Skip to content

Advertisement

You're viewing the new version of our site. Please leave us feedback.

Learn more

BMC Cancer

Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Optimal treatment and prognostic factors for esthesioneuroblastoma: retrospective analysis of 187 Chinese patients

BMC Cancer201717:254

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-017-3247-z

Received: 11 February 2017

Accepted: 30 March 2017

Published: 11 April 2017

Abstract

Background

The standard treatment for esthesioneuroblastoma, a rare malignant nasal vault neoplasm, is not established.

Methods

We retrospectively assessed the clinicopathological features, prognostic factors and treatment methods for 187 patients with esthesioneuroblastoma treated in China between 1981 and 2015. Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank tests.

Results

Twenty-three (12.3%), 48 (25.7%) and 113 (60.4%) patients had Kadish stage A, B and C esthesioneuroblastoma; 3 (1.6%) had unknown stage. Overall, 117 (62.6%) patients received surgery and combined radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy; 35 (18.7%) received radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy; 32 (17.1%) received surgery alone; and 3 (1.6%) received palliative treatment. Three-year OS and DFS for the entire cohort were 66.7% and 57.5%, respectively. Three-year OS for stage A, B and C were 91.3%, 91.2% and 49.5% (P < 0.0001). Three-year OS was 16.7% and 66.7% for patients with and without distant metastasis (P < 0.0001). Surgery and combined radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy led to better OS and DFS than other treatment modes (both P < 0.0001). Univariate and multivariate analysis showed distant metastasis (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.162, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.145, 4.082, P = 0.017) and not receiving a combined modality treatment (HR = 2.391, 95% CI = 1.356, 4.218, P = 0.003) were independent prognostic factors for poor OS and DFS.

Conclusions

This study indicates surgery and combined radiotherapy may currently be the optimal treatment for esthesioneuroblastoma.

Keywords

EsthesioneuroblastomaPrognostic factorsTreatment

Background

Esthesioneuroblastoma (ENB), also known as olfactory neuroblastoma, is a rare malignant neoplasm of the nasal vault that is believed to arise from neurosensory receptor cells in the olfactory epithelium [1, 2]. ENB accounts for 3% of all nasal tumors [3, 4]. The treatments for ENB include surgery, radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy [57], though it is difficult to achieve radical treatment using these strategies as most patients are diagnosed at a late stage. ENB is insidious and has a high propensity for invading adjacent organs and tissues. Distant metastasis mainly occurs via the lymph nodes and blood. The cervical lymph nodes [8], lungs, brain and bones are frequently reported sites of metastasis [9]. The limited number of patients and the long-time span have made it difficult to establish the features of this disease, such as its natural history, prognostic indicators, treatment techniques, and survival rates [10, 11]. For this study, we retrospectively assessed 187 patients with ENB treated in China. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study in which treatment and prognostic factors have been assessed in a relatively large group of patients with ENB. The goal of this study was to help identify the clinical profile, treatment outcomes, and significant prognostic indicators in ENB.

Methods

Patient characteristics

A total of 187 ENB cases treated in China between 1981 and 2015 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were eligible if they had a conclusive histopathologic diagnosis of ENB with complete clinical pathology, and no history of previous malignant disease or a second primary tumor. The median age was 37 years (range, 3–72 years). Median follow-up was 34 months (range, 1–204 months); 81 (43.3%) patients died or suffered recurrence during follow-up, and 4 patients died within 1 month of diagnosis. The study was carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations. All experimental protocols were approved by the medical ethics committee of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University.

Treatment

Primary treatment consisted primarily of surgery. Individualized postoperative treatment consisted of radiation therapy alone, chemotherapy alone, or concurrent chemoradiation therapy. Of the total of 187 patients, 117 (62.6%) received surgery and combined radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy; 35 (18.7%) received radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy; 32 (17.1%) received surgery alone; and 3 (1.6%) received palliative treatment only (Additional file 1: Table S1). The surgical approaches mainly include lateral rhinotomy, combined craniofacial resection, and endoscopic surgery. A total of 149 (79.7%) patients were managed with surgery: 94 (63.1%) by open surgery and 55 (36.9%) by endoscopic surgery. One hundred and six (71.1%) patients received gross-total resection, 31 (20.8%) received subtotal resection, and the surgical notes for 12 (8.1%) patients were unavailable. Radiation therapy was delivered to the tumor bed and local extension with nodal irradiation reserved for involved nodes. In most cases, radiation was combined with surgery, including pre-operative radiation therapy in 7 (4.6%) patients and post-operative radiation therapy in 110 (72.4%) patients, another 35 (23.0%) patients were treated with definitive radiation therapy. The radiation therapy doses varied from 60 to 70 Gy. Thirty-seven patients (19.8%) received chemotherapy, which consisted of etoposide and cisplatin, prednisone in the majority of patients; adriamycin, vincristine and cyclophosphamide were also used in some patients.

Statistical analysis

Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to identify independent prognostic factors for OS and DFS. All analyses were carried out using SPSS software (version 17.0, SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). P-values <0.05 were considered to indicate statistical significance.

Results

Clinical features

A total of 187 patients were included in this study; 111 (59.4%) were male, 67 (35.8%) were female and data on sex was not available for 9 (4.8%) patients. According to the Kadish staging system, the distribution of patients with stage A, B and C esthesioneuroblastoma was 23 (12.3%), 48 (25.7%) and 113 (60.4%); data on stage was not available for 3 (1.6%) patients. All primary tumors were located in the nasal cavity with (n = 21) or without lymph node metastasis (n = 166), and with (n = 24) or without distant metastasis (n = 163). The sites of distant metastasis were the lungs, brain, bones and breast. The average time to recurrence was 15 months (range, 1–63 months). Sixty-two (33.2%) patients suffered recurrence, including 16 (25.8%) local recurrences, 9 (14.5%) lymph node recurrences, 22 (35.5%) distant recurrences, 9 (14.5%) cases of two types of recurrence, 1 (1.6%) case of all three types of recurrence and 5 (8.1%) recurrences for which complete data was not available.

Survival outcomes

By last follow-up, sixty-two (33.2%) patients had suffered recurrence, including 16 (25.8%) local recurrences, nine (14.5%) lymph node recurrences, 22 (35.5%) distant recurrences, nine (14.5%) cases of two types of recurrence, 1 (1.6%) case of all three types of recurrence, and five (8.1%) recurrences for which complete data was not available. Sixty-two patients had died and 115 patients were still alive. Three-year overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were 66.7% and 57.5%, respectively.

Prognostic factors

To identify potential prognostic factors associated with survival in ENB, various clinicopathologic variables were evaluated (Table 1). Univariate analysis identified stage, distant metastasis and treatment modalities were significantly associated with OS and DFS (P < 0.05), and lymph node metastasis was associated with DFS (P < 0.05) but not OS (P = 0.130; Fig. 1a). The 3-year OS rates for stage A, B and C ENB were 91.3%, 91.2% and 49.5%, respectively (P < 0.0001; Fig. 1b). The 3-year OS rates for patients with and without distant metastasis were 16.7% and 66.7%, respectively (P < 0.0001; Fig. 1c). Multivariate analysis showed distant metastasis (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.162, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.145, 4.082, P = 0.017) and not receiving a combined modality treatment (HR = 2.391, 95% CI = 1.356, 4.218, P = 0.003) were independent prognostic factors for poor OS and DFS.
Table 1

Three-year OS and DFS rates for ENB

Characteristic

Total n (%)

3-year

3-year

DFS

P

OS

P

Gender

 Male

111 (64.2)

58.4%

 

66.1%

 

 Female

67 (37.6)

57.0%

0.640

64.7%

0.366

Lymph node metastasis

 (+)

21 (11.2)

33.4%

 

55.8%

 

 (−)

166 (88.8)

59.4%

0.033

67.8%

0.130

Distant metastasis

 (+)

24 (12.8)

34.4%

 

35.3%

 

 (−)

163 (87.2)

60.9%

0.030

70.3%

0.014

Stage

 A

23 (12.5)

74.5%

 

91.3%

 

 B

48 (26.1)

76.1%

 

91.2%

 

 C

113 (61.4)

45.0%

0.000

49.5%

0.000

Treatment

Surgery

 Yes

148 (79.1)

58.9%

 

72.0%

 

 No

39 (20.9)

47.4%

0.038

45.7%

0.000

Extent of resection

 Gross total

106 (77.4)

72.5%

 

90.1%

 

 Subtotal

31 (22.6)

31.4%

0.000

46.8%

0.000

RT

 Yes

153 (81.8)

65.4%

 

70.8%

 

 No

34 (18.2)

22.7%

0.000

49.1%

0.021

CT

 Yes

37 (19.8)

67.4%

 

69.1%

 

 No

150 (80.2)

54.3%

0.162

66.0%

0.472

S + RT ± CT

 Yes

117 (62.6)

69.0%

 

77.1%

 

 No

70 (37.4)

37.1%

0.000

49.8%

0.000

S + RT

 Yes

88 (47.1)

66.5%

 

76.0%

 

 No

99 (52.9)

47.8%

0.019

57.9%

0.011

S + RT ± CT

 S + RT

88 (75.2)

66.5%

 

76.0%

 

 S + RT + CT

29 (24.8)

75.3%

0.283

80.6%

0.589

Recurrence

 Yes

62 (33.2)

14.1%

 

41.0%

 

 No

125 (66.8)

81.6%

0.000

82.8%

0.000

S surgery, CT chemotherapy, RT radiotherapy, Bold indicates significant values

Fig. 1

Kaplan-Meier OS (left) and DFS (right) curves for patients with ENB stratified by various clinicopathologic factors. a Survival curves for patients with and without lymph node metastasis; b for patients stratified by Kadish stage; and c for patients with and without distant metastasis

The 3-year OS rates for patients who received surgery alone, radiotherapy alone, surgery combined with radiotherapy, surgery combined with radiotherapy and chemotherapy, and surgery combined with chemotherapy were 56.3%, 52.2%, 75.6%, 80.6%, and 22.9%, respectively (Fig. 2a). Overall, patients who received surgery (including surgery alone, surgery combined with radiotherapy, surgery combined with radiotherapy and chemotherapy) achieved significantly better OS (P = 0.0002) and DFS (P = 0.0376) than patients receiving other treatment modes (Fig. 2b). Radiotherapy (including radiotherapy alone, surgery combined with radiotherapy, surgery combined with radiotherapy and chemotherapy, radiotherapy and chemotherapy) resulted in significantly better OS (P = 0.0211) and DFS (P = 0.0000) compared to surgery alone and other treatment modes (Fig. 2c). Chemotherapy (including surgery combined with radiotherapy and chemotherapy, radiotherapy and chemotherapy) did not result in significantly better OS (P = 0.4723) or DFS (P = 0.1624) compared to surgery alone, radiotherapy alone or surgery combined with radiotherapy.
Fig. 2

Kaplan-Meier OS (left) and DFS (right) curves for patients with ENB stratified by treatment. a Survival curves for each treatment; b for treatments including surgery compared with other treatments; and c for treatments including radiotherapy compared with other treatments; and d Survival curves for surgery and combined radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy compared to other treatment modes

Furthermore, surgery and combined radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy resulted in significantly better OS and DFS (both P = 0.000) compared with other treatment modes (Fig. 2d). Surgery and combined radiotherapy with chemotherapy did not result in significantly better OS (P = 0.589) or DFS (P = 0.283) compared to surgery and combined radiotherapy. These results indicate that surgery and combined radiotherapy may represent the standard treatment for ENB.

Discussion

Due to its rarity, there is limited data on ENB in the literature. Before diagnosis, the most common clinical symptoms include nasal obstruction, epistaxis and hyposmia. Though the patterns of spread are relatively well-characterized: tumor metastasis occurs in mid- and late stage disease via the lymph nodes and blood, much remains to be learned about ENB [12]. Few studies have systematically evaluated the treatment methods for this tumor type, thus there is no general consensus on the optimal therapeutic approach [13]. Therefore, we retrospectively assessed the clinicopathological features, prognostic factors and treatment methods for a series of 187 Chinese patients with ENB. As the patients were treated over a long time-span, we staged the patients using the original Kadish staging system.

Some of the basic characteristics of this study population, such as the median age of 37 years and large age range, are in accordance with previously published studies (refs), although one study reported a median age of 27 years for 21 patients [14]. Some of inadequacies of the Kadish system include inability to effectively stratify patients, with few patients falling into group A and several different types of spread being consolidated in group C [15, 16]. However, we found this staging system had acceptable prognostic utility. The distribution of patients with stage A, B and C esthesioneuroblastoma according to the Kadish staging system was 23 (12.3%), 48 (25.7%) and 113 (60.4%) in this cohort.

This study indicates that distant metastasis, the treatment modality and stage were significantly associated with OS and DFS in ENB, while lymph node metastasis was associated with DFS, but not OS. These findings contradict previous data on the relationship between lymph node metastasis in ENB and OS [1]. The literature reports a 10% to 33% incidence of lymph node metastasis, which is similar to the rate of 11.2% in this cohort. Lymph node metastasis had a clear impact on disease-specific survival in the present study, consistent with other reports [17, 18]. Elkon et al. [19] found a favorable 3-year overall survival rate in patients with stage A or B disease (88.9% and 83.3%, respectively), while patients with stage C disease had 3-year survival of only 52.9%. Similarly, 3-year OS for stage A, B and C were 91.3%, 91.2% and 49.5%, respectively, in this study. Unfortunately, the short median follow-up of 34 months is a limitation; only 15.5% of patients had more than 5 years of follow-up. We chose to examine 3-year survival rather than 5-year survival, which is more commonly reported in the literature; this makes comparison of our results with other studies more difficult.

Over the last several decades, it has become clear that ENB must be treated aggressively and systemically, although reports exist of patients being cured with local radiotherapy alone. Our data revealed improved survival (3-year OS: 81.5% vs. 56.3%) with multimodality treatment (surgery and radiotherapy) compared to radiotherapy alone, consistent with previous studies (refs). Our analysis indicates surgery is beneficial, but selection bias can exist in any retrospective review. For example, patients with wider infringement of lesions may be given the choice of radiotherapy or chemotherapy.

The impact of chemotherapy on this disease cannot be determined in this analysis, as the cohort were treated over a long period of time, during which treatment options and diagnostic techniques evolved. Further studies are required to determine whether chemotherapy is necessary, consistent with previous studies [1922]. Moreover, the value of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy was not assessed in this study due to the small number of patients (only seven) receiving this treatment modality, limiting our ability to make meaningful comparisons with this subgroup, though previous studies have shown neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy provides a survival benefit [2325]. After reviewing our data and the literature, we suggest that combined modality treatment (surgery and radiotherapy) may significantly decrease recurrence and improve OS and DFS in ENB.

Conclusions

We acknowledge that this study has the limitations of retrospective data collection and analysis of multi-center experience over a long period of 34 years. However, given the low incidence of ENB, this study had a large sample size. Notwithstanding its limitations, we believe the current analysis provides evidence to recommend surgery and combined radiotherapy as the current optimal treatments for ENB and may assist validation studies of larger and prospective data sets.

Abbreviations

CI: 

Confidence interval

CT: 

Chemotherapy

DFS: 

Disease-free survival

ENB: 

Esthesioneuroblastoma

HR: 

Hazard ratio

OS: 

Overall survival

RT: 

Radiotherapy

S: 

Surgery

Declarations

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China [grant numbers 81,460,393], the Natural Science Foundation of Jiangxi Province, China [grant numbers 20142BAB215039, 20151BAB215020], the Project of Jiangxi Province Science and Technology Plan [grant number 20141BBG70041], the Project of Education Department of Jiangxi Province Science and Technology Plan [grant number GJJ14059], the Youth Science Fund Project of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University [grant number 2014YNQN12004 to Long Huang], and supported in part by the Natural Science Foundation of China [grant number 81460449 to Ling-Min Liao]. The Grants-in-Aid supported this study just financially, and was not associated with study design, collection, analysis, interpretation of data, and writing the manuscript.

Availability of data and materials

The data supporting our findings was presented within additional supporting files.

Authors’ contributions

LX participated in the study design, case collection, drafting, and revising the manuscript. XLZ participated in the study design and revising the manuscript. CKG participated in the case collection. AWL and LH conceived the study, was responsible for its design and coordination, participated in the analysis and interpretation of the data, as well as in drafting and revising all versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interest.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by the ethics committee of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University. Authors obtained written informed consent and publication consent from the participants.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided 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 Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Oncology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University

References

  1. Dulguerov P, Allal AS, Calcaterra TC. Esthesioneuroblastoma: a meta-analysis and review. Lancet Oncol. 2001;2:683–90.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Theilgaard SA, Buchwald C, Ingeholm P, Kornum LS, Eriksen JG, Sand HH. Esthesioneuroblastoma: a Danish demographic study of 40 patients registered between 1978 and 2000. Acta Otolaryngol. 2003;123:433–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Broich G, Pagliari A, Ottaviani F. Esthesioneuroblastoma: a general review of the cases published since the discovery of the tumour in 1924. Anticancer Res. 1997;17:2683–706.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Svane-Knudsen V, Jorgensen KE, Hansen O, Lindgren A, Marker P. Cancer of the nasal cavity and paranasal sinuses: a series of 115 patients. Rhinology. 1998;36:12–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Akgul MH, Gezen F, Uzunlar AK. Esthesioneuroblastoma located in the thoracic extradural space: Case report. Int J Surg Case Rep. 2016;27:70–3.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Bragg TM, Scianna J, Kassam A. Clinicopathological review: esthesioneuroblastoma. Neurosurgery. 2009;64:764-770. 770.Google Scholar
  7. Thomas SB, Balasubramaniam D, Hiran KR, Dinesh M, Pavithran K. Esthesioneuroblastoma with intracranial extension: A non-surgical approach. Asian J Neurosurg. 2016;11:313.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Howell MC, Branstetter BT, Snyderman CH. Patterns of regional spread for esthesioneuroblastoma. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2011;32:929–33.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Bradley PJ, Jones NS, Robertson I. Diagnosis and management of esthesioneuroblastoma. Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2003;11:112–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Lapierre A, Selmaji I, Samlali H, Brahmi T, Yossi S. Esthesioneuroblastoma: A single institution's experience and general literature review. Cancer Radiother. 2016;20(8):783–89. Google Scholar
  11. Tajudeen BA, Adappa ND, Kuan EC. Smell preservation following endoscopic unilateral resection of esthesioneuroblastoma: a multi-institutional experience. Int Forum Allergy Rhinol. 2016;6(10):1047–50.Google Scholar
  12. Mattavelli F, Pizzi N, Pennacchioli E. Esthesioneuroblastoma metastatic to the trachea. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2009;29:164–8.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Sampath P, Park MC, Huang D, Deville C, Cortez S, Chougule P. Esthesioneuroblastoma (olfactory neuroblastoma) with hemorrhage: an unusual presentation. Skull Base. 2006;16:169–73.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Hwang SK, Paek SH, Kim DG, Jeon YK, Chi JG, Jung HW. Olfactory neuroblastomas: survival rate and prognostic factor. J Neuro-Oncol. 2002;59(3):217–26.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Biller HF, Lawson W, Sachdev VP, Som P. Esthesioneuroblastoma: surgical treatment without radiation. Laryngoscope. 1990;100(11):1199–201.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Dulguerov P, Calcaterra T. Esthesioneuroblastoma: the UCLA experience 1970-1990. Laryngoscope. 1992;102(8):843–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Dulguerov P, Allal AS, Calcaterra TC. Esthesioneuroblastoma: a meta-analysis and review. Lancet Oncol. 2001;2(11):683–90.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Dias FL, Sa GM, Lima RA, Kligerman J, Leoncio MP, Freitas EQ, Soares JR, Arcuri RA. Patterns of failure and outcome in esthesioneuroblastoma. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2003;129(11):1186–92.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Jethanamest D, Morris LG, Sikora AG, Kutler DI. Esthesioneuroblastoma: a population-based analysis of survival and prognostic factors. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2007;133:276–80.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Kane AJ, Sughrue ME, Rutkowski MJ. Posttreatment prognosis of patients with esthesioneuroblastoma. J Neurosurg. 2010;113:340–51.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Lund VJ, Howard D, Wei W, Spittle M. Olfactory neuroblastoma: past, present, and future? Laryngoscope. 2003;113:502–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Platek ME, Merzianu M, Mashtare TL. Improved survival following surgery and radiation therapy for olfactory neuroblastoma: analysis of the SEER database. Radiat Oncol. 2011;6:41.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Loy AH, Reibel JF, Read PW. Esthesioneuroblastoma: continued follow-up of a single institution's experience. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2006;132:134–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Patil VM, Joshi A, Noronha V. Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Locally Advanced and Borderline Resectable Nonsquamous Sinonasal Tumors (Esthesioneuroblastoma and Sinonasal Tumor with Neuroendocrine Differentiation). Int J Surg Oncol. 2016;2016:6923730.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Sohrabi S, Drabick JJ, Crist H, Goldenberg D, Sheehan JM, Mackley HB. Neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiation for advanced esthesioneuroblastoma: a case series and review of the literature. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:e358–61.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2017

Advertisement