OBJECTIVE: Endoscopic resection of sinonasal cancer has become an alternative to open craniofacial surgery and leads to safe and satisfying results in emerging numbers. Randomized study data comparing outcomes between approaches are missing. Hence, it remains unclear which subgroups of patients might profit most from each technique. We aimed to identify such patient and tumor characteristics and gather information for future prospective study design. STUDY DESIGN: Case series with chart review. SETTING: Tertiary academic center. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: This study is based on a retrospective chart review of 225 patients undergoing open craniofacial or endoscopic resection for sinonasal malignancy between 1993 and 2015 at Munich University Hospital. Statistical analyses include t test, chi-square, Kaplan-Meier charts, and univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: The sample size was similar between the endoscopic and open surgery groups. Tumors were significantly larger in patients who underwent open craniofacial resection. The risk of notable bleeding ( P = .041) was lower and hospital stay shorter ( P = .001) for endoscopic interventions of all tumor stages. Rates of overall ( P = .024) and disease-specific ( P = .036) survival were significantly improved for endoscopic cases; improved recurrence-free survival rates did not achieve statistical significance ( P = .357). For cases matched for tumor size, this improvement was confirmed for T3 tumors ( P = .038). Regional and distant metastatic tumor spread generally worsened survival in both surgical subgroups. Multivariate Cox regression analysis revealed independent prognosticators for overall survival. CONCLUSION: Endoscopic tumor resection remains a suitable option for distinct indications and showed improved outcome in intermediate-stage tumors in our collective. Further randomized studies acknowledging the here-identified factors are needed to improve future therapy guidelines and patient care.      «

OBJECTIVE: Endoscopic resection of sinonasal cancer has become an alternative to open craniofacial surgery and leads to safe and satisfying results in emerging numbers. Randomized study data comparing outcomes between approaches are missing. Hence, it remains unclear which subgroups of patients might profit most from each technique. We aimed to identify such patient and tumor characteristics and gather information for future prospective study design. STUDY DESIGN: Case series with chart review....     »