoscopic surgery for malignant sinonasal tumours: an eighteen year experience Rhinology 53 204 211
G Mortuaire X Leroy C Vandenhende-Szymanski D Chevalier AS Thisse 2016 Comparison of endoscopic and external resections for sinonasal instestinal-type adenocarcinoma Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 273 4343 4350
D Farquhar L Kim D Worrall 2016 Propensity score analysis of endoscopic and open approaches to malignant paranasal and anterior skull base tumor outcomes Laryngoscope 126 1724 1729
TS Fu E Monteiro I Witterick 2017 Costs and perioperative outcomes associated with open versus endoscopic resection of sinonasal malignancies with skull base involvement J Neurol Surg B Skull Base 78 430 440
A Abergel O Cavel N Margalit DM Fliss Z Gil 2012 Comparison of quality of life after transnasal endoscopic vs open skull base tumor resection Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 138 142 147
P Castelnuovo D Lepera M Turri-Zanoni 2013 Quality of life following endoscopic endonasal resection of anterior skull base cancers J Neurosurg 119 1401 1409
JT Glicksman AK Parasher SG Brooks 2018 Sinonasal quality of life after endoscopic resection of malignant sinonasal and skull base tumors Laryngoscope 128 789 793
G Molteni A Sacchetto T Saccardo A Gulino D Marchioni 2021 Quality of life evaluation after trans-nasal endoscopic surgery for skull base tumors Am J Rhinol Allergy 35 507 515
AC Sigler B D'Anza BC Lobo TD Woodard PF Recinos R Sindwani 2017 Endoscopic skull base reconstruction: an evolution of materials and methods Otolaryngol Clin North Am 50 643 653
S Gode S Lieber AC Igami Nakassa 2019 Clinical experience with secondary endoscopic reconstruction of clival defects with extracranial pericranial flaps J Neurol Surg B 80 276 282
JA Simal-Julián P Miranda-Lloret L Pérez de San Román Mena 2020 Impact of multilayer vascularized reconstruction after skull base endoscopic endonasal approaches J Neurol Surg B Skull Base. 81 128 135
AH Zamanipoor Najafabadi DZ Khan 2021 Trends in cerebrospinal fluid leak rates following the extended endoscopic endonasal approach for anterior skull base meningioma: a meta-analysis over the last 20 years Acta Neurochir (Wien) 163 711 719
SG Patel B Singh A Polluri 2003 Craniofacial surgery for malignant skull base tumors: report of an international collaborative study Cancer 98 1179 1187
RB Rawal Z Farzal JJ Federspiel SB Sreenath BD Thorp AM Zanation 2016 Endoscopic resection of sinonasal malignancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 155 376 386
Y Huang QH Qiu SX Zhang 2018 Endoscopic surgery for primary sinonasal malignancies: treatment outcomes and prognostic factors Ear Nose Throat J 97 24 30
B Saedi M Aghili M Motiee S Valadkhani AB Niazi A Safavi 2014 Surgical outcomes of malignant sinonasal tumours: open versus endoscopic surgical approaches J Laryngol Otol 128 784 790
R Povolotskiy NI Farber RD Bavier SY Cerasiello JA Eloy WD Hsueh 2020 Endoscopic versus open resection of non-squamous cell carcinoma sinonasal malignancies Laryngoscope 130 1872 1876
W Cao B Guan A Yu 2017 Treatment and outcomes of endoscopic surgery and traditional open resection in sinonasal mucosal melanoma Acta Otolaryngol 137 862 867
A Arnold P Ziglinas K Ochs 2012 Therapy options and long-term results of sinonasal malignancies Oral Oncol 48 1031 1037
KT Robbins CR Bradford JP Rodrigo 2016 Removing the taboo on the surgical violation (cut-through) of cancer JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 142 1010 1013
C Suárez JL Llorente R Fernandez De León E Maseda A López 2004 Prognostic factors in sinonasal tumors involving the anterior skull base Head Neck 26 136 144
DJ Howard VJ Lund WI Wei 2006 Craniofacial resection for tumors of the nasal cavity and paranasal sinuses: a 25-year experience Head Neck 28 867 873
G Cantù S Riccio G Bimbi 2006 Craniofacial resection for malignant tumours involving the anterior skull base Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 263 647 652
F López JP Rodrigo A Cardesa 2016 Update on primary head and neck mucosal melanoma Head Neck 38 147 155
A López-Hernández B Vivanco A Franchi 2018 Genetic profiling of poorly differentiated sinonasal tumours Sci Rep 8 3998
Acknowledgements
Funding
No funding or sponsorship was received for this study or publication of this article.
Authorship
All named authors meet the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria for authorship for this manuscript, take responsibility for the integrity of the work as a whole, and have given final approval for the version to be published.
Author Contributions
All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by Fernando López. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Fernando López, and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Disclosures
Fernando López, Jatin P. Shah, Jonathan J Beitler, Carl H. Snyderman, Valerie Lund, Cesare Piazza, Antti A. Mäkitie, Orlando Guntinas- Lichius, Juan P. Rodrigo, Luiz P. Kowalski, Miquel Quer, Ashok Shaha, Akihiro Homma, Alvaro Sanabria, Renata Ferrarotto, Anne W. M. Lee, Victor H. F. Lee, Alessandra Rinaldo and Alfio Ferlito have nothing to disclose.
Compliance with Ethics Guidelines
This article is based on previously conducted studies and does not involve any new studies of human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.
Data Availability
Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This article was written by members of the International Head and Neck Scientific Group (www.IHNSG.com).
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
López, F., Shah, J.P., Beitler, J.J. et al. The Selective Role of Open and Endoscopic Approaches for Sinonasal Malignant Tumours. Adv Ther 39, 2379–2397 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-022-02080-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12325-022-02080-x