Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27363404›Full record

ArticleEuropean archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery2016

Comparison of endoscopic and external resections for sinonasal instestinal-type adenocarcinoma.

Geoffrey Mortuaire, Xavier Leroy, Claire Vandenhende-Szymanski, Dominique Chevalier, Anne-Sophie Thisse

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Surgical outcomes of endoscopic versus open resection for the management of sinonasal malignancies.Journal of the Korean Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons · 2020
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Surgical Management Patterns of Sinonasal Malignancy: A Population-Based Study.Journal of neurological surgery. Part B, Skull base · 2019
    Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Geoffrey MortuaireOtorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Department, University Hospital, Lille, France. geoffrey.mortuaire@chru-lille.fr.
Xavier LeroyUniversité de Lille 2, Lille, France.
Claire Vandenhende-SzymanskiOtorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Department, University Hospital, Lille, France.
Dominique ChevalierOtorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Department, University Hospital, Lille, France.
Anne-Sophie ThisseOtorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Department, University Hospital, Lille, France.
Lille’s Cardiology Hospital · FRUniversité de Lille · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) is considered as a valid option in the management of nasal adenocarcinoma (ADC). Comparative studies with open approaches are still required. A monocentric retrospective study was carried out from May 2002 to December 2013, including 43 patients with intestinal-type adenocarcinoma of the ethmoid sinus. Non-resectable tumours or recurrences were excluded. Before 2008, open approach with lateral rhinotomy (LR) was performed as the gold standard of treatment. From 2008, ESS was systematically used as a first-line option as long as a complete resection was achievable. Adjuvant radiation therapy was delivered (RT) for all the patients. LR and ESS were performed in, respectively, 23 and 20 patients. The two groups were comparable in terms of age, occupational dust exposure, histopathological subtypes, and T stage based on the pathological assessment of the specimen (10 pT2, 26 pT3, 2 pT4a, and 5 pT4b). The tumour origin was mainly located in the olfactory cleft with the involvement of the cribriform plate in 60 % of patients. No major complication was observed in ESS group with a reduced hospital stay (5.6 vs 7.6 days). The disease-free survival was not different between LR and ESS groups over a mean follow-up period of 6.6 years. Even for local advanced stages with skull base involvement, we confirm the reliability and the advantages of ESS in terms of oncological outcomes and morbidity. We advocate complete excision of the olfactory cleft to ensure an appropriate control of the tumoral origin.

Indexed as

AdenocarcinomaAgedDisease-Free SurvivalEndoscopyEthmoid SinusFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedNasal SeptumNeoplasm Recurrence, LocalParanasal Sinus NeoplasmsRadiotherapy, AdjuvantRadiotherapy, ConformalReproducibility of ResultsAdenocarcinomaEndoscopic surgeryEthmoidOlfactory cleftRadiotherapy

Identifiers

PMID27363404
OpenAlexW2463310746

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.