Treatment Policy for Maxillary Sinus Carcinoma

Abstract

Some 908 cases of malignant tumors of the nose and paranasal sinuses treated from 1957 through 1974 were statistically analysed. The most common tumor site was the maxillary sinus (91.4%) and the most common histological figure was carcinoma (92.4 %).The crude and relative survival rates for each treatment mode were calculated in January 1975. The number of cases and the 5 year relative survival rates of the main groups were as follows:

Multi‐institutional retrospective study for the evaluation of ocular function–preservation rates in maxillary sinus squamous cell carcinomas with orbital invasion

“…One reason for the favorable results may be the improvements in surgical technique as the incidence of maxillary sinus cancer has been historically relatively high in Japan, comprising more than 1% of all malignancies and about 23% of all malignant head and neck tumors . Another reason may be that the combined approach with intra‐arterial chemotherapy, surgery, and radiotherapy had been gradually developing for patients with maxillary sinus cancer since the 1950s in Japan …”

Treatment outcome of maxillary sinus squamous cell carcinoma

“…We have considered that intraarterial chemotherapy may reduce the normal tissue area to be resected by surgery, which could result in better QOL. 2,4,5,9,10 These favorable results were considered to be produced by better results of multimodality therapy. We intended to apply this therapeutic method to all patients with maxillary sinus carcinoma; however, several factors, such as advanced age, unresectable disease, intercurrent illnesses, or refusal of surgical treatment, led us to choose irradiation alone.…”

“…2,3,5 However, it has not been easy to achieve satisfactory treatment outcome mainly because of its complicated anatomic structures. 9,10 Several studies showed that combination of radiotherapy and surgery was superior to radiotherapy alone in terms of survival rate or LC rate of patients with maxillary sinus carcinoma. 6 Recent reports showed many institutions adopted this method and modified it.…”

Prosthodontic guidelines for surgical reconstruction of the maxilla: A classification system of defects

“…Since the publication of Ohngren's classification system for maxillectomy defects in 1933, 33 a number of oncologically oriented classification schemes have served to describe the anatomic boundaries of the maxillectomy defect. [34][35][36] Few classification systems, however, address the issues specifically related to reconstruction of the palatomaxillary defect. 6,37 Aramany's classification system, 6,7 reported in 1978, is referenced frequently in the prosthodontic literature.…”