ReviewCancer diagnosis & prognosis
Adenoid Cystic Carcinoma (ACC) Infiltrating the Skull Base: A Systematic Review of Clinical Characteristics and Management Strategies.
Review in Cancer diagnosis & prognosis. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Case Report: transcavernous sinus resection of parotid carcinoma with perineural invasion to Meckel's cave and cavernous sinus.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Unusual Localization of Adenoid Cystic Carcinoma: A Case Report of Nasopharyngeal Involvement.Cureus · 2025Article
- Perioperative management of intracranial-extracranial communicating tumors with multidisciplinary combined surgery: a case series.BMC anesthesiology · 2025Article
- Adenoid cystic carcinoma of the orbit without lacrimal gland involvement and with intracranial extension: A case report.Radiology case reports · 2024Article
- Adenoid Cystic Carcinoma (ACC) Infiltrating the Skull Base: A Systematic Review of Clinical Characteristics and Management Strategies.Cancer diagnosis & prognosisReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimTo systematically review the patient characteristics and management approaches of adenoid cystic carcinoma (ACC) infiltrating the skull base. MATERIALS AND
methodsAccording to PRISMA guidelines, PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane were searched to retrieve studies reporting management protocols and survival outcomes of patients with skull base ACCs. Patient characteristics, management strategies, and outcomes were investigated.
resultsThe review encompassed 17 studies involving 171 patients, with a female predominance (57.9%) and a mean age of 49±7.12 years. ACCs mostly infiltrated the paranasal sinus (22.2%), cavernous sinus (8.8%), and nasopharynx (7.1%). Perineural invasion was reported in 6.4% of cases. Facial pain, nasal obstruction, and facial paresthesia were the most common symptoms. Surgical resection (45.6%) was favored over biopsy (12.2%). Employing the free flap technique (4.7%), surgical reconstruction of the bony defect after resection was performed using abdominal and anterior thigh muscle grafts in 1.8% of patients each. As adjuvant management, 22.8% of cases had radiotherapy and 14.6% received chemotherapy. Recurrence of skull base ACCs occurred in 26.9% of cases during a mean follow up-time of 30.8±1.8 months.
conclusionSkull base ACCs pose a surgical challenge mainly due to their proximity to critical neurovascular structures and aggressive behavior. Surgical resection and radiotherapy are shown to be safe and effective treatment modalities. The dismal prognosis and limited data on non-surgical strategies highlight the need for further evaluation of the current management paradigm and upraising innovative therapies to improve patient mortality and quality of life.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.