Propensity score analysis of endoscopic and open approaches to malignant paranasal and anterior skull base tumor outcomes

Douglas Farquhar, Luke Kim, Douglas Worrall, Alexander G Chiu, John Y K Lee, Sammy Khalili, Sean Grady, Bert W. O'Malley, David W. Kennedy, Jason G. Newman, James N. Palmer, Nithin D. Adappa

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

10 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives/Hypothesis: Malignant sinonasal and skull base tumors are now being resected using an endoscopic technique, but there has been controversy regarding the oncologic safety of this approach. Various studies have compared the outcomes from endoscopic surgery to those from open techniques; however, all have been limited by substantial differences in the patient populations receiving each approach. In this study we compare outcomes of open and endoscopic techniques and use propensity score matching to control for these differences in the patient populations. Study Design: Retrospective cohort study including all patients > 18 years old receiving primary surgery for malignant sinonasal or skull base tumors at our institution from 2002 to 2013. Results: One hundred twenty-four patients met criteria; 82 received endoscopic-only surgery, and 42 had an open component to their approach. There was an 86% 3-year overall survival and a 74% disease-free survival. Without controlling for differences in the groups, the endoscopic patients fared significantly better in survival, recurrence rates, wound infections, and length of hospital stay. When using propensity score matching to account for patient comorbidities and tumor size, there were no significant differences in any outcomes except length of the hospital stay. A multivariate regression analysis yielded the same results. Conclusion: In this study, endoscopic surgery was shown to be a safe alternative to the open technique, even when controlling for the favorable patient and tumor characteristics in endoscopic patients. This is the first study to account for these differences with a rigorous statistical methodology. Level of Evidence: 4. Laryngoscope, 126:1724–1729, 2016.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1724-1729
Number of pages6
JournalLaryngoscope
Volume126
Issue number8
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 1 2016

Fingerprint

Propensity Score
Skull Base
Length of Stay
Neoplasms
Laryngoscopes
Wound Infection
Population
Disease-Free Survival
Comorbidity
Cohort Studies
Multivariate Analysis
Survival Rate
Retrospective Studies
Regression Analysis
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Safety
Recurrence
Survival

Keywords

  • endoscopic surgery
  • propensity score
  • sinonasal malignancy
  • Skull base tumor

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Otorhinolaryngology

Cite this

Propensity score analysis of endoscopic and open approaches to malignant paranasal and anterior skull base tumor outcomes. / Farquhar, Douglas; Kim, Luke; Worrall, Douglas; Chiu, Alexander G; Lee, John Y K; Khalili, Sammy; Grady, Sean; O'Malley, Bert W.; Kennedy, David W.; Newman, Jason G.; Palmer, James N.; Adappa, Nithin D.

In: Laryngoscope, Vol. 126, No. 8, 01.08.2016, p. 1724-1729.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Farquhar, D, Kim, L, Worrall, D, Chiu, AG, Lee, JYK, Khalili, S, Grady, S, O'Malley, BW, Kennedy, DW, Newman, JG, Palmer, JN & Adappa, ND 2016, 'Propensity score analysis of endoscopic and open approaches to malignant paranasal and anterior skull base tumor outcomes', Laryngoscope, vol. 126, no. 8, pp. 1724-1729. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.25885
Farquhar, Douglas ; Kim, Luke ; Worrall, Douglas ; Chiu, Alexander G ; Lee, John Y K ; Khalili, Sammy ; Grady, Sean ; O'Malley, Bert W. ; Kennedy, David W. ; Newman, Jason G. ; Palmer, James N. ; Adappa, Nithin D. / Propensity score analysis of endoscopic and open approaches to malignant paranasal and anterior skull base tumor outcomes. In: Laryngoscope. 2016 ; Vol. 126, No. 8. pp. 1724-1729.
@article{b0f63e18768342f1b010516211bcb582,
title = "Propensity score analysis of endoscopic and open approaches to malignant paranasal and anterior skull base tumor outcomes",
abstract = "Objectives/Hypothesis: Malignant sinonasal and skull base tumors are now being resected using an endoscopic technique, but there has been controversy regarding the oncologic safety of this approach. Various studies have compared the outcomes from endoscopic surgery to those from open techniques; however, all have been limited by substantial differences in the patient populations receiving each approach. In this study we compare outcomes of open and endoscopic techniques and use propensity score matching to control for these differences in the patient populations. Study Design: Retrospective cohort study including all patients > 18 years old receiving primary surgery for malignant sinonasal or skull base tumors at our institution from 2002 to 2013. Results: One hundred twenty-four patients met criteria; 82 received endoscopic-only surgery, and 42 had an open component to their approach. There was an 86{\%} 3-year overall survival and a 74{\%} disease-free survival. Without controlling for differences in the groups, the endoscopic patients fared significantly better in survival, recurrence rates, wound infections, and length of hospital stay. When using propensity score matching to account for patient comorbidities and tumor size, there were no significant differences in any outcomes except length of the hospital stay. A multivariate regression analysis yielded the same results. Conclusion: In this study, endoscopic surgery was shown to be a safe alternative to the open technique, even when controlling for the favorable patient and tumor characteristics in endoscopic patients. This is the first study to account for these differences with a rigorous statistical methodology. Level of Evidence: 4. Laryngoscope, 126:1724–1729, 2016.",
keywords = "endoscopic surgery, propensity score, sinonasal malignancy, Skull base tumor",
author = "Douglas Farquhar and Luke Kim and Douglas Worrall and Chiu, {Alexander G} and Lee, {John Y K} and Sammy Khalili and Sean Grady and O'Malley, {Bert W.} and Kennedy, {David W.} and Newman, {Jason G.} and Palmer, {James N.} and Adappa, {Nithin D.}",
year = "2016",
month = "8",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1002/lary.25885",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "126",
pages = "1724--1729",
journal = "Laryngoscope",
issn = "0023-852X",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Inc.",
number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Propensity score analysis of endoscopic and open approaches to malignant paranasal and anterior skull base tumor outcomes

AU - Farquhar, Douglas

AU - Kim, Luke

AU - Worrall, Douglas

AU - Chiu, Alexander G

AU - Lee, John Y K

AU - Khalili, Sammy

AU - Grady, Sean

AU - O'Malley, Bert W.

AU - Kennedy, David W.

AU - Newman, Jason G.

AU - Palmer, James N.

AU - Adappa, Nithin D.

PY - 2016/8/1

Y1 - 2016/8/1

N2 - Objectives/Hypothesis: Malignant sinonasal and skull base tumors are now being resected using an endoscopic technique, but there has been controversy regarding the oncologic safety of this approach. Various studies have compared the outcomes from endoscopic surgery to those from open techniques; however, all have been limited by substantial differences in the patient populations receiving each approach. In this study we compare outcomes of open and endoscopic techniques and use propensity score matching to control for these differences in the patient populations. Study Design: Retrospective cohort study including all patients > 18 years old receiving primary surgery for malignant sinonasal or skull base tumors at our institution from 2002 to 2013. Results: One hundred twenty-four patients met criteria; 82 received endoscopic-only surgery, and 42 had an open component to their approach. There was an 86% 3-year overall survival and a 74% disease-free survival. Without controlling for differences in the groups, the endoscopic patients fared significantly better in survival, recurrence rates, wound infections, and length of hospital stay. When using propensity score matching to account for patient comorbidities and tumor size, there were no significant differences in any outcomes except length of the hospital stay. A multivariate regression analysis yielded the same results. Conclusion: In this study, endoscopic surgery was shown to be a safe alternative to the open technique, even when controlling for the favorable patient and tumor characteristics in endoscopic patients. This is the first study to account for these differences with a rigorous statistical methodology. Level of Evidence: 4. Laryngoscope, 126:1724–1729, 2016.

AB - Objectives/Hypothesis: Malignant sinonasal and skull base tumors are now being resected using an endoscopic technique, but there has been controversy regarding the oncologic safety of this approach. Various studies have compared the outcomes from endoscopic surgery to those from open techniques; however, all have been limited by substantial differences in the patient populations receiving each approach. In this study we compare outcomes of open and endoscopic techniques and use propensity score matching to control for these differences in the patient populations. Study Design: Retrospective cohort study including all patients > 18 years old receiving primary surgery for malignant sinonasal or skull base tumors at our institution from 2002 to 2013. Results: One hundred twenty-four patients met criteria; 82 received endoscopic-only surgery, and 42 had an open component to their approach. There was an 86% 3-year overall survival and a 74% disease-free survival. Without controlling for differences in the groups, the endoscopic patients fared significantly better in survival, recurrence rates, wound infections, and length of hospital stay. When using propensity score matching to account for patient comorbidities and tumor size, there were no significant differences in any outcomes except length of the hospital stay. A multivariate regression analysis yielded the same results. Conclusion: In this study, endoscopic surgery was shown to be a safe alternative to the open technique, even when controlling for the favorable patient and tumor characteristics in endoscopic patients. This is the first study to account for these differences with a rigorous statistical methodology. Level of Evidence: 4. Laryngoscope, 126:1724–1729, 2016.

KW - endoscopic surgery

KW - propensity score

KW - sinonasal malignancy

KW - Skull base tumor

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84978687303&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84978687303&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/lary.25885

DO - 10.1002/lary.25885

M3 - Article

C2 - 26972568

AN - SCOPUS:84978687303

VL - 126

SP - 1724

EP - 1729

JO - Laryngoscope

JF - Laryngoscope

SN - 0023-852X

IS - 8

ER -