Mendenhall, William M

AbstractBackgroundPediatric esthesioneuroblastoma (EN) can infiltrate skull base anatomy, presenting challenges due to high radiation doses and pediatric tissue sensitivity. This study reports outcomes of pediatric EN treated with proton radiotherapy (PT).ProcedureUsing an IRB‐approved prospective outcomes registry, we evaluated patient, tumor, and treatment‐related variables impacting disease control and toxicity in pediatric nonmetastatic EN treated with modern multimodality therapy, including PT.ResultsFifteen consecutive patients (median age 16) comprising Kadish stage B (n = 2), C (n = 9), and D (n = 4) tumors were assessed, including six with intracranial involvement, four with cranial nerve deficits, and four with cervical lymphadenopathy. Before radiation, two had subtotal and 13 had gross total resections (endoscopic or craniofacial). Two underwent neck dissection. Eleven received chemotherapy before radiation (n = 5), concurrent with radiation (n = 4), or both (n = 2). Median total radiation dose (primary site) was 66 Gy/CGE for gross disease and 54 Gy/CGE (cobalt Gray equivalent) for microscopic disease. Median follow‐up was 4.8 years. No patients were lost to follow‐up. Five‐year disease‐free and overall survival rates were 86% (no local or regional recurrences). Two patients developed vertebral metastases and died. Two required a temporary feeding tube for oral mucositis/dysphagia. Late toxicities included symptomatic retinopathy, major reconstructive surgery, cataracts, chronic otitis media, chronic keratoconjunctivitis, hypothyroidism, and in‐field basal cell skin cancer.ConclusionsA multimodality approach for pediatric EN results in excellent local control. Despite the moderate‐dose PT, serious radiation toxicity was observed; further dose and target volume reductions may benefit select patients. Longer follow‐up and comparative data from modern photon series are necessary to fully characterize any relative PT advantage.

Abstract Background Sinonasal neoplasms, whether benign and malignant, pose a significant challenge to clinicians and represent a model area for multidisciplinary collaboration in order to optimize patient care. The International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Sinonasal Tumors (ICSNT) aims to summarize the best available evidence and presents 48 thematic and histopathology‐based topics spanning the field. Methods In accordance with prior International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology documents, ICSNT assigned each topic as an Evidence‐Based Review with Recommendations, Evidence‐Based Review, and Literature Review based on the level of evidence. An international group of multidisciplinary author teams were assembled for the topic reviews using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses format, and completed sections underwent a thorough and iterative consensus‐building process. The final document underwent rigorous synthesis and review prior to publication. Results The ICSNT document consists of four major sections: general principles, benign neoplasms and lesions, malignant neoplasms, and quality of life and surveillance. It covers 48 conceptual and/or histopathology‐based topics relevant to sinonasal neoplasms and masses. Topics with a high level of evidence provided specific recommendations, while other areas summarized the current state of evidence. A final section highlights research opportunities and future directions, contributing to advancing knowledge and community intervention. Conclusion As an embodiment of the multidisciplinary and collaborative model of care in sinonasal neoplasms and masses, ICSNT was designed as a comprehensive, international, and multidisciplinary collaborative endeavor. Its primary objective is to summarize the existing evidence in the field of sinonasal neoplasms and masses.

During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic, providers and patients must engage in shared decision making regarding the pros and cons of early versus delayed interventions for localized skin cancer. Patients at highest risk of COVID‐19 complications are older; are immunosuppressed; and have diabetes, cancer, or cardiopulmonary disease, with multiple comorbidities associated with worse outcomes. Physicians must weigh the patient's risk of COVID‐19 complications in the event of exposure against the risk of worse oncologic outcomes from delaying cancer therapy. Herein, the authors have summarized current data regarding the risk of COVID‐19 complications and mortality based on age and comorbidities and have reviewed the literature assessing how treatment delays affect oncologic outcomes. They also have provided multidisciplinary recommendations regarding the timing of local therapy for early‐stage skin cancers during this pandemic with input from experts at 11 different institutions. For patients with Merkel cell carcinoma, the authors recommend prioritizing treatment, but a short delay can be considered for patients with favorable T1 disease who are at higher risk of COVID‐19 complications. For patients with melanoma, the authors recommend delaying the treatment of patients with T0 to T1 disease for 3 months if there is no macroscopic residual disease at the time of biopsy. Treatment of tumors ≥T2 can be delayed for 3 months if the biopsy margins are negative. For patients with cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma, those with Brigham and Women's Hospital T1 to T2a disease can have their treatment delayed for 2 to 3 months unless there is rapid growth, symptomatic lesions, or the patient is immunocompromised. The treatment of tumors ≥T2b should be prioritized, but a 1‐month to 2‐month delay is unlikely to worsen disease‐specific mortality. For patients with squamous cell carcinoma in situ and basal cell carcinoma, treatment can be deferred for 3 months unless the individual is highly symptomatic.

e16555 Background: The ProtecT trial underscores the importance of treatment in men with prostate cancer and life expectancies > 10 years and the validity of radiation therapy (RT). RT can be given with photons or protons (PT). To address the controversy of which is better, clinical outcomes of photon-based intensity modulated RT (IMRT) and PT cohorts from 2 institutions were directly compared. Methods: Under respective IRB approvals, data from 2 cohorts were analyzed. The first was 301 men treated with ultrasound image guided IMRT from 2000-05 to 75.6 Gy in 42 fractions. The second was 1214 men treated with fiducial image guided PT from 2006-10 to 78 CGE in 39 fractions. Median age and followup were 74 y and 7.2 y for IMRT and 66 y and 5.6 y for PT. Hormone therapy (ADT) was used with IMRT and PT, respectively, in 3% and 7% of low-risk patients, 25% and 9.9% of intermediate-risk, and 91% and 57.8% of high-risk. Comparative endpoints were age-stratified 5-year (5Y) survival (OS), ≥ grade 3 gastrointestinal (GI) and urologic (GU) toxicity, and 5Y freedom from biochemical progression (FFBP). Results: There was a lower prevalence of GI (1.3% vs 0.1%, p = 0.0065) and GU (4.3% vs 0.1%, p < 0.0001) toxicity at last follow-up in the PT group. In the IMRT and PT cohorts, OS rates were 90.8% and 88.7% in men ≥75 (p = 0.4083). In men < 75, OS rates were 91.6% and 97.5% in the IMRT and PT low-risk patients (p = 0.003), 92.1% and 95.5% in the IMRT and PT intermediate-risk (p = 0.0535), and 92.0% and 90.0% (p = 0.4975) in the IMRT and PT high-risk. In the IMRT and PT cohorts, respectively, FFBP rates were 92.2% and 98.9% for low-risk patients (p < 0.0001), 87.3% and 94.5% for intermediate-risk patients(p = 0.0226), and 80.3% and 74.4% for high-risk patients (p = 0.5154). Conclusions: In this retrospective comparison of outcomes in cohorts of men treated with IMRT and PT for prostate cancer, FFBP rates were better with PT for men with low- and intermediate-risk disease and similar in men with high-risk disease despite longer and more frequent use of ADT in the IMRT cohort. This study underscores the difficulty of comparing retrospective series, with differences noted in age, RT dose, and ADT use between cohorts. However, the magnitude of improvement with PT is intriguing and warrants prospective testing.

AbstractDesmoid tumor, or aggressive fibromatosis, is a rare, histologically benign, fibroblastic lesion that infrequently presents in the head and neck. Desmoid tumors often grow locally, invasively, and may, in rare instances, be fatal secondary to invasion into critical structures, such as airway or major vessels. The most common treatment is surgery, but desmoid tumors are characteristically associated with a high local recurrence rate after resection. Although the margin status seems to be of importance, operations that avoid function loss and esthetic disfigurement should be the primary goal. The efficacy of postoperative radiotherapy is controversial. Its potential benefit should be carefully balanced against possible radiation‐induced adverse effects. Alternative treatment modalities, such as primary radiotherapy and medical treatment or a wait‐and‐see policy, may be preferable to mutilating surgery. Considering all the aforementioned, it seems obvious that desmoid tumors of the head and neck present a therapeutic challenge and require an individualized approach. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.Head Neck, 36: 1517–1526, 2014