Abstract
Cancers involving the ventral skull base are rare and exceedingly heterogeneous. The variety of malignant tumors that arise in the nasal cavity, paranasal sinuses, nasopharynx, and adjacent mesenchymal tissues translates into a proportionally vast spectrum of prognoses, with some histologies such as olfactory neuroblastoma being associated with rare disease-specific death to other histologies such as mucosal melanoma for which survival beyond 5 years is considered a fortunate exception. Parallel to prognosis, treatment of sinonasal cancers is complex, controversial, and deeply dependent upon the putative pretreatment diagnosis. Given their heterogeneity, cancers of the ventral skull base are particularly prone to multidisciplinary management, which is indispensable. The therapeutic options available to date for these cancers include surgery, which currently remains the mainstay of treatment in most cases, along with radiotherapy and chemotherapy. Biotherapy and immunotherapy are only anecdotally and compassionately used. For each histology, a careful selection of modalities and their timing is paramount to ensure the best chance of cure. In keeping with the principles of precision medicine, several nuances displayed by malignancies of the ventral skull base are being considered as treatment-driving characteristics. This current trend arose from the observation that a remarkable variability of behavior can be observed even within a single histology. Although evidence is lacking in this field and several potential customizations of treatment are still at a theoretical level, understanding of these cancers is rapidly evolving and practical applications of this increasing knowledge is the much-needed step forward in the management of such rare cancers. This chapter highlights the tumor characteristics that may serve as treatment-driving factors in the most relevant cancers invading the ventral skull base.
You have full access to this open access chapter, Download conference paper PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
Introduction
Management of malignant tumors arising or encroaching on the ventral skull base poses a significant challenge to physicians. The density in neurovascular structures with essential functions represents a considerable part of the challenge and leads specialists to deliver the locoregional treatment (i.e., surgery and radiation therapy) with high precision, by combining an adequate control of the disease with preservation of relevant, uninvolved structures. Another factor contributing to the challenge is the wide range of histologies that can involve the skull base. While some tumors have high sensitivity to non-surgical treatment (e.g., lymphomas), others are associated with dismal prognosis if treated non-surgically (e.g., adenocarcinoma). Thus, treatment based on a reliable diagnosis is paramount to adequate management. On the other hand, a different response to treatment can also be found within the same histology (e.g., sinonasal undifferentiated carcinoma), implying the need for establishing guidance for precision treatment even beyond conventional histopathological diagnosis.
Research in the field of skull base tumors is very active and has identified several pathological features that might serve as prognostic indicators and assist in predicting the response to treatment. The present chapter aims to provide an overview of actual and potential “treatment-driving tumor characteristics” (TDTC) of ventral skull base malignancies, focusing on sinonasal, nasopharyngeal, and bony-cartilaginous tumors. TDTC denoting a more aggressive behavior of the lesion can lead to escalation of locoregional treatment and/or indicate systemic therapy. For instance, surgeons may adjust the extent of intervention by obtaining a wider margin of resection, adopting a less conservative approach towards critical structures (e.g., the orbital cavity), or performing an elective treatment of the neck. Radiation oncologists may tailor the target volume contour and dose delivery based on certain TDTC associated with aggressive local behavior. Moreover, a rational use of systemic agents might be of help even in the curative setting in high-grade malignancies of the sinonasal tract and adjacent areas. On the other hand, when TDTC suggest a more indolent behavior, treatment can be de-escalated to avoid unnecessary morbidity.
Sinonasal Tumors
The sinonasal tract harbors the widest variety of tumor histologies in the human body. Among the malignant lesions, intestinal-type adenocarcinoma (ITAC), squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), olfactory neuroblastoma, mucosal melanoma (MM), adenoid cystic carcinoma (ACC), neuroendocrine carcinomas, and sinonasal undifferentiated carcinoma (SNUC) are the most frequently encountered.
Intestinal-Type Adenocarcinoma
ITAC is a malignant epithelial tumor that mostly takes origin from the olfactory cleft (Fig. 16.1) [1]. Its etiopathogenesis is intimately associated with exposure to dust arising from hardwood, leather or cork working [2, 3]. From a clinicopathological standpoint, cancer-specific prognosis of ITAC is associated with histopathological subtype, stage, and margin status [4]. Surgery followed by adjuvant radiotherapy is the mainstay of treatment [5, 6]. Unimodal treatment with surgery alone is currently deemed adequate for early-stage, non-high-grade, completely excised ITAC [7]. Five- and 10-year rates of overall survival are 72.7 and 58.0%, respectively [4].
From a pathological-morphological standpoint, grade and subtype are the most relevant features that serve as TDTC for ITAC. Barnes described five types of ITAC: papillary, colonic, solid, mucinous, and mixed [8]. Kleinsasser and Schroeder reported four variants: papillary-tubular cylinder cell, graded from I to III, alveolar goblet, signet-ring cell, and transitional [9]. Overall, papillary and colonic variants (roughly corresponding to papillary-tubular cylinder cell grade I and II) are associated with more favorable prognosis, whereas solid and mucinous subtypes (papillary-tubular cylinder cell ITAC grade III, alveolar goblet, and signet-ring cell) are associated with worse outcomes [4, 10,11,12,13]. However, results on the association between ITAC grade/subtype and prognosis are not univocal and this information is frequently not available prior to treatment. Hence, it is unlikely that these morphological classifications can be efficiently used as TDTC unless more reliable subtype markers are discovered. Another morphological feature associated with worse prognosis is tumor budding, a finding described in colorectal oncologic pathology as the presence of isolated single tumor cells or small clusters of up to 5 cells in the tumor stroma. Maffeis et al. and Meerwein et al. found a substantial association between tumor budding and prognosis [14, 15]. Thus, tumor budding might act as TDTC, but data on pre-treatment detectability are currently lacking.
Hermsen et al. found that the total amount of chromosomal alterations is associated with ITAC subtype, with the papillary morphology bearing a significantly lower amount of copy number alterations [16]. This might represent a more reproducible and accessible way to measure tumor aggressiveness prior to treatment. Another interesting finding has been reported by Lopez-Hernandez et al., who clustered a series of ITAC into five groups with different prognoses based on chromosomal gains and losses detected by microarray comparative genomic hybridization [17]. In particular, clusters 1 and 5 had the best and worst prognosis, respectively, while clusters 2, 3, and 4 were associated with an intermediate outcome. Moreover, Rampinelli et al. reappraised genetic alterations associated with more aggressive behavior, all of which could be used to create a more reproducible signature that stresses the need for intensified treatment [6]. More recently, Re et al. reported that miR-205 and miR-449 overexpression is associated with a higher rate of recurrence in ITAC [18].
Several molecular features of ITAC have been previously highlighted in an attempt to guide systemic treatment. Functional p53 has been demonstrated to predict the response to chemotherapy with cisplatin, 5-fluorouracil, and leucovorin by the group of the “Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori” in Milan, Italy [19,20,21]. However, this finding has not been confirmed by other authors. In view of its mutational profile, which is associated with a low rate of EGFR, HER2, KRAS, and BRAF mutations and a high rate of EGFR copy number gain, ITAC is theoretically a good candidate for anti-EGFR therapy [22,23,24]. However, real-life experience is scarce and less encouraging in this regard [25]. Since the gene MET is frequently mutated (64%), MET inhibitors potentially represent an attractive solution [26, 27]. Moreover, a small subgroup of patients with a HRAS mutation (16%) may benefit from the administration of RAS or MAPK/ERK pathway inhibitors [27]. More recently, Schatz et al. reported that EIF2S1 and EIF6, which are potentially targetable markers, are upregulated in ITAC, thus representing a putative TDTC [28]. Finally, Sánchez‑Fernández et al. reported that 8 actionable somatic mutations with a respective FDA-approved agent available were found in a series of 48 ITAC [29]. Overall, the role of predictive molecular biomarkers in ITAC is still underexplored and poorly understood, thus making them a potential TDTC although further research is needed.
There are few data on the ITAC-immune system interaction. Specifically, PD-L1 expression in the tumor and infiltrating immune cells have been reported in 17 and 33% of cases, respectively [30]. García-Marín et al. found that the density in CD8+ lymphocytes is associated with prognosis and concluded that, overall, ITAC is a poorly immunogenic tumor with some potential for immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in well differentiated subtypes [31]. Thus, there are no sufficient data to determine a TDTC that suggests immunotherapy should be used in ITAC (Table 16.1).
Squamous Cell Carcinoma
The term SCC of the sinonasal tract groups together different epithelial cancers exhibiting squamous differentiation (Fig. 16.2) [33, 34]. From a pathological standpoint, they are classified into a classical variant, which is further divided into keratinizing and nonkeratinizing, and non-classical subtypes including the adenosquamous, spindle-cell, basaloid, papillary, and verrucous SCC. Surgery combined with (neo)adjuvant therapies is the mainstay of treatment [33]. A large majority of cases are treated with surgery followed by radiation therapy. Unimodal treatment is rarely indicated for well selected early-stage sinonasal SCC [4]. The role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy prior to definitive surgical and/or non-surgical treatment is debated, but there is some evidence on its beneficial role in specific clinical circumstances such as orbital encroachment [33, 35,36,37,38,39,40]. Recently, short-term prognosis was found to be improved in patients with sinonasal SCC undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy compared with the standard of care [41]. Five-year survival in SCC suitable for endoscopic surgery-including treatment is 66.2% [4], whereas it decreases to 39.7–44% when considering sinonasal SCC regardless of the type of surgery employed [42, 43].
From a pathological standpoint, there are several features that have been shown to have a prognostic effect. Adenosquamous and spindle-cell SCC are associated with worse outcome, whereas the papillary variant shows better survival [34, 44, 45]. Degree of differentiation was also found to have an impact on prognosis, with well differentiated tumors behaving more indolently [4]. Consistently, inverted papilloma-related SCC is associated with a higher degree of differentiation and better prognosis compared with de novo SCC [46, 47]. NUT carcinoma, which is characterized by monotonous tumor cells and “abrupt” keratinization, is considered by some authors as the most dedifferentiated variant of SCC and, as such, is associated with dismal outcome regardless of treatment intensity (Fig. 16.2) [48,49,50]. However, BET inhibitors, histone deacetylase inhibitor, and small molecules are currently emerging as novel therapies that may potentially improve the prognosis of this aggressive cancer [51]. Nonkeratinizing and multiphenotypic variants associated with human papillomavirus (HPV) show a more favorable behavior, with the latter displaying noticeable local aggressiveness with limited propensity to distant metastasis [52,53,54,55,56,57]. Factors associated with nodal metastasis have also been analyzed. High-stage, involvement of the hard palate or superior alveolar ridge, microscopic lymphovascular invasion, and detection of Epstein–Barr virus (EBV) have been associated with a higher risk of nodal metastasis [58,59,60].
The fact that sinonasal SCC comprises a variety of different tumors has been previously emphasized [34]. This observation has led some authors to suggest a step forward in the way of defining sinonasal SCC, which consists of a molecular classification. Haas et al. classified sinonasal SCC in 4 types: (1) carcinogen-driven; (2) HPV-associated; (3) gene fusion-SCC (i.e., DEK-AFF2 fusion-related SCC); (4) EGFR-altered SCC [61]. Taverna et al. proposed a 6-type classification by (1) dividing HPV-related SCC in monotypic (mainly associated with HPV-16) and multiphenotypic (mainly associated with HPV-33); (2) distinguishing EGFR-altered SCC in lesions with an EGFR gene mutation (in exon 19 or 20) and those with EGFR gene amplification; and (3) reporting SCC with KRAS mutation (mostly arising from oncocytic papillomas) [62]. Besides deepening the current understanding of sinonasal SCC, these molecular classifications might partially serve as TDTC. For instance, HPV-related sinonasal SCC has been associated with favorable prognosis by several groups [52,53,54,55,56,57]. Moreover, EGFR-mutated SCC might be targeted with some tyrosine kinase inhibitors [61]. Interestingly, DEK-AFF2 fusion-related SCC shows a relatively aggressive behavior, with high propensity to metastasize in the nodal basin and at distant site, thus suggesting the need for treatment intensification [63, 64].
Several molecular features of SCC have been associated with prognosis, thus representing potential TDTC. For instance, deregulation of microRNAs showed an impact on prognosis: miR-9-5p upregulation was associated with improved survival, and let-7d downregulation and miR-137, miR-21, and/or miR-34a upregulation with decreased survival [65,66,67]. Overexpression of pS6, CA9, podoplanin and/or TrkB have also been associated with worse outcomes [68,69,70,71]. Takahashi et al. revised the most relevant prognostic biomarkers described for head and neck SCC and found that only expression of EGFR was associated with prognosis of sinonasal SCC, with EGFR-positive tumors showing worse outcomes [72].
The SCC-immune system interaction has been analyzed by some authors [73, 74]. PD-L1 expression in more than 5% tumor cells has been found in 30.2% of sinonasal SCC [75]. Similarly, Riobello et al. reported a 34% rate of membranous expression [30]. Despite being based on limited data, the overall response rate and median progression-free survival after ICI treatment were 27.2% and 4.2 months, respectively, which compares favorably with non-sinonasal SCC of the head and neck as reported by Park et al. [76]. The same authors highlighted a trend towards a better response in SCC highly expressing PD-L1, which can thus represent a TDTC (Table 16.2).
Olfactory Neuroblastoma
Olfactory neuroblastoma (ONB) arises from the olfactory neuroepithelium. Hence, it is most frequently located in the olfactory cleft, even if rare cases of ectopic ONB have been reported (Fig. 16.3) [77]. The grade of ONB is classified according to Hyams and substantially affects prognosis [78,79,80]. Moreover, prognosis of ONB is negatively impacted by advanced age, male gender, locally advanced stage, nodal involvement, and positive margins [4, 81,82,83,84,85,86]. Classification of local extension is more controversial in contrast to the previously mentioned cancers. Originally described by Kadish et al. in 1976, the classification of ONB local extension has been thoroughly studied and refined [86,87,88,89]. Treatment of ONB is based on surgery and adjuvant radiotherapy [4, 86, 90]. Overall, ONB is associated with better prognosis than other sinonasal cancers [4]. This fact substantially affects the type of surgery performed for ONB, which is currently performed with an endoscopic technique in most cases: in early-stage tumors, surgical strategies including unilateral nasoethmoidal resection and/or dura-sparing ablation have been developed [91, 92]; in advanced-stage diseases the threshold to define the tumor as suitable for surgical resection has been pushed to include brain invasion [93, 94]. Adjuvant RT has a positive effect on prognosis in most published series [4, 81, 82, 86]. Intensity-modulated particle beam radiotherapy (IMPT), either alone or as an adjuvant treatment, is being used in several centers for ONB, but no long-term follow-up data are currently available [95,96,97]. Meerwein et al. performed an individual patient data meta-analysis on 128 patients treated with surgery alone and concluded that carefully selected low-grade, early-stage, and completely excised ONB could be managed unimodally [98]. The indication to elective neck irradiation is still debated, with a remarkable rate of regional failure (including the retropharyngeal site) as the main argument in favor and the absence of positive prognostic effect in terms of overall survival and high percentage of salvageable recurrent cases as main arguments against [86, 90, 99, 100]. The role of chemotherapy is controversial. On the one hand, there is evidence that high-grade ONB display a more frequent response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy [101], while on the other hand recent publications report hints of a potential null-to-negative therapeutic effect of chemotherapy in patients receiving surgery-including treatment [102,103,104]. Interestingly, Topcagic et al. found some immunohistochemical biomarkers of sensitivity or resistance to chemotherapeutic agents [105]. In particular, ERCC1 underexpression was associated with sensitivity to cisplatin, TOPO1 overexpression with sensitivity to irinotecan, TUBB3 overexpression with resistance to vincristine, and MRP1 overexpression with multidrug resistance. Of note, the recent evidence that ONB frequently expresses the somatostatin receptor (SSTR-2 in 75–99% and SSTR-5 in 7.5%) [106,107,108,109] serves as a rationale to include radioactive somatostatin-analogues (i.e., peptide receptor radionuclide therapy) in the spectrum of treatment options for ONB, which has been shown to be effective in the recurrent/metastatic setting [86, 110].
A commendable step forward in the understanding of ONB was recently published by Classe et al., who presented a thorough, multi-omic analysis of 59 cases [111]. Their study integrated information on exome sequencing, transcriptomics, protein expression-based clustering, methylomics, and immune environment analysis. By comprehensively assessing these data, Classe et al. proposed to subdivide ONB into the “neural” and “basal” types. Neural ONB are not associated with recurrent mutations and are usually well differentiated with a low proliferation index, hypomethylation of neural enhancers, and low density of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes. Basal ONB can bear TP53 and IDH2 gene mutations, which is associated with the CpG island methylator phenotype, cytokeratin (i.e., cytokeratin AE1/AE3) expression, high proliferation index, DNA hypermethylation, and a high density of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes. Most importantly, the prognosis of basal ONB is significantly worse than neural ONB. Thus, reliable markers of basal versus neural subtype could serve as TDTC to tailor treatment of ONB. For instance, Wu et al. confirmed that IDH2 mutation is associated with worse prognosis and can be reliably detected with either immunohistochemistry or real-time polymerase chain reaction [112]. Romani et al. profiled the gene expression of 32 ONB and found that some deregulated pathways (i.e., TGF-beta binding, epithelial-mesenchymal transition, UV response, allograft rejection, IFN-alpha response, angiogenesis, IL-2-STAT5, and IL-6-JAK-STAT3 signaling) were associated with reduced disease-free survival [113]. Moreover, they found that ONB with expression of cytokeratin, which could be considered a surrogate of the basal subtype, were associated with E2F targets, MYC targets, and KRAS hallmark pathways alongside with BUB1 gene upregulation, all of which potentially represent a rationale for targeted therapy. Turri-Zanoni et al. reviewed the prognostic biomarkers of ONB and reported that alteration in the PI3K/mTOR signaling pathway, CDK-dependent cell cycle regulation, CCND1 amplification, FGFR3 amplifications, and DMD gene deletions may have a role in the pathogenesis of ONB [106]. In this regard, Spengler et al. recently reviewed the use of biological agents in ONB and found that sunitinib, cetuximab, bevacizumab, imatinib, everolimus, and pazopanib were all active in adequately selected cases [114].
As for other sinonasal cancers, a number of molecular features of ONB were found to be associated with tumor grade, which is established based on histomorphological features, and thus have prognostic implications. Since grading is subjectively determined and hence flawed by potentially low inter-rater agreement, there is a strong need for prognostic biomarkers associated with grade that would be usable as TDTC. Ki67 proliferation index ≥25% and low microvascular density are associated with high grade and worse survival [115,116,117]. SATB2 was found to reliably segregate grade 4 versus grade 1–3 ONB according to Hyams [118].
The interaction between ONB and the immune system is still poorly understood. Friedman et al. reported that ONB is associated with a low tumor mutational burden, hence suggesting a limited utility of immunotherapy [119]. However, there is evidence that both primary and metastatic ONB tissue express PD-L1 and display an associated tumor and stromal infiltrate of PD-1-positive and CD8-positive lymphocytes [120]. Interestingly, the higher the density in tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes the worse the prognosis [111], which places ONB in the minority of tumors, such as renal cell carcinoma, with an inverse relationship between immune infiltrate and prognosis [121]. To date, there is still insufficient evidence to support the use of immunotherapy in ONB (Table 16.3).
Mucosal Melanoma
Sinonasal MM is one of the most aggressive tumors in the wide spectrum of sinonasal malignancies (Fig. 16.4). This is clearly witnessed by the experience of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (New York, US): Flukes et al. recently showed that treatment outcomes remained stable over the last 2 decades despite the increasing use of immunotherapy [122]. T staging of this tumor reflects its intrinsic aggressiveness, with T3 representing the minimum category attributable to any MM of the head and neck. Of note, even an in situ (i.e., intraepithelial) MM is classified as T3 according to the latest TNM criteria. The detrimental prognostic effect of paranasal sinus involvement is well known, and Lechner et al. proposed a revision of T classification, with tumors involving the epithelium or submucosa of paranasal sinuses with no bony-cartilaginous, deep soft tissue or skin invasion to be classified as T4a instead of T3 [123]. Similarly, Moya-Plana et al. suggested that anatomical criteria applied to stage non-melanoma sinonasal cancers could be useful for MM [124]. Surgery is considered the mainstay of treatment and there is evidence that can be safely performed through an endoscopic transnasal approach if adequately indicated and as long as negative margins can be achieved [4, 125,126,127,128,129,130,131]. The role of adjuvant radiotherapy is debated. While some studies have demonstrated an increased local control in patients treated with surgery and adjuvant radiotherapy, no clear evidence of benefit on overall survival is currently available [132,133,134,135,136,137,138]. Grant-Freemantle et al. recently published a meta-analysis on 2489 patients with MM and found that adjuvant radiotherapy had a significant positive effect on local control and overall survival when considering head and neck sites together, whereas this effect was lost when the analysis focused on sinonasal localizations [139]. Neoadjuvant treatment with hyperfractionated radiotherapy and concomitant chemotherapy with weekly cisplatin followed by surgery has been proposed by Hafström et al. [140]. They reported a 5-year overall survival rate of 70% in patients with MM stage IVA. However, this represents a single-center experience and further research is required to establish whether this treatment sequence confirms to have an advantage on survival. Interestingly, the Japan Carbon-Ion Radiation Oncology Study Group reported a 2-year overall survival of 69.4% in a series of 260 patients affected by head and neck MM treated with definitive carbon-ion therapy [141], which compares favorably with other large series on patients who underwent curative treatment including surgery [4, 122, 137]. Of note, in the Japanese study a multivariable-confirmed positive prognostic effect of concomitant chemotherapy with DTIC, with/without nimustine hydrochloride and vincristine, was demonstrated, with 2-year overall survival increasing to 75.8% (of note, these MM either were deemed unresectable or patients refused surgery) [141]. This benefit came at the cost of an increased mucosal toxicity, though no patient interrupted radiotherapy because of mucositis.
The remarkable rate of distant metastasis regardless of the stage at presentation [4, 142] makes MM similar to a systemic tumor, leading several authors to conclude that systemic therapy should be part of the future standard of care even in the curative setting [143]. Since tumor volume has been demonstrated to predict the risk of distant metastases and death, then it could be employed as a TDTC to implement systemic therapy in initial treatment [141, 144]. Currently, chemotherapy has a limited role in the management of MM, especially in the curative setting [145]. However, in a phase II randomized clinical trial by Lian et al., the temozolomide and cisplatin adjuvant chemotherapy outperformed surgery alone and surgery followed by adjuvant IFN therapy, with 2-year recurrence-free survival of 41.0, 0.0, and 11.7%, respectively [146]. This study corroborated the concept that systemic therapy has a substantial role in determining the prognosis of MM patients, as emphasized by other authors [147]. Several biotherapeutics and immunotherapies are emerging as potential systemic agents for MM [148]. Among these, imatinib [149] and binimetinib (although evidence exists for skin melanoma) [150] in KIT-mutated and NRAS-mutated MM, respectively, are the most promising ones. In terms of frequency, NRAS is more often mutated compared to KIT and BRAF (22–30% versus 5–12.5% and 0–8%, respectively) and is associated with poorer survival [131, 151,152,153]. A recent study found a higher rate of BRAF mutation (32%) [154]. The use of immunotherapy is controversial. The majority of data on immunotherapy for sinonasal MM are gathered from recurrent/metastatic cases. Recently, Ganti et al. published a National Cancer Database study demonstrating that immunotherapy had a positive prognostic effect in patients with metastatic disease [155]. In their study, they included all patients registered in the National Cancer Database between 2004 and 2015. Since ICI were approved for solid tumors by the FDA in 2012, a considerable proportion of patients included in their study received a non-ICI-based immunotherapy, which is most likely represented by IFN therapy. Subsequently, Klebaner et al. published a National Cancer Database study that narrowed the inclusion period to 2012–2015, so that most patients who received immunotherapy were treated with ICI [156]. Surprisingly, they did not demonstrate a positive prognostic effect of immunotherapy on metastatic sinonasal MM patients. Therefore, one could hypothesize that the beneficial role of IFN therapy outweighs that of ICI in MM patients. Consistently, Sun et al. demonstrated increased survival in patients treated with subdermal injection of either the bacillus Calmette–Guérin, or IL-2 or IFN-α-2b [157]. However, Lechner et al. recently published a multi-institutional study on 505 sinonasal MM patients and demonstrated that therapies including ICI conferred the highest survival rate in the recurrent/metastatic setting [123]. When focusing on specific agents and their combination, the most relevant data come from the pooled analysis by D’Angelo et al., who reported an objective response rate to nivolumab, ipilimumab, and their combination of 23.3, 8.3, and 37.1%, respectively (versus 40.9, 21.2, and 60.4% in skin melanoma, respectively) [158]. However, response can be dissociated, as described by Chao et al., who reported on 4 patients with distant metastases at presentation treated with immunotherapy, out of which 2 had a response and 1 stability of the distant metastases but all had progression of disease at the primary site [159]. On the other hand, Philipp et al. reported a case of initial pseudoprogression with subsequent complete response to combined ipilimumab and nivolumab in a patient affected by an inoperable sinonasal MM [160]. Intrinsic or acquired resistance to immunotherapy is poorly understood in MM but a recent publication reported 3 cases with switch of oncogenic driver (i.e., from KRAS, KIT, or no driver to NRAS) as the mechanisms determining acquisition of resistance to ICI [161]. Thus, the role of ICI remains controversial, and more studies are needed to determine whether they can provide a prognostic advantage.
Elective treatment of the neck is another controversial aspect of MM. A recent publication from the MD Anderson Cancer Center (Houston, Texas, US) on 198 patients treated over a 31 year timespan demonstrated that the rate of nodal recurrence in initially node-negative patients was 17 and 18% in patients receiving elective neck adjuvant radiotherapy and in those who did not, respectively [162]. In a meta-analysis on 939 patients, De Virgilio et al. found a similar 17.0% regional recurrence rate in patients with clinically negative, untreated neck [163].
Despite the prognosis of MM is overall poor, some pathologic and molecular prognostic markers have been identified. Ki67 proliferation index >30% and lymphovascular invasion have been associated with decreased survival [164]. Overexpression of PARP1 and IDO1 were found to have a negative effect on overall survival, which lead to hypothesize the use of PARP1- and/or IDO1-inhibitors in this subset of MMs [165]. Similarly, overexpression of phosphorylated Akt1 has been associated with increased cancer-specific mortality [166]. In turn, the Akt pathway was found to be inhibited by the miR-4633-5p molecule, whereof loss of expression was associated with an increased risk of metastasis [167]. Mutations in the NF1 gene (found in 33% of MM) have also been associated with decreased survival [168].
Recent studies have contributed to increase the understanding of the crosstalk between immune system and sinonasal MM. Yin et al. performed a comprehensive analysis of 44 MM and found that immunotype was substantially associated with prognosis [147]. They classified tumors in terms of tumor-infiltrating immune cell density, according to Erdag et al. [169], and found that cases with complete depletion of immune cells (32% of their series) had dismal prognosis, those with diffuse immune cell infiltration (18% of their series) were all progression-free, and those with immune cells mainly concentrated in the stroma and perivascular tissue (50% of their series) had an intermediate prognosis, which is consistent with the fact that “brisk” tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes have been associated with improved outcome by other authors [164, 170]. They also found that CD8+ T cells and NK cells were positively associated with prognosis, and Th2 T cells and M2 macrophages with disease progression [147]. Interestingly, expression of PD-L1 was not associated with prognosis [171].
As a final remark, despite some TDTC can be hypothesized for MM, the dismal outcomes associated with this tumor should orient research towards the identification of therapeutic strategies that are capable of improving the overall prognosis, whereas a precision medicine-approach has to be more realistically postponed until a more effective standard of care is available (Table 16.4).
Sinonasal Undifferentiated Carcinoma and SWI-SNF-Deficient Sinonasal Carcinomas
SNUC was first described by Frierson et al. in 1986, and represents one of the most fascinating entities in the field of sinonasal pathologies (Fig. 16.5) [172]. Being a diagnosis of exclusion, SNUC initially served as a basket entity so that several tumors that were difficult to define by histopathology were misdiagnosed as SNUC [173]. Treatment outcomes of patients affected by SNUC have been historically poor, but reached a first turning point with the evidence that multimodal therapy was key in improving prognosis [174,175,176,177,178,179,180,181,182]. More recently, the seminal paper by Amit et al. reported that response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy is the most reliable factor in selecting the definitive treatment strategy [183]. In their study, the authors from MD Anderson Cancer Center (Houston, Texas, US) included 95 treatment-naïve patients affected by SNUC, all treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by either definitive chemoradiation or surgery and adjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy. They found that in the group of responders to chemotherapy (n = 64, 67%), 5-year disease-specific survival was 81% in patients treated with definitive chemoradiation and 54% in those treated with surgery and adjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy. Thus, definitive non-surgical treatment is associated with significantly better outcomes in responders. In contrast, in the group of non-responders to chemotherapy (n = 31, 33%), 5-year disease-specific survival was 0 and 39% in patients treated with definitive chemoradiation and those treated with surgery and adjuvant chemoradiation, respectively. Hence, the majority of patients benefit most from induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiation, but 1 out of 3 patients should be treated with upfront surgery and subsequent chemoradiotherapy to confer the highest chance of survival. In this sense, response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy is the most relevant TDTC in SNUC and several other oncologic centers have conformed with a neoadjuvant chemotherapy-driven approach [4, 184]. Takahashi et al. discovered that a 24-gene signature is able to predict response to chemotherapy with cisplatin and etoposide in SNUC [185]. The potential practical implications of this signature would be of high interest in non-responders (i.e., patients to be treated with surgery and adjuvant therapy according to the response-driven paradigm), who could avoid the non-negligible toxicity of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and directly undergo locoregional treatment. Whether responders could skip neoadjuvant chemotherapy and be sent directly to chemoradiation remains doubtful, as this would mean de-escalating the treatment schedule that led to the aforesaid outcomes [183]. Of note, Lehrich et al. published a National Cancer Database study on 440 SNUC patients demonstrating that neoadjuvant chemotherapy does not have an impact on survival, which could suggest that if chemotherapy does not lead to response-driven selection of definitive treatment, then the benefit of its employment is lost [186]. On the other hand, a French multi-institutional study demonstrated that neoadjuvant chemotherapy is an independent protective factor in terms of recurrence-free survival [187]. Regarding neck management, there is evidence that the elective treatment of the nodal basin significantly reduces the rate of regional recurrence from 26.4 to 3.7% [188].
A subset of SNUC, accounting for 20–47% of tumors, is associated with HPV-16 and shows increased survival in one study [189, 190]. Several authors found mutations in the IDH1/2 genes in SNUC, with a prevalence ranging between 35 and 82% [191]. This genetic characteristic, particularly for the IDH2 gene, has been associated by some authors with a more favorable outcome compared to IDH2-wild type SNUC [192,193,194]. Libera et al., however, found that IDH2-mutation was associated with decreased survival in a series of 53 poorly differentiated sinonasal carcinomas including 6 SNUC [195]. SWI/SNF-deficiency has been discovered as the genetic hallmark of a very aggressive group of tumors originally considered as a subset of SNUC (Fig. 16.5) [196,197,198,199,200]. In particular, SMARCB1-deficient and SMARCA4-deficient carcinomas are two malignancies that were initially described under the umbrella of SNUC but displaying an exquisitely aggressive behavior, which might lead them to be considered as separate entities with respect to “true SNUC” [201, 202]. Interestingly, targeting EZH2 and CDK4/6 proved effective in preclinical models of SWI/SNF-deficient ovarian and lung cancer [203, 204]. Moreover, there is evidence that SWI/SNF-deficiency is associated with remarkably increased response to ICI in patients with colorectal cancer [205]. These findings could drive future research and lead to the discovery of systemic agents to effectively target SWI/SNF-deficient sinonasal carcinomas.
Takahashi et al. demonstrated that the ERBB2 gene is amplified and HER2 overexpressed and phosphorylated in SNUC [206]. They also showed that lapatinib efficiently inhibits HER2 signaling pathway in a SNUC cell line. Bell et al. reported that BRCA1 is overexpressed in SNUC, thus demonstrating a biological rationale for the use of PARP inhibitors in this cancer [207].
There are no substantial data on the use of immunotherapy for SNUC. However, a case of metastatic SNUC with complete response to nivolumab has been reported [208]. Interestingly, PRAME, which is a candidate target for immunotherapy, was found to be overexpressed in SNUC (Table 16.5) [207].
Sinonasal Neuroendocrine Carcinomas
Neuroendocrine neoplasms of the sinonasal tract are rare and poorly understood tumors. Their rarity alongside with the fact that several other sinonasal malignancies can display neuroendocrine features has contributed to the heterogeneity in different series [209,210,211]. The nomenclature of sinonasal tumors will be revised in the upcoming 5th Edition of the World Health Organization Classification of Head and Neck Tumors [212]. Specifically, neuroendocrine neoplasms of the upper aerodigestive tract and salivary glands will be classified into well differentiated (referred to as “neuroendocrine tumors” and further classified in grade 1–3 according to mitotic activity) and poorly differentiated (referred to as “neuroendocrine carcinomas” and further classified in “small cell” and “large cell”). A proportion of neuroendocrine neoplasms, which can be as high as 44.4% in areas characterized by endemic nasopharyngeal carcinoma, is represented by post-irradiation cancers [213]. Anecdotally, neuroendocrine carcinoma has been reported as part of a collision tumor including either SCC or exocrine adenocarcinoma [214, 215].
Prognosis of sinonasal neuroendocrine neoplasms is poor, with 3-, 5-, and 10-year overall survival of 42.4, 38.9, and 34.0%, respectively, according to the MUSES study [4]. Van der Laan et al., however, showed that well and moderately differentiated neuroendocrine carcinomas are associated with a 5-year disease-specific survival of 70.2%, in contrast to 46.1% in the small cell variant, which is consistent with what reported by other authors (Fig. 16.6) [210, 216]. Moreover, small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma of the sinonasal tract showed better survival outcomes compared with other sites of the head and neck [217]. Large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma of the sinonasal tract is exceedingly rare and a possible relation with HPV infection has been reported [218]. Interestingly, Dogan et al. recently surmised that large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma and IDH2-mutated SNUC constitute a phenotypic spectrum of the same tumor entity [193]. There is consensus on the fact that treatment of sinonasal neuroendocrine neoplasms should be multimodal [219,220,221,222,223]. However, the best sequence of treatment and the indication for (neo)adjuvant non-surgical therapies are debated. Response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy is a strong positive prognostic factor [220]. Turri-Zanoni et al. showed that patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, which was indicated in poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinomas, had a 5-year overall survival rate of 88.8% compared to 9.3% in those who were not [210]. On the other hand, van der Laan et al. did not find a benefit of chemotherapy in the treatment of sinonasal small cell neuroendocrine carcinomas [216]. As for other tumors with neuroendocrine phenotype, use of 68Ga-DOTATATE PET-CT and 177Lu-DOTATATE has been reported for staging and treatment purposes, respectively [224, 225].
Overall, neuroendocrine neoplasms of the sinonasal tract are poorly understood and the best treatment strategy is still matter of research. Thus, no TDTC can be currently determined for this histology.
Adenoid Cystic Carcinoma
ACC is a rare and capricious cancer that arises from major and minor salivary glands. For its almost invariable tendency to perineural spread, management of ACC represents a challenge in a nerve-dense area such as the skull base (Fig. 16.7). Grade is intimately associated with prognosis and depends upon the presence and proportion of a solid histological architecture within tumor tissue [226,227,228,229]. Whenever feasible, surgical resection followed by adjuvant radiotherapy is considered the standard of care [5]. A variant with squamous differentiation features and predilection for involvement of the sinonasal tract and skull base, called “metatypical ACC”, has been recently described, with diagnosis of ACC being corroborated by the identification of the fusion between MYB/MYBL1 and NFIB, which is typical of this cancer [230, 231]. Even if only 3 cases have been described, this variant seems to behave more aggressively. ACC with “high-grade transformation” is another distinct entity, characterized by faster progression and propensity to metastasize to the neck [232]. The sinonasal tract is among the most frequent sites of origin of this variant [232].
The University of Pittsburgh (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, US) group judiciously stated that the realistic aim of surgery in sinonasal/nasopharyngeal ACC is gross total resection rather than microscopically clear margin resection, which can be rarely achieved in this histology [233]. This approach is consistent with the evidence that margin status does not appear to be an independent factor associated with survival in ACC of the minor salivary glands of the head and neck and sinonasal tract [234, 235]. On the other hand, this aspect is debated and the philosophy of the University of Pittsburgh group should not be misinterpreted: whenever negative margins can be realistically achieved while avoiding unreasonable morbidity they should be pursued as for any other cancer deemed suitable to curative surgery [236, 237].
The role of adjuvant radiotherapy is debated. Unsal et al. published a study on 694 patients collected from the National Cancer Database, reporting that patients treated with surgery alone had better prognosis compared to those treated with surgery and adjuvant radiotherapy [238]. However, this result was not assessed with a multivariable model, and is potentially biased by the fact that patients for whom adjuvant radiotherapy was indicated could bear risk factors associated with worse prognosis, such as advanced stage [239]. Overall, surgery followed by adjuvant radiotherapy is the most frequent and effective treatment strategy, at least in terms of local control, according to a systematic review with meta-analysis and single-center series [240,241,242]. While intensity-modulated particle therapy has shown encouraging results, the duration of follow-up of published series is not sufficient to draw clear conclusions on its added value in ACC treatment [243,244,245,246,247].
Song et al. showed that elective irradiation of the neck conferred no benefit in terms of overall and progression-free survival in a cohort of 166 sinonasal ACC [248]. Wang et al. reported a similar finding with a propensity score matching approach, similar to the International Head and Neck Scientific Group review of 774 patients [249, 250]. Likewise, elective neck dissection did not show to provide a prognostic advantage [251]. On the contrary, elective neck treatment has been suggested for ACC with “high-grade transformation” [252].
Given the remarkably high recurrence rate, disease-specific mortality, and occurrence of distant metastases, several efforts have been performed to identify effective systemic treatments. Atallah et al. reviewed the relevant literature and reported that the following targeted agents have been tested to date: axitinib, bortezomib, cetuximab, dovitinib, everolimus, gefitinib, imatinib, lapatinib, sorafenib, sunitinib, vorinostat, crenigacestat, and lenvatinib [253]. Although a considerable rate of stable disease has been observed with some of these drugs (up to 85–90% with sunitinib, vorinostat, or cetuximab), the pooled rate of patients with partial response was only 18/438 (4.1%). In the same review, the pooled rate of responders to chemotherapy was 32/222 (14.4%). The NOTCH pathway was found to be frequently altered in ACC, particularly in those not bearing a MYB-involving fusion [254]. The genes NOTCH1-3 and SPEN are the most frequently mutated [255]. From a genetic standpoint, Ho et al. classified ACC in 4 clusters: (1) ACC with both MYB and NOTCH1 mutated, (2) ACC with MYB mutated and NOTCH1 wild type, (3) ACC with MYB wild type and TERT mutated, and (4) ACC with MYB wild type and NOTCH1 mutated [256]. Wang et al. demonstrated that the solid component of ACC, which predicts poor prognosis [226,227,228,229, 257], is intimately associated with NOTCH pathway deregulation, which could represent the key mechanism of aggressive clone selection in this cancer [255]. Consistently, Xie et al. showed that the NOTCH1-HEY1 pathway is associated with epithelial–mesenchymal transition of ACC [258]. Thus, one could hypothesize that using NOTCH inhibitors is critical in improving outcomes of ACC patients. However, objective response has been observed in only 0–17% patients treated with drugs targeting the NOTCH pathway [259, 260]. Moreover, with an immune-excluded microenvironment, M2-polarized macrophages, high density of myeloid-derived suppressor cells, and low mutational load, ACC is also an unpromising candidate to immunotherapy [261]. Indeed, unsatisfactory response rates to ICI have been reported [262]. Overall, there is currently no effective systemic therapy for ACC, since the large majority of molecular alterations found in this cancer are not actionable and the proportion of patients eligible for effective targeted therapy is currently low [256, 263].
In conclusion, ACC of the sinonasal tract represents a distinct challenge and the current potential TDTC are limited to those characteristics associated with more aggressive behavior or an unusual propensity to nodal metastasis (Table 16.6).
Nasopharyngeal Tumors
Nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC), with its 3 variants according to the World Health Classification (nonkeratinizing SCC, keratinizing SCC, basaloid SCC), is by far the most common malignancy involving this area. Other histologies, such as carcinomas originating from minor salivary glands and the entity called “low-grade nasopharyngeal papillary adenocarcinoma” (LGNPPA) are only rarely observed [264].
It is well established that the treatment of choice for NPC is radiotherapy alone, preferably in the form of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), in stage I–II disease and chemo-radiotherapy in stage III–IVA. The selection of patients to receive chemotherapy as induction or adjuvant treatment is a therapeutic area that is currently being explored [265]. Surgery can have a role in the treatment of selected persistent/recurrent lesions as an alternative to re-irradiation. A recent multicenter, randomized, phase 3 trial including 200 patients with recurrent NPC confined to the nasopharyngeal cavity, post-naris or nasal septum, superficial parapharyngeal space, or the base wall of the sphenoid sinus, has shown that endoscopic surgery significantly improved overall survival compared with IMRT [266]. In the present chapter, the discussion will focus on those tumors whose treatment is less standardized compared to NPC, in view of their rarity and the variable response to (chemo)radiation.
According to the largest single-institution study on 28 patients, LGNPPA affects subjects with an average age of 41.5 years, with a preference for females [267]. A consistent number of LGNPPA is pathologically characterized by a papillary growth, and may mimic papillary thyroid carcinoma, thus being called “thyroid-like” LGNPPA. Evidence of a transition from the mucosal surface to the tumor, predominance of stratified nuclei, negativity for thyroglobulin, and absence of thyroid lesions at imaging studies are all criteria favoring a diagnosis of thyroid-like LGNPPA [268]. The continuity of LGNPPA tumor cells with positive cytokeratin staining indicates that the lesion arises from the surface mucosal epithelium rather than from submucosal seromucinous glands [269]. In view of its tendency to present as a polypoid lesion with superficial growth, and no spread to regional lymph nodes and distant sites, LGNPPA is ideally amenable to surgery, and many of the cases reported in the literature have been successfully treated with transnasal endoscopic surgery [267]. The role of radiotherapy is questionable. Mutations in KRAS, NRAS, BRAF, EGFR, and ALK have been so far excluded [267].
Among minor salivary gland cancers, ACC, adenocarcinoma not otherwise specified, and mucoepidermoid carcinoma (MEC) are the most frequent histologies [270].
Similar to sinonasal localizations, ACC of the nasopharynx invariably presents at an advanced local stage, with frequent radiologic signs of perineural spread, bony permeation of the clivus and temporal bone, and critical relationships with the internal carotid artery (Fig. 16.7). In view of these features, radical resection can be rarely achieved so that surgery, if technically feasible, generally leaves behind microscopic or macroscopic disease. However, a population-based analysis of 383 patients with minor salivary gland cancers extracted from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (165 of which were ACC) demonstrated that any form of treatment schedule including surgery provided high 5-year disease-specific survival [270]. Of note, as in any retrospective large dataset analysis, the bias of treatment selection in relation to tumor extent should not be neglected. In a recent retrospective review on the role of endoscopic transnasal surgery in treatment of 30 patients with ACC of the sinonasal tract and nasopharynx, the University of Pittsburgh (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, US) group concluded that tumor grade has a significant impact on prognosis [233]. They recommended endoscopic resection followed by radiotherapy for low-grade tumors and suggested that intermediate/high grade tumors might benefit from novel treatment strategies. Regarding radiotherapy, there is a need to demonstrate the superiority of particle therapy over IMRT, in terms of local control of the disease as well as morbidity, with a high level of evidence. For medical therapy, the limited effect of chemotherapeutic agents is well known, while there is still a lack of drugs effectively targeting the numerous molecular alterations, as described in the section on sinonasal tumors (Table 16.6).
MEC is classically divided into low-grade, intermediate-grade, and high-grade, with grading having a significant impact on prognosis. The tumor is frequently associated with a t(11;19)(q14–21;p12–13) translocation that creates a CRTC1-MAML2 fusion gene. This feature is known to have a favorable prognostic effect, and not unexpectedly is found more frequently in low/intermediate grade lesions than in high-grade tumors [271]. However, many other alterations have been identified in MEC. Morita et al. recently looked for CRTC1/3-MAML2 fusions and gene alterations in EGFR, RAS family (KRAS, HRAS and NRAS), PIK3CA, BRAF, and AKT1 in 101 MEC cases [272]. They also searched for mutations in TP53. CRTC1/3-MAML2 fusions were found in 62.4% of cases. KRAS, HRAS and PIK3CA mutations were detected in 6.9, 2.0, and 6.9%, respectively, but other EGFR pathway genes were not mutated. In total, gene mutations (RAS/PIK3CA) in the EGFR pathway were detected in 14.9% of cases, and TP53 mutations in 20.8%. CRTC1/3-MAML2 fusions were associated with better prognosis and RAS/PIK3CA mutations with worse prognosis, and both were selected as independent prognostic factors for the overall survival. TP53 mutations had no prognostic impact. CRTC1/3-MAML2 fusion-positive rates were inversely associated with the patient age and fusions were found in 82% of patients aged <30 years. There has been no phase II study exclusively evaluating MEC. Targeted therapies investigating MEC together with other histologies included cetuximab [273], nintedanib [274], and sorafenib [275], but no subgroup analysis was performed. Isolated cases of favorable response of high-grade MEC to pembrolizumab have been reported [276, 277]. In a patient with an extensive high-grade lesion of the parotid gland, pembrolizumab was used as “first-line” therapy and complete pathologic response was achieved [276]. In another two patients with distant metastasis from parotid high-grade MEC, prolonged partial response to pembrolizumab was observed [277].
In conclusion, the treatment of choice for glandular malignancies of the nasopharynx is still based on the combination of surgery and radiotherapy. The role of chemotherapy, biotherapy, and immunotherapy need to be further elucidated, in light of improved understanding of their molecular profile.
Non-epithelial Skull Base Cancers
A variety of non-epithelial cancers can arise from mesenchymal tissues of the skull base, among which chondrosarcoma and chordoma are the histologies that have raised the greatest interest over the last decades. Of note, diagnosis of these cancers is frequently based on imaging findings and histological information is not always available prior to treating the patient. This fact should be taken into account when considering pathological and biological prognostic factors as potential TDTC.
Chondrosarcoma
Chondrosarcoma of the skull base is a rare tumor that arises from cartilaginous areas dispersed throughout the cranial base, mostly represented by synchondrosis (Fig. 16.8). It can be either sporadic or associated with hereditary enchondromatosis such as Maffucci syndrome and Ollier disease [278, 279]. Raza et al. reported that the petroclival synchondrosis is the most frequently affected site (49%), followed by the sphenoethmoidal (18.4%) and intersphenoidal (12.2%) synchondroses [280]. From a histological standpoint, chondrosarcomas can be conventional (further classified in grades I–III), mesenchymal, clear cell, myxoid, and dedifferentiated [281]. Surgery consisting of “maximum safe resection” is the mainstay of treatment and can be performed through an endoscopic transnasal approach in adequately selected cases [282,283,284,285,286,287,288,289,290].
Adjuvant radiotherapy is thought to provide advantages in terms of local control and the possibility to avoid it in selected cases is a matter of discussion. In fact, some authors suggest to reserve radiotherapy as a potential salvage option in grade I–II chondrosarcomas initially treated with “maximum safe resection” [291,292,293]. When progression-free survival is stratified by grade, only grade II and III are associated with a prognostic benefit when treated with adjuvant radiotherapy [290]. Given the strict adjacency to vital skull base structures, the dose distribution provided by intensity-modulated radiation therapy and particle radiotherapy is particularly effective in chondrosarcoma [294,295,296,297,298,299]. For instance, Holtzman et al. reported that proton beam radiotherapy on primary or residual post-surgical chondrosarcoma resulted in 4-year overall survival and local control of 95 and 89%, respectively [300]. However, compared to surgery only, surgery followed by proton beam radiotherapy increased 10-year progression-free survival from 58.2 to 87.5%, but did not improve disease-specific survival [301]. Overall, proton beam radiotherapy was more effective compared with photon radiotherapy in a National Cancer Database study on 736 sinonasal and skull base chondrosarcomas [302]. A systematic review with meta-analysis including 243 patients treated with surgery and postoperative carbon ion radiotherapy reported local control in 88% of cases with an overall survival of 79% at 10 years after treatment and grade ≥3 toxicity seen in 0–4% of patients [303]. Preclinical experiments on grade III chondrosarcoma have shown that the PARP inhibitor olaparib may serve as a radiosensitizer, particularly for particle therapy [304].
Mesenchymal and dedifferentiated chondrosarcomas are thought to have increased chemosensitivity [305]. Indeed, Raza et al. reported that the use of neoadjuvant (4 cases) or adjuvant (1 case) chemotherapy with vincristine, adriamycin, and ifosfamide increased progression-free and distant recurrence-free survival in mesenchymal and dedifferentiated chondrosarcomas [290].
Age >35/40 years and encasement of >2 major arteries (defined as ≥25% contact with the carotid, basilar or vertebral artery wall) were found to significantly predict progression of disease [306, 307]. The mesenchymal, clear cell, and dedifferentiated subtypes were demonstrated to predict progression of disease, as well as grade II and III [290, 302, 308,309,310,311]. SOX4 overexpression, which is related to miR-30a and miR-335 downregulation, was found to be associated with worse prognosis [312,313,314].
Tatman et al. demonstrated that phosphorylation of the following kinases is associated with recurrence: FES, FER, SRC family kinases, PKC, and ROCK, along with members of the mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway (JNK, ERK1, p38) [315]. The authors highlighted that several of these enzymes can be targeted with FDA-approved agents such as bosutinib, sunitinib, dasatinib, and nilotinib. In turn, even if the Hedgehog pathway was found to be upregulated in chondrosarcoma, Hedgehog pathway inhibitors do not provide significant clinical benefit [316, 317]. PD-L1 is not expressed in conventional chondrosarcoma, whereas it was detected in certain cases of dedifferentiated subtype, which also showed increased tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and HLA class I expression [318]. Indeed, partial response to ICI has been reported in a case of dedifferentiated chondrosarcoma [319].
While the paucity and heterogeneity of data prevent drawing clear indications to customize treatment of chondrosarcoma, some potential TDTC alongside with patient-related factors can be hypothesized based on the available evidence (Table 16.7).
Chordoma
Chordoma is a malignant tumor taking origin from remnants of the notochord and is classified in conventional, chondroid, sarcomatoid, or dedifferentiated types [320]. Recently, a SMARCB1-deficient poorly differentiated chordoma has been identified and considered as a further subtype [321]. Cranial chordomas are most frequently centered along the uppermost portion of the embryonal position of the notochord, from the craniocervical junction to the sella turcica (Fig. 16.8). Surgery consisting of gross total resection is the mainstay of treatment and less-than-total resection is independently associated with worse outcome [322, 323]. Given their central, midline position in the cranial base, chordomas are most frequently addressed through an endoscopic transnasal approach [324, 325]. Of note, surgery performed outside of a multidisciplinary setting was independently associated with decreased survival [326].
Overall, adjuvant radiotherapy is considered an essential part of treatment. Bai et al. demonstrated that postoperative radiotherapy should be delivered as adjuvant treatment following macroscopically complete surgery rather than salvage therapy after evidence of recurrence [327]. Radiation dose up to 78 Gy in 39 fractions proved beneficial over lower doses (<74 Gy) in terms of local control [328]. Both proton beam and carbon ion radiotherapy have shown remarkable efficacy in the postoperative treatment of chordomas, with 5-year local control exceeding 70% in most series [303, 329,330,331,332].
Chemotherapy has a limited role in the treatment of chordoma [333]. Interestingly, a computational drug repositioning study on FDA-approved agents identified cytarabine and tretinoin as drugs with a potential effect on chordoma, thus suggesting that their efficacy should be investigated in a preclinical setting to evaluate their potential clinical utility [334].
Akinduro et al. systematically reviewed the targeted therapy agents employed in clinical trials for chordoma [335]. They reported that 9-nitro-camptothecin, sunitinib, imatinib (with/without cyclophosphamide, with/without everolimus), lapatinib, sorafenib, dasatinib, nilotinib, and apatinib have been tested in a clinical setting, with objective response rates ranging between 0 and 25%. Meng et al. suggested that targeted therapy for chordoma should be driven by gene mutation screening or immunohistochemistry by assessing the PDGFR, EGFR, VEGFR, and mTOR pathways [336].
The dedifferentiated, poorly differentiated (i.e., SMARCB1-deficient), and sarcomatoid subtypes have been associated with poorer disease-specific survival, whereas the chondroid variant had more favorable progression-free survival [321, 323, 327, 337,338,339].
If one considers the group of rare malignancies of the skull base from a molecular and genetic perspective, chordoma is among the most extensively explored lesions [314]. Zuccato et al. presented a comprehensive, methylomic-driven analysis of 68 chordomas and identified 2 clusters of hypomethylated tumors [340]. The first was associated with deregulation of immune- and transcription/translation-related pathways (referred to as “immune-infiltrated”), and the second with cell-to-cell interaction, extracellular matrix, angiogenesis, and metabolic pathways (referred to as “cellular”). Interestingly, the first cluster had significantly worse prognosis and cluster classification could be reliably performed non-invasively based on plasma cell-free DNA. The load of chromosomal deletions of 1p36 and 9p21 in the cellular population of chordoma has been found to predict progression-free survival [341]. This biomarker was found also to deeply impact the response to adjuvant radiotherapy in an analysis of 152 clival chordomas [342]. In macroscopically resected chordomas with low-to-intermediate chromosomal deletion burden, adjuvant radiotherapy did not increase progression-free survival, whereas it did in less than totally resected tumors with intermediate burden and in those with high burden irrespective of the degree of resection. Moreover, deregulation of ERK and HPGD expression was found to increase resistance to radiotherapy [343]. When considering molecular prognostic biomarkers, upregulation of asparagine synthetase, overexpression of c-Cbl, Cbl-b, PDGFR-β, TGF-α/β, VEGFR1/2, survivin, and ERK, and underexpression of SMARCB1, HPGD, and PTEN were associated with poor prognosis [339, 343,344,345,346,347,348,349,350,351]. On the other hand, duplication and overexpression of Brachyury (also called T gene) has an ill-defined prognostic role, but is thought to be involved early in chordoma development and was implicated in familial chordomas [314, 352, 353]. The prognostic effect of miRNA deregulation in chordoma is not fully elucidated and mostly relies on series including both cranial and spinal tumors [354].
Of note, as demonstrated by the Beijing Neurosurgical Institute’s experience, several patient-related peripheral blood indexes have been associated with prognosis of chordoma patients. For instance, systemic immune-inflammation index, which summarizes the count of neutrophils, platelets, and lymphocytes, prognostic nutritional index, which includes serum albumin and lymphocytes count, and fibrinogen-albumin score have been associated with survival outcomes [355, 356]. Similarly, platelet and red cell distribution width was found to correlate with overall survival [357, 358].
The interaction between chordoma and the immune system is still far from being fully elucidated, but some inherent data have supported the design of immunotherapy clinical trials [359]. PD-L1 expression in non-tumor cells and high density of macrophages, regulatory T cells, and “exhausted” tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes were associated with more rapid progression of the disease and worse prognosis [349, 360, 361]. Currently, a number of clinical trials are assessing the potential benefit of ICI and Brachyury vaccine in patients affected by chordoma [362]. Of note, a phase I trial on MVA-BN-brachyury-TRICOM vaccine showed some form of benefit in 5/10 patients affected by chordoma, with stable disease and partial response in 4 and 1 cases, respectively [363]. On the other hand, a phase II, double blind, placebo-controlled trial showed that yeast-Brachyury vaccine does not provide additional effect in patients with unresectable chordomas treated with standard-of-care radiotherapy [364]. Though evidence is limited to the preclinical setting, B7-H3 has been identified as a potential target for CAR-T cell therapy (Table 16.8) [365].
Conclusions
Malignant neoplasms that arise from or encroach on the ventral cranial base comprise a large group of different entities, each one with different behavior. The understanding of these cancers is rapidly evolving and is providing a wealth of information with potential therapeutic implications. The large majority of TDTC that were discussed in this chapter are based on theoretical grounds, and evidence of their value in the clinical setting is still lacking. However, several promising paths of treatment customization, which need to be appropriately validated, can be foreseen. Based on the complexity of the pathologies that we have reviewed in this chapter, the logical conclusion is that both research and clinical management should be performed at institutions with dedicated, multidisciplinary facilities.
Abbreviations
- AFF2:
-
AF4/FMR2 family member 2 gene
- AKT1:
-
RAC(Rho family)-alpha serine/threonine-protein kinase gene 1
- ALDH1A3:
-
Aldehyde dehydrogenase 1 family member A3
- ALK:
-
Anaplastic lymphoma kinase
- ALPL:
-
Alkaline phosphatase tissue-nonspecific isozyme gene
- ANXA2:
-
Annexin A2 gene
- BET:
-
Bromodomain and extraterminal
- BRAF:
-
v-Raf murine sarcoma viral oncogene homolog B
- BRCA1:
-
Breast cancer gene 1
- BUB1:
-
Budding uninhibited by benzimidazoles 1 gene
- CA9:
-
Carbonic anhydrase 9
- CAR-T:
-
Chimeric antigen receptor T (cells)
- CCL1:
-
C–C motif chemokine ligand 1 gene
- CCL15:
-
C–C motif chemokine ligand 15 gene
- CCND1:
-
Gene encoding cyclin D1
- CD:
-
Cluster of differentiation
- CDC34:
-
Cell division cycle 34 ubiquitin conjugating enzyme gene
- CDK:
-
Cyclin-dependent kinase
- CDKN2A:
-
Cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor 2A gene
- CENPF:
-
Centromere protein F gene
- CpG:
-
5′-C-phosphate-G-3′
- CRTC1:
-
CREB regulated transcription coactivator 1
- DCC:
-
Deleted in colorectal cancer gene
- DEK:
-
DEK proto-oncogene
- DMD:
-
Duchenne muscular dystrophy gene
- DNAJB8:
-
dnaJ heat shock protein family (Hsp40) member B8 gene
- DNTT:
-
DNA nucleotidylexotransferase gene
- DOTATATE:
-
Tetraxetan-(Tyr3)-octreotate
- DTIC:
-
Dimethyl traizeno imidazole carboxamide
- E2F:
-
E2 transcription factor
- EFNA2:
-
Ephrin A2 gene
- EGFR:
-
Epidermal growth factor receptor
- EIF2S1:
-
Eukaryotic translation initiation factor 2 subunit alpha gene
- EIF6:
-
Eukaryotic translation initiation factor 6 gene
- ERBB2:
-
Erb-B2 receptor tyrosine kinase 2 gene
- ERCC1:
-
Excision repair cross-complementation group 1 gene
- ERK1:
-
Mitogen-activated protein kinase 3
- EZH2:
-
Enhancer of zeste 2 polycomb repressive complex 2 subunit gene
- FBXO5:
-
F-Box protein 5 gene
- FDA:
-
Food and drug administration
- FER:
-
Proto-oncogene tyrosine-protein kinase FER
- FES:
-
Feline sarcoma oncogene
- FGF20:
-
Fibroblast growth factor 20 gene
- FGFR3:
-
Fibroblast growth factor receptor 3
- GNA11:
-
Guanine nucleotide-binding protein subunit alpha-11 gene
- HER2:
-
Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2
- HLA:
-
Human leukocyte antigens gene
- HPGD:
-
15-Hydroxyprostaglandin dehydrogenase gene
- HSPB1:
-
Heat shock protein beta-1 gene
- HSPB7:
-
Heat shock protein family B (small) member 7
- IDH:
-
Isocitrate dehydrogenase gene (1 and 2)
- IDO1:
-
Indoleamine-pyrrole 2,3-dioxygenase 1
- IFN:
-
Interferon
- IL:
-
Interleukin
- ITGB4:
-
Integrin subunit beta 4 gene
- JAK:
-
Janus kinase
- JNK:
-
c-Jun N-terminal kinases
- KIT:
-
KIT proto-oncogene receptor tyrosine kinase
- KRT14:
-
Keratin 14 gene
- LAMB4:
-
Laminin subunit beta 4
- LAMC2:
-
Laminin subunit gamma 2 gene
- MAML2:
-
Mastermind like transcriptional coactivator 2
- MAPK:
-
Mitogen-activated protein kinase
- MET:
-
Tyrosine-protein kinase Met gene (also known as hepatocyte growth factor receptor)
- MRP:
-
Multidrug resistance-associated protein
- mTOR:
-
Mammalian target of rapamycin kinase
- MUSES:
-
Multi-institutional collaborative study on endoscopically treated sinonasal cancers
- MVA-BN-brachyury-TRICOM:
-
Modified vaccinia Ankara virus, Bavarian Nordic Brachyury triad of costimulatory molecules
- MYB:
-
MYB proto-oncogene
- MYBL1:
-
MYB proto-oncogene like 1
- MYC:
-
MYC proto-oncogene
- NF1:
-
Neurofibromin 1 gene
- NFIB:
-
Nuclear factor I B gene
- NK:
-
Natural killer
- NOTCH:
-
Neurogenic locus notch homolog protein
- NR4A3:
-
Nuclear receptor subfamily 4 group A member 3 gene
- NUT:
-
Nuclear protein in testis
- PARP1:
-
Poly [ADP-ribose] polymerase 1
- PD-L1:
-
Programmed death-ligand 1
- PDGFR-β:
-
Platelet-derived growth factor receptor beta
- PFOU5F1B:
-
POU domain class 5, transcription factor 1B pseudogene 1
- PI3K:
-
Phosphoinositide 3-kinases
- PIK3CA:
-
Phosphatidylinositol-4,5-bisphosphate 3-kinase catalytic subunit alpha
- PKC:
-
Protein kinase C
- PRAME:
-
Preferentially expressed antigen in melanoma
- PTEN:
-
Phosphatase and tensin homolog gene
- PTP4A3:
-
Protein tyrosine phosphatase 4A3 gene
- PTPN1:
-
Protein tyrosine phosphatase non-receptor type 1 gene
- RAS:
-
Rat sarcoma virus gene (including KRAS, HRAS, and NRAS)
- ROCK:
-
Rho-associated, coiled-coil-containing protein kinase 1
- SATB2:
-
Special AT-rich sequence-binding protein 2
- SIX1:
-
SIX homeobox 1 gene
- SMARCA4:
-
Switch/sucrose non-fermentable-related matrix-associated actin-dependent regulator of chromatin subfamily A member 4
- SMARCB1:
-
Switch/sucrose non-fermentable-related matrix-associated actin-dependent regulator of chromatin subfamily B member 1
- SOX4:
-
SRY-box transcription factor 4
- SRC:
-
Proto-oncogene tyrosine-protein kinase Src
- SSTR:
-
Somatostatin receptor gene (2 and 5)
- STAT:
-
Signal transducer and activator of transcription
- SWI/SNF:
-
Switch/sucrose non-fermentable (complex)
- TGF:
-
Transforming growth factor
- TIMP2:
-
Tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinases 2 gene
- TNFRSF25:
-
Tumor necrosis factor receptor superfamily member 25 gene
- TOPO1:
-
Topoisomerase I gene
- TUBB3:
-
Tubulin beta 3 class III gene
- TUBB3:
-
Tubulin beta 3 class III gene
- UV:
-
Ultraviolet
- VEGFR1/2:
-
Vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 1/2
References
Jankowski R, Georgel T, Vignaud JM, et al. Endoscopic surgery reveals that woodworkers’ adenocarcinomas originate in the olfactory cleft. Rhinology. 2007;45(4):308–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1041-892x(08)79102-9.
Binazzi A, Corfiati M, Di Marzio D, et al. Sinonasal cancer in the Italian national surveillance system: epidemiology, occupation, and public health implications. Am J Ind Med. 2018;61(3):239–50. https://doi.org/10.1002/AJIM.22789.
Alpuim Costa D, Monteiro A, André T, et al. A potential link between prolonged cork exposure and intestinal-type sinonasal adenocarcinoma—special findings of a retrospective cohort analysis. Front Oncol. 2020;10. https://doi.org/10.3389/FONC.2020.565036.
Ferrari M, Mattavelli D, Tomasoni M, et al. The MUSES*: a prognostic study on 1360 patients with sinonasal cancer undergoing endoscopic surgery-based treatment. *MUlti-institutional collaborative Study on Endoscopically treated Sinonasal cancers. Eur J Cancer. 2022;171:161–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2022.05.010.
Ferrari M, Orlandi E, Bossi P. Sinonasal cancers treatments: state of the art. Curr Opin Oncol. 2021;33(3):196–205. https://doi.org/10.1097/CCO.0000000000000726.
Rampinelli V, Ferrari M, Nicolai P. Intestinal-type adenocarcinoma of the sinonasal tract: an update. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2018;26(2). https://doi.org/10.1097/MOO.0000000000000445.
Turri-Zanoni M, Battaglia P, Lambertoni A, et al. Treatment strategies for primary early-stage sinonasal adenocarcinoma: a retrospective bi-institutional case-control study. J Surg Oncol. 2015;112(5):561–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.24038.
Barnes L. Intestinal-type adenocarcinoma of the nasal cavity and paranasal sinuses. Am J Surg Pathol. 1986;10(3):192–202. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000478-198603000-00006.
Kleinsasser O, Schroeder HG. The pathology and clinical picture of adenocarcinoma of the nose after wood dust exposure. Strahlenther Onkol. 1989;165(6):437–40. https://europepmc.org/article/med/2740980. Accessed 28 June 2022.
Donhuijsen K, Kollecker I, Petersen P, Gaßler N, Wolf J, Schroeder HG. Clinical and morphological aspects of adenocarcinomas of the intestinal type in the inner nose: a retrospective multicenter analysis. Eur Arch Oto-Rhino-Laryngol. 2016;273(10):3207–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-016-3987-4.
Camp S, Van Gerven L, Poorten V Vander, et al. Long-term follow-up of 123 patients with adenocarcinoma of the sinonasal tract treated with endoscopic resection and postoperative radiation therapy. Head Neck. 2016;38(2):294–300. https://doi.org/10.1002/hed.23900.
Chen MM, Roman SA, Sosa JA, Judson BL. Predictors of survival in sinonasal adenocarcinoma. J Neurol Surg B Skull Base. 2015;76(3):208–13. https://doi.org/10.1055/S-0034-1543995.
Ferrari M, Bossi P, Mattavelli D, Ardighieri L, Nicolai P. Management of sinonasal adenocarcinomas with anterior skull base extension. J Neurooncol. 2020;150(3). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-019-03385-8.
Maffeis V, Cappellesso R, Galuppini F, et al. Tumor budding is an adverse prognostic marker in intestinal-type sinonasal adenocarcinoma and seems to be unrelated to epithelial-mesenchymal transition. Virchows Arch. 2020;477(2):241–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-020-02748-1.
Meerwein CM, Brada MD, Soyka MB, Holzmann D, Rupp NJ. Reappraisal of grading in intestinal-type sinonasal adenocarcinoma: tumor budding as an independent prognostic parameter. Head Neck Pathol. 2022;0123456789:11–4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12105-022-01410-3.
Hermsen MA, Llorente JL, Pérez-Escuredo J, et al. Genome-wide analysis of genetic changes in intestinal-type sinonasal adenocarcinoma. Head Neck. 2009;31(3):290–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/HED.20973.
López-Hernández A, Pérez-Escuredo J, Vivanco B, et al. Genomic profiling of intestinal-type sinonasal adenocarcinoma reveals subgroups of patients with distinct clinical outcomes. Head Neck. 2018;40(2):259–73. https://doi.org/10.1002/hed.24941.
Re M, Tomasetti M, Monaco F, et al. MiRNome analysis identifying miR-205 and miR-449a as biomarkers of disease progression in intestinal-type sinonasal adenocarcinoma. Head Neck. 2022;44(1):18–33. https://doi.org/10.1002/hed.26894.
Licitra L, Locati LD, Cavina R, et al. Primary chemotherapy followed by anterior craniofacial resection and radiotherapy for paranasal cancer. Ann Oncol Off J Eur Soc Med Oncol. 2003;14(3):367–72. https://doi.org/10.1093/ANNONC/MDG113.
Licitra L, Suardi S, Bossi P, et al. Prediction of TP53 status for primary cisplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin chemotherapy in ethmoid sinus intestinal-type adenocarcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(24):4901–6. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2004.05.071.
Bossi P, Perrone F, Miceli R, et al. Tp53 status as guide for the management of ethmoid sinus intestinal-type adenocarcinoma. Oral Oncol. 2013;49(5):413–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ORALONCOLOGY.2012.12.011.
García-Inclán C, López F, Pérez-Escuredo J, et al. EGFR status and KRAS/BRAF mutations in intestinal-type sinonasal adenocarcinomas. Cell Oncol (Dordr). 2012;35(6):443–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/S13402-012-0103-7.
Franchi A, Innocenti DRD, Palomba A, et al. Low prevalence of K-RAS, EGF-R and BRAF mutations in sinonasal adenocarcinomas. Implications for anti-EGFR treatments. Pathol Oncol Res. 2014;20(3):571–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/S12253-013-9730-1.
Maffeis V, Cappellesso R, Zanon A, et al. HER2 status in sinonasal intestinal-type adenocarcinoma. Pathol Res Pract. 2019;215(6). https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PRP.2019.04.024.
Cabezas-Camarero S, de la Orden GV, García-Barberán V, et al. Nasoethmoidal intestinal-type adenocarcinoma treated with cetuximab: role of liquid biopsy and BEAMing in predicting response to anti-epidermal growth factor receptor therapy. Oncologist. 2019;24(3):293–300. https://doi.org/10.1634/THEONCOLOGIST.2018-0387.
Projetti F, Mesturoux L, Coulibaly B, et al. Study of MET protein levels and MET gene copy number in 72 sinonasal intestinal-type adenocarcinomas. Head Neck. 2015;37(11):1563–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/HED.23795.
Hoeben A, van de Winkel L, Hoebers F, et al. Intestinal-type sinonasal adenocarcinomas: the road to molecular diagnosis and personalized treatment. Head Neck. 2016;38(10):1564–70. https://doi.org/10.1002/HED.24416.
Schatz C, Sprung S, Schartinger V, et al. Dysregulation of translation factors EIF2S1, EIF5A and EIF6 in intestinal-type adenocarcinoma (ITAC). Cancers (Basel). 2021;13(22):1–12. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13225649.
Sánchez-Fernández P, Riobello C, Costales M, et al. Next-generation sequencing for identification of actionable gene mutations in intestinal-type sinonasal adenocarcinoma. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-80242-z.
Riobello C, Vivanco B, Reda S, et al. Programmed death ligand-1 expression as immunotherapeutic target in sinonasal cancer. Head Neck. 2018;40(4):818–27. https://doi.org/10.1002/hed.25067.
García-Marín R, Reda S, Riobello C, et al. CD8+ tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes and tumour microenvironment immune types as biomarkers for immunotherapy in sinonasal intestinal-type adenocarcinoma. Vaccines. 2020;8(2):1–10. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines8020202.
Donhuijsen K, Kollecker I, Petersen P, Gaßler N, Schulze J, Schroeder HG. Metastatic behaviour of sinonasal adenocarcinomas of the intestinal type (ITAC). Eur Arch Oto-Rhino-Laryngol. 2016;273(3):649–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-015-3596-7.
Ferrari M, Taboni S, Carobbio ALC, et al. Sinonasal squamous cell carcinoma, a narrative reappraisal of the current evidence. Cancers (Basel). 2021;13(11):1–28. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13112835.
Ferrari M, Mattavelli D, Schreiber A, et al. Does reorganization of clinicopathological information improve prognostic stratification and prediction of chemoradiosensitivity in sinonasal carcinomas? A retrospective study on 145 patients. Front Oncol. 2022;12:1–18. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2022.799680.
Hanna EY, Cardenas AD, DeMonte F, et al. Induction chemotherapy for advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the paranasal sinuses. Arch Otolaryngol - Head Neck Surg. 2011;137(1):78–81. https://doi.org/10.1001/archoto.2010.231.
Abdelmeguid AS, Teeramatwanich W, Roberts DB, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locoregionally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the paranasal sinuses. Cancer. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.33452.
Ock C-Y, Keam B, Kim TM, et al. Induction chemotherapy in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma of the paranasal sinus and nasal cavity: a role in organ preservation. Korean J Intern Med. 2016;31(3):570–8. https://doi.org/10.3904/kjim.2015.020.
Chen NX, Chen L, Wang JL, et al. A clinical study of multimodal treatment for orbital organ preservation in locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the nasal cavity and paranasal sinus. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2016;46(8):727–34. https://doi.org/10.1093/jjco/hyw064.
Turri-Zanoni M, Lambertoni A, Margherini S, et al. Multidisciplinary treatment algorithm for the management of sinonasal cancers with orbital invasion: a retrospective study. Head Neck. 2019;41(8):2777–88. https://doi.org/10.1002/hed.25759.
Ferrari M, Migliorati S, Tomasoni M, et al. Sinonasal cancer encroaching the orbit: ablation or preservation? Oral Oncol. 2021;114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oraloncology.2021.105185.
Murr AT, Lenze NR, Weiss JM, et al. Sinonasal squamous cell carcinoma survival outcomes following induction chemotherapy versus standard of care therapy. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1177/01945998221083097.
Shen W, Sakamoto N, Yang L. Prognostic models and nomograms for predicting survival of patients with maxillary sinus carcinomas. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2017;7(7):741–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/alr.21950.
Ganly I, Patel SG, Singh B, et al. Craniofacial resection for malignant paranasal sinus tumors: report of an international collaborative study. Head Neck. 2005;27(7):575–84. https://doi.org/10.1002/hed.20165.
Vazquez A, Khan MN, Blake DM, Patel TD, Baredes S, Eloy JA. Sinonasal squamous cell carcinoma and the prognostic implications of its histologic variants: a population-based study. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2015;5(1):85–91. https://doi.org/10.1002/alr.21418.
Russell JO, Hoschar AP, Scharpf J. Papillary squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: a clinicopathologic series. Am J Otolaryngol. 2011;32(6):557–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AMJOTO.2010.09.010.
Mirza S, Bradley PJ, Acharya A, Stacey M, Jones NS. Sinonasal inverted papillomas: recurrence, and synchronous and metachronous malignancy. J Laryngol Otol. 2007;121(9):857–64. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002221510700624X.
Lee JJ, Peterson AM, Embry TW, et al. Survival outcomes of de novo versus inverted papilloma-associated sinonasal squamous cell carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Otolaryngol - Head Neck Surg. 2021;147(4):350–9. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoto.2020.5261.
Stelow EB, Bellizzi AM, Taneja K, et al. NUT rearrangement in undifferentiated carcinomas of the upper aerodigestive tract. Am J Surg Pathol. 2008;32(6):828–34. https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0b013e31815a3900.
Stelow EB, Bishop JA. Update from the 4th edition of the World Health Organization classification of head and neck tumours: tumors of the nasal cavity, paranasal sinuses and skull base. Head Neck Pathol. 2017;11(1):3–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12105-017-0791-4.
Naga R, Pai PS. Other rare sinonasal malignant tumours involving the anterior skull base. Adv Otorhinolaryngol. 2020;84:210–7. https://doi.org/10.1159/000457940.
Wang S, Li J, Tong W, Li H, Feng Q, Teng B. Advances in the pathogenesis and treatment of nut carcinoma: a narrative review. Transl Cancer Res. 2020;9(10):6505–15. https://doi.org/10.21037/TCR-20-1884.
Chowdhury N, Alvi S, Kimura K, et al. Outcomes of HPV-related nasal squamous cell carcinoma. Laryngoscope. 2017;127(7):1600–3. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.26477.
Bishop JA, Guo TW, Smith DF, et al. Human papillomavirus-related carcinomas of the sinonasal tract. Am J Surg Pathol. 2013;37(2):185–92. https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0b013e3182698673.
Larque AB, Hakim S, Ordi J, et al. High-risk human papillomavirus is transcriptionally active in a subset of sinonasal squamous cell carcinomas. Mod Pathol. 2014;27(3):343–51. https://doi.org/10.1038/modpathol.2013.155.
Thompson LDR. HPV-related multiphenotypic sinonasal carcinoma. Ear, Nose Throat J. 2020;99(2):94–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145561319871711.
Bishop JA, Andreasen S, Hang JF, et al. HPV-related multiphenotypic sinonasal carcinoma. An expanded series of 49 cases of the tumor formerly known as HPV-related carcinoma with adenoid cystic carcinoma-like features. Am J Surg Pathol. 2017;41(12):1690–701. https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0000000000000944.
Sharma A, Tang AL, Takiar V, Wise-Draper TM, Langevin SM. Human papillomavirus and survival of sinonasal squamous cell carcinoma patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancers (Basel). 2021;13(15):1–12. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13153677.
Doescher J, Piontek G, Wirth M, et al. Epstein–Barr virus infection is strictly associated with the metastatic spread of sinonasal squamous-cell carcinomas. Oral Oncol. 2015;51(10):929–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oraloncology.2015.07.008.
Ferrari M, Ioppi A, Schreiber A, et al. Malignant tumors of the maxillary sinus: prognostic impact of neurovascular invasion in a series of 138 patients. Oral Oncol. 2020;106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oraloncology.2020.104672.
Ahn PH, Mitra N, Alonso-Basanta M, et al. Risk of lymph node metastasis and recommendations for elective nodal treatment in squamous cell carcinoma of the nasal cavity and maxillary sinus: a SEER analysis. Acta Oncol. 2016;55(9–10):1107–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/0284186X.2016.1216656.
Haas M, Hansen EE, Lewis JS, Faden DL. Is it time for a molecular-based classification system for sinonasal squamous cell carcinoma? Am J Surg Pathol. 2022;Publish Ah(7):873–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/pas.0000000000001871.
Taverna C, Agaimy A, Franchi A. Towards a molecular classification of sinonasal carcinomas: clinical implications and opportunities. Cancers (Basel). 2022;14(6). https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14061463.
Rooper LM, Agaimy A, Dickson BC, et al. DEK-AFF2 carcinoma of the sinonasal region and skull base: detailed clinicopathologic characterization of a distinctive entity. Am J Surg Pathol. 2021;45(12):1682–93. https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0000000000001741.
Kuo YJ, Lewis JS, Zhai C, et al. DEK-AFF2 fusion-associated papillary squamous cell carcinoma of the sinonasal tract: clinicopathologic characterization of seven cases with deceptively bland morphology. Mod Pathol. 2021;34(10):1820–30. https://doi.org/10.1038/S41379-021-00846-2.
Kovarikova H, Bubancova I, Laco J, et al. Deregulation of selected microRNAs in sinonasal carcinoma: value of miR-21 as prognostic biomarker in sinonasal squamous cell carcinoma. Head Neck. 2017;39(12):2528–36. https://doi.org/10.1002/hed.24930.
Kovaříková H, Baranová I, Laco J, et al. Deregulation of selected microRNAs in sinonasal squamous cell carcinoma: searching for potential prognostic biomarkers. Folia Biol (Czech Republic). 2019;65(3):142–51.
Ogawa T, Saiki Y, Shiga K, et al. miR-34a is downregulated in cis-diamminedichloroplatinum treated sinonasal squamous cell carcinoma patients with poor prognosis. Cancer Sci. 2012;103(9):1737–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1349-7006.2012.02338.x.
Muñoz-Cordero MG, López F, García-Inclán C, et al. Predictive value of EGFR-PI3K-pAKT-mTOR-pS6 pathway in sinonasal squamous cell carcinomas. Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp. 2019;70(1):16–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.OTORRI.2017.10.005.
Li L, Zhu L. Expression and clinical significance of TrkB in sinonasal squamous cell carcinoma: a pilot study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2017;46(2):144–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJOM.2016.09.027.
Hu C, Wang H, Lin L, Sun X, Wang D. Association between carbonic anhydrase 9 expression and poor prognosis in sinonasal squamous cell carcinoma. Ann Diagn Pathol. 2020;49. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ANNDIAGPATH.2020.151643.
Wang H, Hu C, Song X, et al. Expression of podoplanin in sinonasal squamous cell carcinoma and its clinical significance. Am J Rhinol Allergy. 2020;34(6):800–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/1945892420930976.
Takahashi Y, Bell D, Agarwal G, et al. Comprehensive assessment of prognostic markers for sinonasal squamous cell carcinoma. Head Neck. 2014;36(8):1094–102. https://doi.org/10.1002/HED.23423.
Gu JT, Claudio N, Betts C, Sivagnanam S, Geltzeiler M, Pucci F. Characterization of the tumor immune microenvironment of sinonasal squamous-cell carcinoma. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2022;12(1):39–50. https://doi.org/10.1002/ALR.22867.
Hongo T, Yamamoto H, Jiromaru R, et al. PD-L1 expression, tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, mismatch repair deficiency, EGFR alteration and HPV infection in sinonasal squamous cell carcinoma. Mod Pathol. 2021;34(11):1966–78. https://doi.org/10.1038/S41379-021-00868-W.
Quan H, Yan L, Wang S, Wang S. Clinical relevance and significance of programmed death-ligand 1 expression, tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, and p16 status in sinonasal squamous cell carcinoma. Cancer Manag Res. 2019;11:4335–45. https://doi.org/10.2147/CMAR.S201568.
Park JC, Faquin WC, Durbeck J, Faden DL. Immune checkpoint inhibitors in sinonasal squamous cell carcinoma. Oral Oncol. 2020;109: 104776. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oraloncology.2020.104776.
Turri-Zanoni M, Gravante G, Dalfino G, et al. Ectopic primary olfactory neuroblastoma: case series and literature review. World Neurosurg. 2022;158:e645–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2021.11.035.
Bell D, Saade R, Roberts D, et al. Prognostic utility of Hyams histological grading and Kadish-Morita staging systems for esthesioneuroblastoma outcomes. Head Neck Pathol. 2015;9(1):51–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/S12105-014-0547-3.
Malouf GG, Casiraghi O, Deutsch E, Guigay J, Temam S, Bourhis J. Low- and high-grade esthesioneuroblastomas display a distinct natural history and outcome. Eur J Cancer. 2013;49(6):1324–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2012.12.008.
Vuong HG, Ngo TNM, Dunn IF. Consolidating the Hyams grading system in esthesioneuroblastoma—an individual participant data meta-analysis. J Neurooncol. 2021;153(1):15–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-021-03746-2.
Song X, Wang J, Wang S, Yan L, Li Y. Prognostic factors and outcomes of multimodality treatment in olfactory neuroblastoma. Oral Oncol. 2020;103:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oraloncology.2020.104618.
McMillan RA, Van Gompel JJ, Link MJ, et al. Long-term oncologic outcomes in esthesioneuroblastoma: an institutional experience of 143 patients. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2022:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1002/alr.23007.
Burnham AJ, Burnham PA, Horwitz EM. Survival associations between patient age and treatment modality in olfactory neuroblastoma: a retrospective population-based study. J Clin Med. 2021;10(12). https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10122685.
Liu L, Zhong Q, Zhao T, Chen D, Xu Y, Li G. Model to predict cause-specific mortality in patients with olfactory neuroblastoma: a competing risk analysis. Radiat Oncol. 2021;16(1):1–7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-021-01784-8.
Wolfe AR, Blakaj D, London N, et al. Clinical outcomes and multidisciplinary patterns of failure for olfactory neuroblastoma: the Ohio state experience. J Neurol Surg B Skull Base. 2020;81(3):287–94. https://doi.org/10.1055/S-0039-1692479.
Lechner M, Takahashi Y, Turri-Zanoni M, et al. Clinical outcomes, Kadish-INSICA staging and therapeutic targeting of somatostatin receptor 2 in olfactory neuroblastoma. Eur J Cancer. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2021.09.046.
Kadish S, Goodman M, Wang CC. Olfactory neuroblastoma—a clinical analysis of 17 cases. Cancer. 1976;37(3):1571–6. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(197603)37:3%3c1571::AID-CNCR2820370347%3e3.0.CO;2-L.
Morita A, Ebersold MJ, Olsen KD, Foote RL, Lewis JE, Quast LM. Esthesioneuroblastoma: prognosis and management. Neurosurgery. 1993;32(5):706–15. https://doi.org/10.1227/00006123-199305000-00002.
Sun M, Wang K, Qu Y, et al. Proposal of a TNM classification-based staging system for esthesioneuroblastoma: more precise prediction of prognosis. Head Neck. 2021;43(4):1097–104. https://doi.org/10.1002/hed.26559.
Abdelmeguid AS, Bell D, Roberts D, et al. Long-term outcomes of olfactory neuroblastoma: MD Anderson Cancer Center experience and review of the literature. Laryngoscope. 2022;132(2):290–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/LARY.29732.
Tajudeen BA, Adappa ND, Kuan EC, et al. Smell preservation following endoscopic unilateral resection of esthesioneuroblastoma: a multi-institutional experience. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2016;6(10):1047–50. https://doi.org/10.1002/alr.21794.
Mays AC, Bell D, Ferrarotto R, et al. Early stage olfactory neuroblastoma and the impact of resecting dura and olfactory bulb. Laryngoscope. 2018;128(6):1274–80. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.26908.
Mattavelli D, Ferrari M, Bolzoni Villaret A, et al. Transnasal endoscopic surgery in selected nasal-ethmoidal cancer with suspected brain invasion: indications, technique, and outcomes. Head Neck. 2019;41(6). https://doi.org/10.1002/hed.25621.
Wang J, Wang L, He H, Li Y, Song X. The treatment outcomes of olfactory neuroblastoma patients with frontal lobe invasion. Front Oncol. 2021;11. https://doi.org/10.3389/FONC.2021.640892.
Hu W, Hu J, Gao J, et al. Intensity-modulated particle beam radiation therapy in the management of olfactory neuroblastoma. Ann Transl Med. 2020;8(15):926. https://doi.org/10.21037/atm-19-4790.
Nakamura N, Zenda S, Tahara M, et al. Proton beam therapy for olfactory neuroblastoma. Radiother Oncol. 2017;122(3):368–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RADONC.2016.12.020.
Pasalic D, Ludmir EB, Allen PK, et al. Patient-reported outcomes, physician-reported toxicities, and treatment outcomes in a modern cohort of patients with sinonasal cancer treated using proton beam therapy. Radiother Oncol. 2020;148:258–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RADONC.2020.05.007.
Meerwein CM, Nikolaou G, HA Binz G, Soyka MB, Holzmann D. Surgery as single-modality treatment for early-stage olfactory neuroblastoma: an institutional experience, systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Rhinol Allergy. 2021;35(4):525–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/1945892420973163.
Song X, Huang C, Wang S, Yan L, Wang J, Li Y. Neck management in patients with olfactory neuroblastoma. Oral Oncol. 2020;101. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ORALONCOLOGY.2019.104505.
Ziai H, Yu E, Weinreb I, et al. Regional recurrences and Hyams grade in esthesioneuroblastoma. J Neurol Surg B Skull Base. 2020;82(6):608–14. https://doi.org/10.1055/S-0040-1715809.
Su SY, Bell D, Ferrarotto R, et al. Outcomes for olfactory neuroblastoma treated with induction chemotherapy. Head Neck. 2017;39(8):1671–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/hed.24822.
Brisson RJ, Quinn TJ, Deraniyagala RL. The role of chemotherapy in the management of olfactory neuroblastoma: a 40-year surveillance, epidemiology, and end results registry study. Heal Sci Rep. 2021;4(2). https://doi.org/10.1002/hsr2.257.
Cranmer LD, Chau B, Rockhill JK, Ferreira M, Liao JJ. Chemotherapy in esthesioneuroblastoma/olfactory neuroblastoma: an analysis of the surveillance epidemiology and end results (SEER) 1973–2015 database. Am J Clin Oncol. 2020;43(3):203–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/COC.0000000000000649.
Miller KC, Marinelli JP, Van Gompel JJ, et al. Utility of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients receiving surgery and adjuvant radiotherapy for primary treatment of esthesioneuroblastoma. Head Neck. 2019;41(5):1335–41. https://doi.org/10.1002/HED.25558.
Topcagic J, Feldman R, Ghazalpour A, Swensen J, Gatalica Z, Vranic S. Comprehensive molecular profiling of advanced/metastatic olfactory neuroblastomas. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(1):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0191244.
Turri-Zanoni M, Gravante G, Castelnuovo P. Molecular biomarkers in sinonasal cancers: new frontiers in diagnosis and treatment. Curr Oncol Rep. 2022;24(1):55–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11912-021-01154-3.
Cracolici V, Wang EW, Gardner PA, et al. SSTR2 expression in olfactory neuroblastoma: clinical and therapeutic implications. Head Neck Pathol. 2021;15(4):85–1191. https://doi.org/10.1007/S12105-021-01329-1.
Ivanidze J, Roytman M, Sasson A, et al. Molecular imaging and therapy of somatostatin receptor positive tumors. Clin Imaging. 2019;56:146–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CLINIMAG.2019.04.006.
Czapiewski P, Kunc M, Gorczyński A, et al. Frequent expression of somatostatin receptor 2a in olfactory neuroblastomas: a new and distinctive feature. Hum Pathol. 2018;79:144–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.HUMPATH.2018.05.013.
Hasan OK, Ravi Kumar AS, Kong G, et al. Efficacy of peptide receptor radionuclide therapy for esthesioneuroblastoma. J Nucl Med. 2020;61(9):1326–30. https://doi.org/10.2967/JNUMED.119.237990.
Classe M, Yao H, Mouawad R, et al. Integrated multi-omic analysis of esthesioneuroblastomas identifies two subgroups linked to cell ontogeny. Cell Rep. 2018;25(3):811–21.e5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2018.09.047.
Wu L, An J, Liu H. Clinicopathologic features and prognosis of olfactory neuroblastoma with isocitrate dehydrogenase 2 mutations. World Neurosurg. 2022;159:e23–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.WNEU.2021.11.103.
Romani C, Bignotti E, Mattavelli D, et al. Gene expression profiling of olfactory neuroblastoma helps identify prognostic pathways and define potentially therapeutic targets. Cancers (Basel). 2021;13(11). https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13112527.
Spengler M, Wheelden M, Mackley HB, Drabick JJ. Durable major response with pazopanib in recurrent, heavily pretreated metastatic esthesioneuroblastoma harboring a fumarate hydratase mutation. JCO Precis Oncol. 2021;5(5):664–9. https://doi.org/10.1200/PO.20.00486.
Classe M, Burgess A, El Zein S, et al. Evaluating the prognostic potential of the Ki67 proliferation index and tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes in olfactory neuroblastoma. Histopathology. 2019;75(6):853–64. https://doi.org/10.1111/his.13954.
Wu L, An J, Liu H. Prognostic value of microvessel density and its correlation with clinicopathological features in human olfactory neuroblastoma. Clin Neuropathol. 2022;41(3):114–21. https://doi.org/10.5414/NP301447.
Singh L, Ranjan R, Madan R, Arava SK, Deepak RK, Singh MK. Microvessel density and Ki-67 labeling index in esthesioneuroblastoma: is there a prognostic role? Ann Diagn Pathol. 2015;19(6):391–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ANNDIAGPATH.2015.06.008.
Uccella S, Facco C, Chiaravalli AM, et al. Transcription factor expression in sinonasal neuroendocrine neoplasms and olfactory neuroblastoma (ONB): Hyams’ grades 1–3 ONBs expand the spectrum of SATB2 and GATA3-positive neoplasms. Endocr Pathol. 2022;33(2):264–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/S12022-022-09715-3.
Friedman J, Schumacher JK, Papagiannopoulos P, Al-Khudari S, Tajudeen BA, Batra PS. Targeted 595-gene genomic profiling demonstrates low tumor mutational burden in olfactory neuroblastoma. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2021;11(1):58–64. https://doi.org/10.1002/ALR.22595.
London NR, Rooper LM, Bishop JA, et al. Expression of programmed cell death ligand 1 and associated lymphocyte infiltration in olfactory neuroblastoma. World Neurosurg. 2020;135:e187–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.WNEU.2019.11.112.
Fridman WH, Zitvogel L, Sautès-Fridman C, Kroemer G. The immune contexture in cancer prognosis and treatment. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2017;14(12):717–34. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrclinonc.2017.101.
Flukes S, Lohia S, Barker CA, et al. Are our patients doing better? A single institution experience of an evolving management paradigm for sinonasal mucosal melanoma. Oral Oncol. 2020;2021(112):2020–2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oraloncology.2020.105006.
Lechner M, Takahashi Y, Turri-Zanoni M, et al. International multicenter study of clinical outcomes of sinonasal melanoma shows survival benefit for patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors and potential improvements to the current TNM staging system. J Neurol Surg Part B Skull Base. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1055/S-0042-1750178.
Moya-Plana A, Mangin D, Dercle L, et al. Risk-based stratification in head and neck mucosal melanoma. Oral Oncol. 2019;97:44–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ORALONCOLOGY.2019.07.026.
Hur K, Zhang P, Yu A, Kim-Orden N, Kysh L, Wrobel B. Open versus endoscopic approach for sinonasal melanoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Rhinol Allergy. 2019;33(2):162–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/1945892418822637.
Miglani A, Patel SH, Kosiorek HE, Hinni ML, Hayden RE, Lal D. Endoscopic resection of sinonasal mucosal melanoma has comparable outcomes to open approaches. Am J Rhinol Allergy. 2017;31(3):200–4. https://doi.org/10.2500/AJRA.2017.31.4435.
Almutuawa DM, Strohl MP, Gruss C, et al. Outcomes of sinonasal mucosal melanomas with endoscopic and open resection: a retrospective cohort study. J Neurooncol. 2020;150(3):387–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11060-020-03449-0.
Farber NI, Bavier RD, Crippen MM, Vatsa N, Hsueh WD, Eloy JA. Comparing endoscopic resection and open resection for management of sinonasal mucosal melanoma. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2019;9(12):1492–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/alr.22422.
Lundberg M, Haapaniemi A, Hagström J, et al. Similar survival outcome after endoscopic and open approaches for sinonasal mucosal melanoma. Rhinology. 2019;57(2):132–8. https://doi.org/10.4193/RHIN18.123.
Elsamna ST, Ahsanuddin S, Mir GS, et al. Surgical margin status and survival following resection of sinonasal mucosal melanoma. Laryngoscope. 2021;131(11):2429–35. https://doi.org/10.1002/LARY.29574.
Amit M, Tam S, Abdelmeguid AS, et al. Mutation status among patients with sinonasal mucosal melanoma and its impact on survival. Br J Cancer. 2017;116(12):1564–71. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2017.125.
Benlyazid A, Thariat J, Temam S, et al. Postoperative radiotherapy in head and neck mucosal melanoma: a GETTEC study. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2010;136(12):1219–25. https://doi.org/10.1001/ARCHOTO.2010.217.
Shiga K, Ogawa T, Kobayashi T, et al. Malignant melanoma of the head and neck: a multi-institutional retrospective analysis of cases in northern Japan. Head Neck. 2012;34(11):1537–41. https://doi.org/10.1002/HED.21984.
Owens JM, Roberts DB, Myers JN. The role of postoperative adjuvant radiation therapy in the treatment of mucosal melanomas of the head and neck region. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2003;129(8):864–8. https://doi.org/10.1001/ARCHOTOL.129.8.864.
Nakaya M, Mochiki M, Takeuchi S, et al. Malignant melanoma of nasal cavity: report of 16 Japanese patients. Auris Nasus Larynx. 2004;31(3):233–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ANL.2004.03.001.
Konuthula N, Khan MN, Parasher A, et al. The presentation and outcomes of mucosal melanoma in 695 patients. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2017;7(1):99–105. https://doi.org/10.1002/alr.21831.
Amit M, Tam S, Abdelmeguid AS, et al. Role of adjuvant treatment in sinonasal mucosal melanoma. J Neurol Surg B Skull Base. 2017;78(6):512–8. https://doi.org/10.1055/S-0037-1604350.
Moya-Plana A, Aupérin A, Obongo R, et al. Oncologic outcomes, prognostic factor analysis and therapeutic algorithm evaluation of head and neck mucosal melanomas in France. Eur J Cancer. 2019;123:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2019.09.007.
Grant-Freemantle MC, Lane O’Neill B, Clover AJP. The effectiveness of radiotherapy in the treatment of head and neck mucosal melanoma: systematic review and meta-analysis. Head Neck. 2021;43(1):323–33. https://doi.org/10.1002/HED.26470.
Hafström A, Brun E, Persson S, Sjövall J, Wahlberg P, Greiff L. Survival benefits from concomitant chemoradiotherapy before radical surgery in stage IVA sinonasal mucosal melanoma? Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol. 2019;4(6):624–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/lio2.317.
Koto M, Demizu Y, Saitoh JI, et al. Multicenter study of carbon-ion radiation therapy for mucosal melanoma of the head and neck: subanalysis of the Japan carbon-ion radiation oncology study group (J-CROS) study (1402 HN). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017;97(5):1054–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.12.028.
Amit M, Tam S, Abdelmeguid AS, et al. Patterns of treatment failure in patients with sinonasal mucosal melanoma. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25(6):1723–9. https://doi.org/10.1245/S10434-018-6465-Y.
Amit M, Hanna EY. ASO author reflections: treatment approaches to sinonasal mucosal melanoma. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;25:890–1. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-018-6815-9.
Flukes S, Lohia S, Barker CA, et al. Primary tumor volume as a predictor of distant metastases and survival in patients with sinonasal mucosal melanoma. Head Neck. 2020;42(11):3316–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/HED.26380.
Lund VJ. Sinonasal malignant melanoma. Adv Otorhinolaryngol. 2020;84:185–96. https://doi.org/10.1159/000457937.
Lian B, Si L, Cui C, et al. Phase II randomized trial comparing high-dose IFN-α2b with temozolomide plus cisplatin as systemic adjuvant therapy for resected mucosal melanoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2013;19(16):4488–98. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-13-0739/85639/AM/PHASE-II-RANDOMIZED-TRIAL-COMPARING-HIGH-DOSE.
Yin G, Guo W, Liu H. Characteristics of tumor infiltrating lymphocytes in sinonasal mucosal melanoma and prognosis for patients. Curr Probl Cancer. 2022;46(4):100878. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.currproblcancer.2022.100878.
Amit M, Na’ara S, Hanna EY. Contemporary treatment approaches to sinonasal mucosal melanoma. Curr Oncol Rep. 2018;20(2). https://doi.org/10.1007/S11912-018-0660-7.
Hodi FS, Corless CL, Giobbie-Hurder A, et al. Imatinib for melanomas harboring mutationally activated or amplified KIT arising on mucosal, acral, and chronically sun-damaged skin. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(26):3182–90. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2012.47.7836.
Dummer R, Schadendorf D, Ascierto PA, et al. Binimetinib versus dacarbazine in patients with advanced NRAS-mutant melanoma (NEMO): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(4):435–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30180-8.
Turri-Zanoni M, Medicina D, Lombardi D, et al. Sinonasal mucosal melanoma: molecular profile and therapeutic implications from a series of 32 cases. Head Neck. 2013;35(8):1066–77. https://doi.org/10.1002/HED.23079.
Maldonado-Mendoza J, Ramírez-Amador V, Anaya-Saavedra G, et al. CD117 immunoexpression in oral and sinonasal mucosal melanoma does not correlate with somatic driver mutations in the MAPK pathway. J Oral Pathol Med. 2019;48(5):382–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/JOP.12849.
Wróblewska JP, Dias-Santagata D, Ustaszewski A, et al. Prognostic roles of braf, kit, nras, igf2r and sf3b1 mutations in mucosal melanomas. Cells. 2021;10(9). https://doi.org/10.3390/cells10092216.
Colombino M, Paliogiannis P, Cossu A, et al. BRAF mutations and dysregulation of the MAP kinase pathway associated to sinonasal mucosal melanomas. J Clin Med. 2019;8(10). https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm8101577.
Ganti A, Raman A, Shay A, et al. Treatment modalities in sinonasal mucosal melanoma: a national cancer database analysis. Laryngoscope. 2020;130(2):275–82. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.27995.
Klebaner D, Saddawi-Konefka R, Finegersh A, et al. Immunotherapy in sinonasal melanoma: treatment patterns and outcomes compared to cutaneous melanoma. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2020;10(9):1087–95. https://doi.org/10.1002/alr.22628.
Sun CZ, Li QL, Hu ZD, Jiang YE, Song M, Yang AK. Treatment and prognosis in sinonasal mucosal melanoma: a retrospective analysis of 65 patients from a single cancer center. Head Neck. 2014;36(5):675–81. https://doi.org/10.1002/HED.23355.
D’Angelo SP, Larkin J, Sosman JA, et al. Efficacy and safety of nivolumab alone or in combination with ipilimumab in patients with mucosal melanoma: a pooled analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(2):226–35. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2016.67.9258.
Chao TN, Kuan EC, Tong CCL, et al. Surgical treatment of sinonasal mucosal melanoma in patients treated with systemic immunotherapy. J Neurol Surg, Part B Skull Base. 2021;82:E148-54. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1701219.
Philipp M, Frischhut N, Tschachler A, et al. Pseudoprogression with subsequent complete response and severe thrombocytopenia to checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy in a patient with advanced mucosal melanoma of the sinonasal cavity. Anticancer Drugs. 2018;29(9):914–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/CAD.0000000000000664.
Freiberger SN, Turko P, Hüllner M, et al. Who’s driving? Switch of drivers in immunotherapy-treated progressing sinonasal melanoma. Cancers (Basel). 2021;13(11):1–13. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13112725.
Amit M, Tam S, Abdelmeguid AS, et al. Approaches to regional lymph node metastasis in patients with head and neck mucosal melanoma. Cancer. 2018;124(3):514–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.31083.
De Virgilio A, Costantino A, Canzano F, et al. Regional disease control in sinonasal mucosal melanoma: systematic review and meta-analysis. Head Neck. 2021;43(2):705–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/hed.26537.
Guo R, Jenkins SM, Johnson BJ, Reed K, Kroneman T, Choby G. Sinonasal Mucosal melanoma: role of tumor proliferative indices and pathological factors in survival. Laryngoscope. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1002/LARY.30240.
Donizy P, Wu CL, Mull J, et al. Up-regulation of PARP1 expression significantly correlated with poor survival in mucosal melanomas. Cells. 2020;9(5). https://doi.org/10.3390/CELLS9051135.
Soares C, De Lima Morais TM, Carlos R, et al. Phosphorylated Akt1 expression is associated with poor prognosis in cutaneous, oral and sinonasal melanomas. Oncotarget. 2018;9(99):37291–304. https://doi.org/10.18632/ONCOTARGET.26458.
Zou B, Zhu W, Liu H, Wang S, Zhu H. Identification and functional evaluation of miR-4633-5p as a biomarker and tumor suppressor in metastatic melanoma. Cell Physiol Biochem. 2018;49(4):1364–79. https://doi.org/10.1159/000493414.
Riobello C, Casanueva Muruais R, Suárez-Fernández L, et al. Intragenic NF1 deletions in sinonasal mucosal malignant melanoma. Pigment Cell Melanoma Res. 2022;35(1):88–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/PCMR.13015.
Erdag G, Schaefer JT, Smolkin ME, et al. Immunotype and immunohistologic characteristics of tumor-infiltrating immune cells are associated with clinical outcome in metastatic melanoma. Cancer Res. 2012;72(5):1070–80. https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-11-3218.
Ledderose S, Ledderose C, Penkava J, Ledderose GJ. Prognostic value of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in sinonasal mucosal melanoma. Laryngoscope. 2022;132(7). https://doi.org/10.1002/LARY.29820.
Wang L, Liu H. PD-L1 expression in 117 sinonasal mucosal melanomas and its association with clinical outcome. Ann Diagn Pathol. 2022;60:151976. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ANNDIAGPATH.2022.151976.
Frierson HF, Mills SE, Fechner RE, Taxy JB, Levine PA. Sinonasal undifferentiated carcinoma. An aggressive neoplasm derived from Schneiderian epithelium and distinct from olfactory neuroblastoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 1986;10(11):771–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000478-198611000-00004.
Gallo O, Graziani P, Fini-Storchi O. Undifferentiated carcinoma of the nose and paranasal sinuses: an immunohistochemical and clinical study. Ear, Nose Throat J. 1993;72(9):588–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/014556139307200905.
Gorelick J, Ross D, Marentette L, Blaivas M. Sinonasal undifferentiated carcinoma: case series and review of the literature. Neurosurgery. 2000;47(3):750–5. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006123-200009000-00045.
Kramer D, Durham JS, Sheehan F, Thomson T. Sinonasal undifferentiated carcinoma: case series and systematic review of the literature. J Otolaryngol. 2004;33(1):32–6. https://doi.org/10.2310/7070.2004.00032.
Chen AM, Daly ME, El-Sayed I, et al. Patterns of failure after combined-modality approaches incorporating radiotherapy for sinonasal undifferentiated carcinoma of the head and neck. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008;70(2):338–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2007.06.057.
Al-Mamgani A, Van Rooij P, Mehilal R, Tans L, Levendag PC. Combined-modality treatment improved outcome in sinonasal undifferentiated carcinoma: single-institutional experience of 21 patients and review of the literature. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2013;270(1):293–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00405-012-2008-5.
Xu CC, Dziegielewski PT, McGaw WT, Seikaly H. Sinonasal undifferentiated carcinoma (SNUC): the Alberta experience and literature review. J Otolaryngol - Head Neck Surg. 2013;42:1. https://doi.org/10.1186/1916-0216-42-2.
Yoshida E, Aouad R, Fragoso R, et al. Improved clinical outcomes with multi-modality therapy for sinonasal undifferentiated carcinoma of the head and neck. Am J Otolaryngol - Head Neck Med Surg. 2013;34(6):658–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjoto.2013.06.005.
Morand GB, Anderegg N, Vital D, et al. Outcome by treatment modality in sinonasal undifferentiated carcinoma (SNUC): a case-series, systematic review and meta-analysis. Oral Oncol. 2017;75:28–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oraloncology.2017.10.008.
Gamez ME, Lal D, Halyard MY, et al. Outcomes and patterns of failure for sinonasal undifferentiated carcinoma (SNUC): the Mayo Clinic experience. Head Neck. 2017;39(9):1819–24. https://doi.org/10.1002/HED.24834.
Kuo P, Manes RP, Schwam ZG, Judson BL. Survival outcomes for combined modality therapy for sinonasal undifferentiated carcinoma. Otolaryngol - Head Neck Surg (United States). 2017;156(1):132–6. https://doi.org/10.1177/0194599816670146.
Amit M, Abdelmeguid AS, Watcherporn T, et al. Induction chemotherapy response as a guide for treatment optimization in sinonasal undifferentiated carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2019;37(6):504–12. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.18.00353.
London NR, Mohyeldin A, Daoud G, et al. Sinonasal undifferentiated carcinoma: institutional trend toward induction chemotherapy followed by definitive chemoradiation. Head Neck. 2020;42(11):3197–205. https://doi.org/10.1002/HED.26357.
Takahashi Y, Gleber-Netto FO, Bell D, et al. Identification of markers predictive for response to induction chemotherapy in patients with sinonasal undifferentiated carcinoma. Oral Oncol. 2019;97:56–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oraloncology.2019.07.028.
Lehrich BM, Goshtasbi K, Abiri A, et al. Impact of induction chemotherapy and socioeconomics on sinonasal undifferentiated carcinoma survival. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2020;10(5):679–88. https://doi.org/10.1002/ALR.22536.
de Bonnecaze G, Verillaud B, Chaltiel L, et al. Clinical characteristics and prognostic factors of sinonasal undifferentiated carcinoma: a multicenter study. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2018;8(9):1065–72. https://doi.org/10.1002/ALR.22143.
Faisal M, Seemann R, Lill C, et al. Elective neck treatment in sinonasal undifferentiated carcinoma: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Head Neck. 2020;42(5):1057–66. https://doi.org/10.1002/HED.26077.
Gray ST, Herr MW, Sethi RKV, et al. Treatment outcomes and prognostic factors, including human papillomavirus, for sinonasal undifferentiated carcinoma: a retrospective review. Head Neck. 2015;37(3):366–74. https://doi.org/10.1002/hed.23606.
Baraban E, Tong CCL, Adappa ND, Cooper K. A subset of sinonasal undifferentiated carcinoma is associated with transcriptionally active high-risk human papillomavirus by in situ hybridization: a clinical and pathologic analysis. Hum Pathol. 2020;101:64–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humpath.2020.05.002.
Kakkar A, Rathor A, Ashraf SF, Singh V, Sikka K, Jain D. IDH1/2 mutations in sinonasal undifferentiated carcinomas: previously undescribed IDH2 R172K and R140x variants. Am J Surg Pathol. 2022:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0000000000001912.
Glöss S, Jurmeister P, Thieme A, et al. IDH2 R172 mutations across poorly differentiated sinonasal tract malignancies: forty molecularly homogenous and histologically variable cases with favorable outcome. Am J Surg Pathol. 2021;45(9):1190–204. https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0000000000001697.
Dogan S, Vasudevaraja V, Xu B, et al. DNA methylation-based classification of sinonasal undifferentiated carcinoma. Mod Pathol. 2019;32(10):1447–59. https://doi.org/10.1038/S41379-019-0285-X.
Dogan S, Chute DJ, Xu B, et al. Frequent IDH2 R172 mutations in undifferentiated and poorly-differentiated sinonasal carcinomas. J Pathol. 2017;242(4):400–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/PATH.4915.
Libera L, Ottini G, Sahnane N, et al. Methylation drivers and prognostic implications in sinonasal poorly differentiated carcinomas. Cancers (Basel). 2021;13(19). https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13195030.
Agaimy A. Proceedings of the North American Society of Head and Neck Pathology, Los Angeles, CA, March 20, 2022: SWI/SNF-deficient sinonasal neoplasms: an overview. Head Neck Pathol. 2022;16(1):168. https://doi.org/10.1007/S12105-022-01416-X.
Agaimy A, Weichert W. SMARCA4-deficient sinonasal carcinoma. Head Neck Pathol. 2017;11(4):541–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12105-017-0783-4.
Agaimy A, Jain D, Uddin N, Rooper LM, Bishop JA. SMARCA4-deficient sinonasal carcinoma: a series of 10 cases expanding the genetic spectrum of SWI/SNF-driven sinonasal malignancies. Am J Surg Pathol. 2020;44(5):703–10. https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0000000000001428.
Kakkar A, Antony VM, Pramanik R, Sakthivel P, Singh CA, Jain D. SMARCB1 (INI1)-deficient sinonasal carcinoma: a series of 13 cases with assessment of histologic patterns. Hum Pathol. 2019;83:59–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humpath.2018.08.008.
Agaimy A, Hartmann A, Antonescu CR, et al. SMARCB1 (INI-1)-deficient sinonasal carcinoma: a series of 39 cases expanding the morphologic and clinicopathologic spectrum of a recently described entity. Am J Surg Pathol. 2017;41(4):458–71. https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0000000000000797.
Chitguppi C, Rabinowitz MR, Johnson J, et al. Loss of SMARCB1 expression confers poor prognosis to sinonasal undifferentiated carcinoma. J Neurol Surg B Skull Base. 2020;81(6):610–9. https://doi.org/10.1055/S-0039-1693659.
Agaimy A, Franchi A, Lund VJ, et al. Sinonasal undifferentiated carcinoma (SNUC): from an entity to morphologic pattern and back again—a historical perspective. Adv Anat Pathol. 2020;27(2):51–60. https://doi.org/10.1097/PAP.0000000000000258.
Wang Y, Chen SY, Karnezis AN, et al. The histone methyltransferase EZH2 is a therapeutic target in small cell carcinoma of the ovary, hypercalcemic type. J Pathol. 2017;242(3):371. https://doi.org/10.1002/PATH.4912.
Xue Y, Meehan B, Fu Z, et al. SMARCA4 loss is synthetic lethal with CDK4/6 inhibition in non-small cell lung cancer. Nat Commun. 2019;10(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/S41467-019-08380-1.
Alaiwi SA, Nassar AH, Xie W, et al. Mammalian SWI/SNF complex genomic alterations and immune checkpoint blockade in solid tumors. Cancer Immunol Res. 2020;8(8):1075. https://doi.org/10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-19-0866.
Takahashi Y, Lee J, Pickering C, et al. Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2/neu as a novel therapeutic target in sinonasal undifferentiated carcinoma. Head Neck. 2016;38(Suppl 1):E1926–34. https://doi.org/10.1002/HED.24350.
Bell D, Bell A, Ferrarotto R, et al. High-grade sinonasal carcinomas and surveillance of differential expression in immune related transcriptome. Ann Diagn Pathol. 2020;49:151622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anndiagpath.2020.151622.
Denaro N, Merlano M, Numico G, Garrone O, Bossi P. Complete response to immunotherapy in sinonasal undifferentiated carcinoma. Tumori. 2021;107(6):NP101–4. https://doi.org/10.1177/03008916211026971.
Issa K, Ackall F, Jung SH, et al. Survival outcomes in sinonasal carcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation: a NCDB analysis. Am J Otolaryngol - Head Neck Med Surg. 2021;42(2). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjoto.2020.102851.
Turri-Zanoni M, Maragliano R, Battaglia P, et al. The clinicopathological spectrum of olfactory neuroblastoma and sinonasal neuroendocrine neoplasms: refinements in diagnostic criteria and impact of multimodal treatments on survival. Oral Oncol. 2017;74:21–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oraloncology.2017.09.010.
Soldatova L, Campbell RG, Carrau RL, et al. Sinonasal carcinomas with neuroendocrine features: histopathological differentiation and treatment outcomes. J Neurol Surg B Skull Base. 2016;77(6):456–65. https://doi.org/10.1055/S-0036-1582432.
Mete O, Wenig BM. Update from the 5th edition of the World Health Organization classification of head and neck tumors: overview of the 2022 WHO classification of head and neck neuroendocrine neoplasms. Head Neck Pathol. 2022;16(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/S12105-022-01435-8.
Wang CP, Hsieh CY, Chang YL, et al. Postirradiated neuroendocrine carcinoma of the sinonasal tract. Laryngoscope. 2008;118(5):804–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/MLG.0B013E3181671491.
La Rosa S, Furlan D, Franzi F, et al. Mixed exocrine-neuroendocrine carcinoma of the nasal cavity: clinico-pathologic and molecular study of a case and review of the literature. Head Neck Pathol. 2013;7(1):76–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/S12105-012-0379-Y.
Agarwal S, van Zante A, Granados ML. Combined neuroendocrine and squamous cell carcinoma of the sinonasal tract: a morphologic and immunohistochemical analysis and review of literature. Head Neck Pathol. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/S12105-022-01457-2.
van der Laan TP, Iepsma R, Witjes MJH, van der Laan BFAM, Plaat BEC, Halmos GB. Meta-analysis of 701 published cases of sinonasal neuroendocrine carcinoma: the importance of differentiation grade in determining treatment strategy. Oral Oncol. 2016;63:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oraloncology.2016.10.002.
Kuan EC, Alonso JE, Tajudeen BA, Arshi A, Mallen-St. Clair J, St. John MA. Small cell carcinoma of the head and neck: a comparative study by primary site based on population data. Laryngoscope. 2017;127(8):1785–90. https://doi.org/10.1002/LARY.26406.
Thompson ED, Stelow EB, Mills SE, Westra WH, Bishop JA. Large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma of the head and neck: a clinicopathologic series of 10 cases with an emphasis on HPV status. Am J Surg Pathol. 2016;40(4):471–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0000000000000580.
Likhacheva A, Rosenthal D, Hanna E, Kupferman M, Demonte F, El-Naggar A. Sinonasal neuroendocrine carcinoma: impact of differentiation status on response and outcome. Head Neck Oncol. 2011;3(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/1758-3284-3-32.
Mitchell EH, Diaz A, Yilmaz T, et al. Multimodality treatment for sinonasal neuroendocrine carcinoma. Head Neck. 2012;34(10):1372–6. https://doi.org/10.1002/HED.21940.
Iype EM, Suresh S, Patil S, et al. Clinicopathological profile and treatment outcomes of sinonasal small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma: a rare case series. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2019;71(Suppl 3):2214–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/S12070-019-01667-1.
Rivero A, Liang J. Sinonasal small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma: a systematic review of 80 patients. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2016;6(7):744–51. https://doi.org/10.1002/ALR.21734.
Van Der Laan TP, Bij HP, Van Hemel BM, et al. The importance of multimodality therapy in the treatment of sinonasal neuroendocrine carcinoma. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2013;270(9):2565–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00405-013-2554-5.
Liu KY, Goldrich DY, Ninan SJ, et al. The value of 68 Gallium-DOTATATE PET/CT in sinonasal neuroendocrine tumor management: a case series. Head Neck. 2021;43(6):E30–40. https://doi.org/10.1002/HED.26695.
Adnan A, Basu S. Combined 177Lu-DOTATATE peptide receptor radionuclide therapy and platinum-based chemotherapy in recurrent, metastatic sinonasal neuroendocrine carcinoma: a promising therapeutic option. J Nucl Med Technol. 2020;48(3):292–4. https://doi.org/10.2967/JNMT.119.237354.
Perzin KH, Gullane P, Clairmont AC. Adenoid cystic carcinomas arising in salivary glands. A correlation of histologic features and clinical course. Cancer. 1978;42(1):265–82.https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(197807)42:1<265::AID-CNCR2820420141>3.0.CO;2-Z.
Szanto PA, Luna MA, Tortoledo ME, White RA. Histologic grading of adenoid cystic carcinoma of the salivary glands. Cancer. 1984;54(6):1062–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(19840915)54:6%3c1062::AID-CNCR2820540622%3e3.0.CO;2-E.
Spiro RH, Huvos AG, Strong EW. Adenoid cystic carcinoma of salivary origin. A clinicopathologic study of 242 cases. Am J Surg. 1974;128(4):512–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9610(74)90265-7.
Van Weert S, Van Der Waal I, Witte BI, René Leemans C, Bloemena E. Histopathological grading of adenoid cystic carcinoma of the head and neck: analysis of currently used grading systems and proposal for a simplified grading scheme. Oral Oncol. 2015;51(1):71–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oraloncology.2014.10.007.
Mathew EP, Todorovic E, Truong T, et al. Metatypical adenoid cystic carcinoma a variant showing prominent squamous differentiation with a predilection for the sinonasal tract and skull base. Am J Surg Pathol. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0000000000001850.
Brill LB, Kanner WA, Fehr A, et al. Analysis of MYB expression and MYB-NFIB gene fusions in adenoid cystic carcinoma and other salivary neoplasms. Mod Pathol. 2011;24(9):1169–76. https://doi.org/10.1038/MODPATHOL.2011.86.
Seethala RR, Hunt JL, Baloch ZW, LiVolsi VA, Leon BE. Adenoid cystic carcinoma with high-grade transformation: a report of 11 cases and a review of the literature. Am J Surg Pathol. 2007;31(11):1683–94. https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0B013E3180DC928C.
Kashiwazaki R, Turner MT, Geltzeiler M, et al. The endoscopic endonasal approach for sinonasal and nasopharyngeal adenoid cystic carcinoma. Laryngoscope. 2020;130(6):1414–21. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.28100.
Hay AJ, Migliacci J, Karassawa Zanoni D, McGill M, Patel S, Ganly I. Minor salivary gland tumors of the head and neck-Memorial Sloan Kettering experience: incidence and outcomes by site and histological type. Cancer. 2019;125(19):3354–66. https://doi.org/10.1002/CNCR.32208.
Mays AC, Hanna EY, Ferrarotto R, et al. Prognostic factors and survival in adenoid cystic carcinoma of the sinonasal cavity. Head Neck. 2018;40(12):2596–605. https://doi.org/10.1002/hed.25335.
Trope M, Triantafillou V, Kohanski MA, et al. Adenoid cystic carcinoma of the sinonasal tract: a review of the national cancer database. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2019;9(4):427–34. https://doi.org/10.1002/alr.22255.
Volpi L, Bignami M, Lepera D, et al. Endoscopic endonasal resection of adenoid cystic carcinoma of the sinonasal tract and skull base. Laryngoscope. 2019;129(5):1071–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.27485.
Unsal AA, Chung SY, Zhou AH, Baredes S, Eloy JA. Sinonasal adenoid cystic carcinoma: a population-based analysis of 694 cases. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2017;7(3):312–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/alr.21875.
Hämetoja H, Hirvonen K, Hagström J, et al. Early stage minor salivary gland adenoid cystic carcinoma has favourable prognosis. Virchows Arch. 2017;471(6):785–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-017-2163-6.
Husain Q, Kanumuri VV, Svider PF, et al. Sinonasal adenoid cystic carcinoma: systematic review of survival and treatment strategies. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2013;148(1):29–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/0194599812464020.
Lupinetti AD, Roberts DB, Williams MD, et al. Sinonasal adenoid cystic carcinoma: the MD Anderson Cancer Center experience. Cancer. 2007;110(12):2726–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.23096.
Rhee CS, Won TB, Lee CH, et al. Adenoid cystic carcinoma of the sinonasal tract: treatment results. Laryngoscope. 2006;116(6):982–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.MLG.0000216900.03188.48.
Dagan R, Uezono H, Bryant C, Holtzman AL, Morris CG, Mendenhall WM. Long-term outcomes from proton therapy for sinonasal cancers. Int J Part Ther. 2021;8(1):200. https://doi.org/10.14338/IJPT-20-00068.1.
Hu W, Hu J, Huang Q, et al. Particle beam radiation therapy for adenoid cystic carcinoma of the nasal cavity and paranasal sinuses. Front Oncol. 2020;10:1–9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2020.572493.
Koto M, Demizu Y, Saitoh J ichi, et al. Definitive carbon-ion radiation therapy for locally advanced sinonasal malignant tumors: subgroup analysis of a multicenter study by the Japan carbon-ion radiation oncology study group (J-CROS). Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2018;102(2):353–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2018.05.074.
Dautruche A, Bolle S, Feuvret L, et al. Three-year results after radiotherapy for locally advanced sinonasal adenoid cystic carcinoma, using highly conformational radiotherapy techniques proton therapy and/or Tomotherapy. Cancer/Radiotherapie. 2018;22(5):411–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.canrad.2017.11.015.
Akbaba S, Ahmed D, Mock A, et al. Treatment outcome of 227 patients with sinonasal adenoid cystic carcinoma (ACC) after intensity modulated radiotherapy and active raster-scanning carbon ion boost: a 10-year single-center experience. Cancers (Basel). 2019;11(11). https://doi.org/10.3390/CANCERS11111705.
Song X-M, Yang G, Tu Z-W, Wang L. Is prophylactic neck irradiation indicated for patients with cN0 adenoid cystic carcinoma of the paranasal sinuses? Radiother Oncol. 2022;173. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RADONC.2022.06.007.
Wang Z, Wu R, Zhang J, et al. Omitting elective neck irradiation in clinically N0 sinonasal adenoid cystic carcinoma: a propensity score-matched analysis. Oral Oncol. 2022;124. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ORALONCOLOGY.2021.105653.
International Head and Neck Scientific Group. Cervical lymph node metastasis in adenoid cystic carcinoma of the sinonasal tract, nasopharynx, lacrimal glands and external auditory canal: a collective international review. J Laryngol Otol. 2016;130(12):1093–7. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022215116009373.
Amit M, Na’ara S, Sharma K, et al. Elective neck dissection in patients with head and neck adenoid cystic carcinoma: an international collaborative study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22(4):1353–9. https://doi.org/10.1245/S10434-014-4106-7.
Hellquist H, Skálová A, Barnes L, et al. Cervical lymph node metastasis in high-grade transformation of head and neck adenoid cystic carcinoma: a collective international review. Adv Ther. 2016;33(3):357–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/S12325-016-0298-5.
Atallah S, Marc M, Schernberg A, et al. Beyond surgical treatment in adenoid cystic carcinoma of the head and neck: a literature review. Cancer Manag Res. 2022;14:1879–90. https://doi.org/10.2147/CMAR.S355663.
Karpinets TV, Mitani Y, Liu B, et al. Whole-genome sequencing of common salivary gland carcinomas: subtype-restricted and shared genetic alterations. Clin Cancer Res. 2021;27(14):3960–9. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-20-4071.
Wang Y, Sun B, Zhang C, et al. Genetic heterogeneity and therapeutic target detection through microdissection in solid-type adenoid cystic carcinoma. Pathology. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PATHOL.2021.12.292.
Ho AS, Ochoa A, Jayakumaran G, et al. Genetic hallmarks of recurrent/metastatic adenoid cystic carcinoma. J Clin Invest. 2019;129(10):4276–89. https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI128227.
Morita N, Murase T, Ueda K, et al. Pathological evaluation of tumor grade for salivary adenoid cystic carcinoma: a proposal of an objective grading system. Cancer Sci. 2021;112(3):1184–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/CAS.14790.
Xie J, Lin LS, Huang XY, et al. The NOTCH1-HEY1 pathway regulates self-renewal and epithelial-mesenchymal transition of salivary adenoid cystic carcinoma cells. Int J Biol Sci. 2020;16(4):598–610. https://doi.org/10.7150/IJBS.36407.
Sahara S, Herzog AE, Nör JE. Systemic therapies for salivary gland adenoid cystic carcinoma. Am J Cancer Res. 2021;11(9):4092–110. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34659878; http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=PMC8493384.
Even C, Lassen U, Merchan J, et al. Safety and clinical activity of the Notch inhibitor, crenigacestat (LY3039478), in an open-label phase I trial expansion cohort of advanced or metastatic adenoid cystic carcinoma. Invest New Drugs. 2020;38(2):402–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10637-019-00739-x.
Linxweiler M, Kuo F, Katabi N, et al. The immune microenvironment and neoantigen landscape of aggressive salivary gland carcinomas differ by subtype. Clin Cancer Res. 2020;26(12):2859. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-19-3758.
Di Villeneuve L, Souza IL, Tolentino FDS, Ferrarotto R, Schvartsman G. Salivary gland carcinoma: novel targets to overcome treatment resistance in advanced disease. Front Oncol. 2020;10:580141. https://doi.org/10.3389/FONC.2020.580141.
Miller LE, Au V, Mokhtari TE, Goss D, Faden DL, Varvares MA. A contemporary review of molecular therapeutic targets for adenoid cystic carcinoma. Cancers (Basel). 2022;14(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/CANCERS14040992.
Badoual C. Update from the 5th edition of the World Health Organization classification of head and neck tumors: oropharynx and nasopharynx. Head Neck Pathol. 2022;16(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/S12105-022-01449-2.
Bossi P, Trama A, Bernasconi A, et al. Nasopharyngeal cancer in non-endemic areas: impact of treatment intensity within a large retrospective multicentre cohort. Eur J Cancer. 2021;159:194–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EJCA.2021.09.005.
Liu YP, Wen YH, Tang J, et al. Endoscopic surgery compared with intensity-modulated radiotherapy in resectable locally recurrent nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2021;22(3):381–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30673-2.
Lai Y, Li W, Zhai C, et al. Low-grade nasopharyngeal papillary adenocarcinoma: a review of 28 patients in a single institution. Cancer Manag Res. 2021;13:1271–8. https://doi.org/10.2147/CMAR.S288007.
Pineda-Daboin K, Neto A, Ochoa-Perez V, Luna MA. Nasopharyngeal adenocarcinomas: a clinicopathologic study of 44 cases including immunohistochemical features of 18 papillary phenotypes. Ann Diagn Pathol. 2006;10(4):215–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ANNDIAGPATH.2005.11.002.
Fu CH, Chang KP, Ueng SH, Wu CC, Hao SP. Primary thyroid-like papillary adenocarcinoma of the nasopharynx. Auris Nasus Larynx. 2008;35(4):579–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ANL.2007.10.009.
Booth JR, Unsal AA, Tadros S, Byrd JK, Kountakis SE. Salivary gland cancers of the nasopharynx: a population-based analysis of 383 cases. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2019;161(3):442–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/0194599819849923.
Taniuchi M, Kawata R, Terada T, et al. Management and outcome of parotid mucoepidermoid carcinoma by histological grade: a 21-year review. Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol. 2022;7(3). https://doi.org/10.1002/LIO2.809.
Morita M, Murase T, Okumura Y, et al. Clinicopathological significance of EGFR pathway gene mutations and CRTC1/3-MAML2 fusions in salivary gland mucoepidermoid carcinoma. Histopathology. 2020;76(7):1013–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/HIS.14100.
Locati LD, Bossi P, Perrone F, et al. Cetuximab in recurrent and/or metastatic salivary gland carcinomas: a phase II study. Oral Oncol. 2009;45(7):574–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ORALONCOLOGY.2008.07.010.
Kim Y, Lee SJ, Lee JY, et al. Clinical trial of nintedanib in patients with recurrent or metastatic salivary gland cancer of the head and neck: a multicenter phase 2 study (Korean Cancer Study Group HN14-01). Cancer. 2017;123(11):1958–64. https://doi.org/10.1002/CNCR.30537.
Locati LD, Perrone F, Cortelazzi B, et al. A phase II study of sorafenib in recurrent and/or metastatic salivary gland carcinomas: translational analyses and clinical impact. Eur J Cancer. 2016;69:158–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EJCA.2016.09.022.
Farhat R, Asna N, Avraham Y, et al. Pembrolizumab as a first line therapy in a patient with extensive mucoepidermoid salivary gland carcinoma. A complete clinical, radiological and pathological response. A very specific case. Discov Oncol. 2022;13(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/S12672-022-00502-4.
Pharaon RR, Gernon T, Chang S, et al. Prolonged response to checkpoint inhibitor therapy in two metastatic mucoepidermoid salivary gland carcinoma cases: a research report. Cold Spring Harb Mol case Stud. 2022;8(3). https://doi.org/10.1101/MCS.A006189.
Oushy S, Peris-Celda M, Van Gompel JJ. Skull base enchondroma and chondrosarcoma in ollier disease and maffucci syndrome. World Neurosurg. 2019;130:e356–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.WNEU.2019.06.087.
Beer-Furlan A, Balsalobre L, Vellutini EAS, Stamm AC. Endoscopic endonasal approach in skull base chondrosarcoma associated with maffucci syndrome: case series and literature review. World Neurosurg. 2016;85:365.e7–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.WNEU.2015.08.070.
Raza SM, Gidley PW, Kupferman ME, Hanna EY, Su SY, DeMonte F. Site-specific considerations in the surgical management of skull base chondrosarcomas. Oper Neurosurg. 2018;14(6):611–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/ons/opx171.
Cooper JS, Porter K, Mallin K, et al. National cancer database report on cancer of the head and neck: 10-year update. Head Neck. 2009;31(6):748–58. https://doi.org/10.1002/hed.21022.
Crockard HA, Cheeseman A, Steel T, et al. A multidisciplinary team approach to skull base chondrosarcomas. J Neurosurg. 2001;95(2):184–9. https://doi.org/10.3171/JNS.2001.95.2.0184.
Oghalai JS, Buxbaum JL, Jackler RK, McDermott MW. Skull base chondrosarcoma originating from the petroclival junction. Otol Neurotol. 2005;26(5):1052–60. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.MAO.0000185076.65822.F7.
Samii A, Gerganov V, Herold C, Gharabaghi A, Hayashi N, Samii M. Surgical treatment of skull base chondrosarcomas. Neurosurg Rev. 2009;32(1):67–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10143-008-0170-4.
Tzortzidis F, Elahi F, Wright DC, Temkin N, Natarajan SK, Sekhar LN. Patient outcome at long-term follow-up after aggressive microsurgical resection of cranial base chondrosarcomas. Neurosurgery. 2006;58(6):1090–7. https://doi.org/10.1227/01.NEU.0000215892.65663.54.
Wanebo JE, Bristol RE, Porter RR, Coons SW, Spetzler RF. Management of cranial base chondrosarcomas. Neurosurgery. 2006;58(2):249–54. https://doi.org/10.1227/01.NEU.0000194834.74873.FB.
Vaz-Guimaraes F, Fernandez-Miranda JC, Koutourousiou M, et al. Endoscopic endonasal surgery for cranial base chondrosarcomas. Oper Neurosurg (Hagerstown, MD). 2017;13(4):421–34. https://doi.org/10.1093/ONS/OPX020.
Hasegawa H, Shin M, Kondo K, et al. Role of endoscopic transnasal surgery for skull base chondrosarcoma: a retrospective analysis of 19 cases at a single institution. J Neurosurg. 2018;128(5):1438–47. https://doi.org/10.3171/2017.1.JNS162000.
Moussazadeh N, Kulwin C, Anand VK, et al. Endoscopic endonasal resection of skull base chondrosarcomas: technique and early results. J Neurosurg. 2015;122(4):735–42. https://doi.org/10.3171/2014.11.JNS14827.
Raza SM, Gidley PW, Meis JM, Grosshans DR, Bell D, DeMonte F. Multimodality treatment of skull base chondrosarcomas: the role of histology specific treatment protocols. Neurosurgery. 2017;81(3):520–30. https://doi.org/10.1093/NEUROS/NYX042.
Palmisciano P, Haider AS, Sabahi M, et al. Primary skull base chondrosarcomas: a systematic review. Cancers (Basel). 2021;13(23). https://doi.org/10.3390/CANCERS13235960.
Khan MN, Husain Q, Kanumuri VV, et al. Management of sinonasal chondrosarcoma: a systematic review of 161 patients. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2013;3(8):670–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/alr.21162.
Hasegawa H, Vakharia K, Graffeo CS, et al. Long-term outcomes of grade I/II skull base chondrosarcoma: an insight into the role of surgery and upfront radiotherapy. J Neurooncol. 2021;153(2):273–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11060-021-03764-0.
Weber DC, Murray F, Combescure C, et al. Long term outcome of skull-base chondrosarcoma patients treated with high-dose proton therapy with or without conventional radiation therapy. Radiother Oncol. 2018;129(3):520–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RADONC.2018.06.040.
Mattke M, Vogt K, Bougatf N, et al. High control rates of proton- and carbon-ion-beam treatment with intensity-modulated active raster scanning in 101 patients with skull base chondrosarcoma at the Heidelberg Ion Beam Therapy Center. Cancer. 2018;124(9):2036–44. https://doi.org/10.1002/CNCR.31298.
Sahgal A, Chan MW, Atenafu EG, et al. Image-guided, intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IG-IMRT) for skull base chordoma and chondrosarcoma: preliminary outcomes. Neuro Oncol. 2015;17(6):889–94. https://doi.org/10.1093/NEUONC/NOU347.
Uhl M, Mattke M, Welzel T, et al. High control rate in patients with chondrosarcoma of the skull base after carbon ion therapy: first report of long-term results. Cancer. 2014;120(10):1579–85. https://doi.org/10.1002/CNCR.28606.
Nikoghosyan AV, Rauch G, Münter MW, et al. Randomised trial of proton versus carbon ion radiation therapy in patients with low and intermediate grade chondrosarcoma of the skull base, clinical phase III study. BMC Cancer. 2010;10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-10-606.
Riva G, Cavallo I, Gandini S, et al. Particle radiotherapy for skull base chondrosarcoma: a clinical series from Italian National Center for Oncological Hadrontherapy. Cancers (Basel). 2021;13(17). https://doi.org/10.3390/CANCERS13174423.
Holtzman AL, Rotondo RL, Rutenberg MS, et al. Proton therapy for skull-base chondrosarcoma, a single-institution outcomes study. J Neurooncol. 2019;142(3):557–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11060-019-03129-8.
Simon F, Feuvret L, Bresson D, et al. Surgery and proton therapy in grade I and II skull base chondrosarcoma: a comparative retrospective study. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(12):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0208786.
Rimmer RA, Mace JC, Andersen PE, et al. Determinants of survival in sinonasal and skull base chondrosarcoma: an analysis of the National Cancer Database. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2022;12(5):699–713. https://doi.org/10.1002/alr.22909.
Lu VM, O’Connor KP, Mahajan A, Carlson ML, Van Gompel JJ. Carbon ion radiotherapy for skull base chordomas and chondrosarcomas: a systematic review and meta-analysis of local control, survival, and toxicity outcomes. J Neurooncol. 2020;147(3):503–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-020-03464-1.
Césaire M, Ghosh U, Austry JB, et al. Sensitization of chondrosarcoma cells with PARP inhibitor and high-LET radiation. J bone Oncol. 2019;17. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JBO.2019.100246.
Colia V, Provenzano S, Hindi N, Casali PG, Stacchiotti S. Systemic therapy for selected skull base sarcomas: Chondrosarcoma, chordoma, giant cell tumour and solitary fibrous tumour/hemangiopericytoma. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother. 2016;21(4):361–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RPOR.2015.12.005.
Venteicher AS, McDowell MM, Goldschmidt E, Wang EW, Snyderman CH, Gardner PA. A preoperative risk classifier that predicts tumor progression in patients with cranial base chondrosarcomas. J Neurosurg. 2021;134(2):457–65. https://doi.org/10.3171/2019.10.JNS191672.
Feuvret L, Bracci S, Calugaru V, et al. Efficacy and safety of adjuvant proton therapy combined with surgery for chondrosarcoma of the skull base: a retrospective, population-based study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2016;95(1):312–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJROBP.2015.12.016.
Ma X, Meng G, Wang K, et al. The differences between intracranial mesenchymal chondrosarcoma and conventional chondrosarcoma in clinical features and outcomes. World Neurosurg. 2019;122:e1078–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.WNEU.2018.10.230.
Wang K, Ma X jian, Guo TX, et al. Intracranial mesenchymal chondrosarcoma: report of 16 cases. World Neurosurg. 2018;116:e691–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.WNEU.2018.05.069.
Merna C, Lehrich BM, Kshirsagar RS, et al. Determinants of survival in skull base chondrosarcoma: a national cancer database study. World Neurosurg. 2021;158:e766–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.WNEU.2021.11.066.
Breshears JD, Demonte F, Habib A, Gidley PW, Raza SM. Management of recurrent or progressing skull base chondrosarcomas: predictors of long-term outcomes. J Neurol Surg B Skull Base. 2021;82(Suppl 3):155–65. https://doi.org/10.1055/S-0040-1701523.
Lu N, Lin T, Wang L, et al. Association of SOX4 regulated by tumor suppressor miR-30a with poor prognosis in low-grade chondrosarcoma. Tumour Biol. 2015;36(5):3843–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/S13277-014-3026-2.
Yoshitaka T, Kawai A, Miyaki S, et al. Analysis of microRNAs expressions in chondrosarcoma. J Orthop Res. 2013;31(12):1992–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/JOR.22457.
Kitamura Y, Sasaki H, Yoshida K. Genetic aberrations and molecular biology of skull base chordoma and chondrosarcoma. Brain Tumor Pathol. 2017;34(2):78–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10014-017-0283-Y.
Tatman PD, Osbun J, Yakkioui Y, et al. Kinase activity in recurring primary skull base chordomas and chondrosarcomas: identification of novel pathways of oncogenesis and potential drug targets. World Neurosurg. 2017;107:75–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.WNEU.2017.06.106.
Tiet TD, Hopyan S, Nadesan P, et al. Constitutive hedgehog signaling in chondrosarcoma up-regulates tumor cell proliferation. Am J Pathol. 2006;168(1):321–30. https://doi.org/10.2353/AJPATH.2006.050001.
Italiano A, Le Cesne A, Bellera C, et al. GDC-0449 in patients with advanced chondrosarcomas: a French Sarcoma Group/US and French National Cancer Institute single-arm phase II collaborative study. Ann Oncol. 2013;24(11):2922–6. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdt391.
Kostine M, Cleven AHG, De Miranda NFCC, Italiano A, Cleton-Jansen AM, Bovée JVMG. Analysis of PD-L1, T-cell infiltrate and HLA expression in chondrosarcoma indicates potential for response to immunotherapy specifically in the dedifferentiated subtype. Mod Pathol. 2016;29(9):1028–37. https://doi.org/10.1038/MODPATHOL.2016.108.
Paoluzzi L, Cacavio A, Ghesani M, et al. Response to anti-PD1 therapy with nivolumab in metastatic sarcomas. Clin Sarcoma Res. 2016;6(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/S13569-016-0064-0.
Stacchiotti S, Sommer J, on behalf of a Chordoma global consensus group. Building a global consensus approach to chordoma: a position paper from the medical and patient community. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(2):e71–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(14)71190-8.
Rekhi B, Michal M, Ergen B, et al. Poorly differentiated chordoma showing loss of SMARCB1/INI1: clinicopathological and radiological spectrum of nine cases, including uncommon features of a relatively under-recognized entity. Ann Diagn Pathol. 2021;55. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ANNDIAGPATH.2021.151809.
Zhang GJ, Cui YS, Li H. Survival and treatment of cranial and spinal chordomas: a population-based study. Neurosurg Rev. 2022;45(1):637–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10143-021-01583-5.
Zou MX, Lv GH, Zhang QS, Wang SF, Li J, Wang X Bin. Prognostic factors in skull base chordoma: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. World Neurosurg. 2018;109:307–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.WNEU.2017.10.010.
Passer JZ, Alvarez-Breckenridge C, Rhines L, DeMonte F, Tatsui C, Raza SM. Surgical management of skull base and spine chordomas. Curr Treat Options Oncol. 2021;22(5). https://doi.org/10.1007/S11864-021-00838-Z.
Cavallo LM, Mazzatenta D, D’Avella E, et al. The management of clival chordomas: an Italian multicentric study. J Neurosurg. 2020;135(1):93–102. https://doi.org/10.3171/2020.5.JNS20925.
Freeman JL, DeMonte F, Al-Holou W, et al. Impact of early access to multidisciplinary care on treatment outcomes in patients with skull base chordoma. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2018;160(4):731–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00701-017-3409-4.
Bai J, Li M, Shi J, et al. Mid-term follow-up surgical results in 284 cases of clival chordomas: the risk factors for outcome and tumor recurrence. Neurosurg Rev. 2022;45(2):1451–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/S10143-021-01576-4.
Chen ATC, Hong CBC, Narazaki DK, et al. High dose image-guided, intensity modulated radiation therapy (IG-IMRT) for chordomas of the sacrum, mobile spine and skull base: preliminary outcomes. J Neurooncol. 2022;158(1):23–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-022-04003-w.
Hug EB, Pelak M, Frank SJ, Fossati P. A review of particle therapy for skull base tumors: modern considerations and future directions. Int J Part Ther. 2021;8(1):168–78. https://doi.org/10.14338/IJPT-20-00083.
Iannalfi A, D’Ippolito E, Riva G, et al. Proton and carbon ion radiotherapy in skull base chordomas: a prospective study based on a dual particle and a patient-customized treatment strategy. Neuro Oncol. 2020;22(9):1348–58. https://doi.org/10.1093/NEUONC/NOAA067.
Takagi M, Demizu Y, Nagano F, et al. Treatment outcomes of proton or carbon ion therapy for skull base chordoma: a retrospective study. Radiat Oncol. 2018;13(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/S13014-018-1173-0.
Mercado CE, Holtzman AL, Rotondo R, Rutenberg MS, Mendenhall WM. Proton therapy for skull base tumors: a review of clinical outcomes for chordomas and chondrosarcomas. Head Neck. 2019;41(2):536–41. https://doi.org/10.1002/HED.25479.
Yaniv D, Soudry E, Strenov Y, Cohen MA, Mizrachi A. Skull base chordomas review of current treatment paradigms. World J Otorhinolaryngol - Head Neck Surg. 2020;6(2):125–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.WJORL.2020.01.008.
Traylor JI, Sheppard HE, Ravikumar V, et al. Computational drug repositioning identifies potentially active therapies for chordoma. Neurosurgery. 2021;88(2):428–36. https://doi.org/10.1093/NEUROS/NYAA398.
Akinduro OO, Suarez-Meade P, Garcia D, et al. Targeted therapy for chordoma: key molecular signaling pathways and the role of multimodal therapy. Target Oncol. 2021;16(3):325–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11523-021-00814-5.
Meng T, Jin J, Jiang C, et al. Molecular targeted therapy in the treatment of chordoma: a systematic review. Front Oncol. 2019;9. https://doi.org/10.3389/FONC.2019.00030.
Hung YP, Diaz-Perez JA, Cote GM, et al. Dedifferentiated chordoma: clinicopathologic and molecular characteristics with integrative analysis. Am J Surg Pathol. 2020;44(9):1213–23. https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0000000000001501.
Asioli S, Zoli M, Guaraldi F, et al. Peculiar pathological, radiological and clinical features of skull-base de-differentiated chordomas. Results from a referral centre case-series and literature review. Histopathology. 2020;76(5):731–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/HIS.14024.
Ma J, Tian K, Wang L, et al. High expression of TGF-β1 predicting tumor progression in skull base chordomas. World Neurosurg. 2019;131:e265–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.WNEU.2019.07.128.
Zuccato JA, Patil V, Mansouri S, et al. DNA methylation-based prognostic subtypes of chordoma tumors in tissue and plasma. Neuro Oncol. 2022;24(3):442–54. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuonc/noab235.
Zenonos GA, Fernandez-Miranda JC, Mukherjee D, et al. Prospective validation of a molecular prognostication panel for clival chordoma. J Neurosurg. 2018;130(5):1528–37. https://doi.org/10.3171/2018.3.JNS172321.
Abdallah HM, Gersey ZC, Muthiah N, et al. An integrated management paradigm for skull base chordoma based on clinical and molecular characteristics. J Neurol Surg B Skull Base. 2021;82(6):601. https://doi.org/10.1055/S-0041-1730958.
Zhai Y, Bai J, Wang S, et al. Aberrant expression of extracellular signal-regulated kinase and 15-hydroxyprostaglandin dehydrogenase indicates radiation resistance and poor prognosis for patients with clival chordomas. World Neurosurg. 2018;115:e146-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.WNEU.2018.03.216.
Shen Y, Li M, Xiong Y, et al. Proteomics analysis identified ASNS as a novel biomarker for predicting recurrence of skull base chordoma. Front Oncol. 2021;11. https://doi.org/10.3389/FONC.2021.698497.
Luo P, Wang X, Zhou J, Li L, Jing Z. C-Cbl and Cbl-b expression in skull base chordomas is associated with tumor progression and poor prognosis. Hum Pathol. 2018;74:129–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.HUMPATH.2017.12.019.
Zhai Y, Bai J, Wang S, et al. Analysis of clinical factors and PDGFR-β in predicting prognosis of patients with clival chordoma. J Neurosurg. 2018;129(6):1429–37. https://doi.org/10.3171/2017.6.JNS17562.
Li M, Zhai Y, Bai J, et al. SNF5 as a prognostic factor in skull base chordoma. J Neurooncol. 2018;137(1):139–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11060-017-2706-3.
Yang C, Sun J, Yong L, et al. Deficiency of PTEN and CDKN2A tumor-suppressor genes in conventional and chondroid chordomas: molecular characteristics and clinical relevance. Onco Targets Ther. 2020;13:4649. https://doi.org/10.2147/OTT.S252990.
Morimoto Y, Tamura R, Ohara K, et al. Prognostic significance of VEGF receptors expression on the tumor cells in skull base chordoma. J Neurooncol. 2019;144(1):65–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11060-019-03221-Z/TABLES/2.
Zhang S, Bai J, Li M, et al. Predictive value of transforming growth factor-α and Ki-67 for the prognosis of skull base chordoma. World Neurosurg. 2019;129:e199–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.WNEU.2019.05.110.
Ma J, Tian K, Du J, Wu Z, Wang L, Zhang J. High expression of survivin independently correlates with tumor progression and mortality in patients with skull base chordomas. J Neurosurg. 2020;132(1):140–9. https://doi.org/10.3171/2018.8.JNS181580.
Zhong H, Zhou Z, Lv GH, Li J, Zou MX. Letter to the editor. Brachyury as prognostic biomarker in chordoma. J Neurosurg. 2018;129(1):273–5. https://doi.org/10.3171/2017.9.JNS172108.
Parry DM, McMaster ML, Liebsch NJ, et al. Clinical findings in families with chordoma with and without T gene duplications and in patients with sporadic chordoma reported to the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results program. J Neurosurg. 2020;134(5):1399–408. https://doi.org/10.3171/2020.4.JNS193505.
Choi PJ, Oskouian RJ, Tubbs RS. The current understanding of microRNA’s therapeutic, diagnostic, and prognostic role in chordomas: a review of the literature. Cureus. 2018;10(12). https://doi.org/10.7759/CUREUS.3772.
Li M, Bai J, Wang S, et al. Clinical implication of systemic immune-inflammation index and prognostic nutritional index in skull base chordoma patients. Front Oncol. 2021;11:1–9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2021.548325.
Li M, Bai J, Wang S, et al. Prognostic value of cumulative score based on preoperative fibrinogen and albumin level in skull base chordoma. Onco Targets Ther. 2020;13:8337–46. https://doi.org/10.2147/OTT.S257779.
Li M, Bai J, Wang S, et al. Mean platelet volume and platelet distribution width serve as prognostic biomarkers in skull base chordoma: a retrospective study. BMC Cancer. 2020;20(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/S12885-020-07497-7.
Li M, Shen Y, Xiong Y, et al. High red cell distribution width independently predicts adverse survival in patients with newly diagnosed skull base chordoma. Onco Targets Ther. 2021;14:5435–45. https://doi.org/10.2147/OTT.S335454.
Traylor JI, Pernik MN, Plitt AR, Lim M, Garzon-Muvdi T. Immunotherapy for chordoma and chondrosarcoma: Current evidence. Cancers (Basel). 2021;13(10):1–15. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13102408.
Zhou J, Jiang Y, Zhang H, et al. Clinicopathological implications of TIM3+ tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes and the miR-455-5p/Galectin-9 axis in skull base chordoma patients. Cancer Immunol Immunother. 2019;68(7):1157–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/S00262-019-02349-1/TABLES/3.
Dridi M, Krebs-Drouot L, Meyronet D, et al. The immune microenvironment of chordomas: an immunohistochemical analysis. Cancers (Basel). 2021;13(13). https://doi.org/10.3390/CANCERS13133335.
Gill CM, Fowkes M, Shrivastava RK. Emerging therapeutic targets in chordomas: a review of the literature in the genomic era. Clin Neurosurg. 2020;86(2):E118–23. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuros/nyz342.
Demaria PJ, Lee-Wisdom K, Donahue RN, et al. Phase 1 open-label trial of intravenous administration of MVA-BN-brachyury-TRICOM vaccine in patients with advanced cancer. J Immunother Cancer. 2021;9(9):e003238. https://doi.org/10.1136/JITC-2021-003238.
DeMaria PJ, Bilusic M, Park DM, et al. Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II study of yeast-brachyury vaccine (GI-6301) in combination with standard-of-care radiotherapy in locally advanced, unresectable chordoma. Oncologist. 2021;26(5):e847–58. https://doi.org/10.1002/ONCO.13720.
Long C, Li G, Zhang C, et al. B7-H3 as a target for CAR-T cell therapy in skull base chordoma. Front Oncol. 2021;11. https://doi.org/10.3389/FONC.2021.659662.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits 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 license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license 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.
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s)
About this paper
Cite this paper
Ferrari, M., Taboni, S., Contro, G., Nicolai, P. (2023). Precision Medicine in the Treatment of Malignancies Involving the Ventral Skull Base: Present and Future. In: Vermorken, J.B., Budach, V., Leemans, C.R., Machiels, JP., Nicolai, P., O'Sullivan, B. (eds) Critical Issues in Head and Neck Oncology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-23175-9_16
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-23175-9_16
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-23174-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-23175-9
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)