Review of olfactory cleft roof anatomy.

Progress in skull-base endoscopic surgery has improved our knowledge of olfactory cleft (OC) anatomy. This article presents a review of current knowledge concerning the OC roof: descriptive anatomy, radiological exploration, and endoscopic observation. The OC is a narrow area in the most superior part of the nasal cavity. Its roof is the thinnest structure separating the nasal cavities from the brain; it comprises three superimposed tissues: nasal mucosa, ethmoid cribriform plate (ECP), and dura mater. The ECP comprises the anterior ECP containing the ethmoidal slit (ES) medially and the cribroethmoidal foramen (CEF) laterally; and the posterior ECP, comprising the olfactory foramina. The OC roof is bordered anteriorly by the nasal bone roof, laterally by the lateral ethmoid masses, and posteriorly by the jugum and anterior wall of the sphenoid sinuses. Imaging is crucial for analyzing this wall, providing precise detailed information on conformation and anatomic relations with adjacent structures such as the anterior ethmoidal artery. Understanding OC roof anatomy and correct interpretation of imaging are essential for safety in present-day functional endoscopic sinus surgery and anterior skull-base oncologic surgery.

Histosurgical mapping of endoscopic endonasal surgery of sinonasal tumours to improve radiotherapy guidance.

PURPOSE: Endoscopic endonasal surgery (EES) is becoming a standard for most malignant sinonasal tumours. Margin analysis after piecemeal resection is complex and optimally relies on accurate histosurgical mapping. Postoperative radiotherapy may be adapted based on margin assessment mapping to reduce the dose to some sinonasal subvolumes. We assessed the use of histosurgical mapping by radiation oncologists (RO). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A French practice survey was performed across 29 ENT expert RO (2 did not answer) regarding integration of information on EES, as well as quality of operative and pathology reportsto refine radiotherapy planning after EES. This was assessed through an electronic questionnaire. RESULTS: EES was ubiquitously performed in France. Operative and pathology reports yielded accurate description of EES samples according to 66.7% of interviewed RO. Accuracy of margin assessment was however insufficient according to more than 40.0% of RO. Additional margins/biopsies of the operative bed were available in 55.2% (16/29) of the centres. In the absence of additional margins, quality of resection after EES was considered as microscopically incomplete in 48.3% or dubious in 48.3% of RO. As performed, histosurgical mapping allowed radiotherapy dose and volumes adaptation according to 26.3% of RO only. CONCLUSIONS: Standardized histosurgical mapping with margin and additional margin analysis could be more systematic. Advantages of accurate EES reporting could be dose painting radiotherapy to further decrease morbidity in sinonasal tumours.

Postoperative radiotherapy after flap reconstructive surgery in patients with head and neck cancer: A retrospective monocentric study with flap delineation to assess toxicity and relapse.

PURPOSE: Flaps are increasingly used during reconstructive surgery of head and neck cancers to improve functional outcomes. There are no guidelines as to whether the whole flap or its anastomotic border should be included in the primary tumour target volume of postoperative radiotherapy to prevent local relapses. Relapse and toxicity rates can increase substantially if the whole flap received full dose. Our aim was to determine whether flaps were included in the primary tumour target volume and to report the patterns of relapse and toxicity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Consecutive patients in 2014 through 2016, with or without a flap, receiving postoperative radiotherapy were selected in a retrospective monocentric control study. Flaps were homogenously delineated blind to treating radiation oncologists using a flap-specific atlas. Tumour recurrence, acute and late toxicity were evaluated using univariate and propensity score analyses. RESULTS: A hundred patients were included; 54 with a flap. Median flap volume included in the tumour volume was 80.9%. Twelve patients experienced local recurrences: six with a flap, among whom two within their flap (3.7%). Patients with flaps had larger median tumour volumes to be irradiated (25cm3 versus 58cm3, p<0.001) and higher acute/late toxicity rates (p<0.001) even after adjustment on biases (more advanced T stage, oral cavity, active smoking in patients with flaps). Locoregional recurrence and survival rates were similar between patients with/without a flap. CONCLUSION: Recurrences within a flap were rare in this series when including the whole flap body in the 60Gy-clinical target volume but inclusion of the flap in the primary tumour target volume increased toxicity. Multicentric studies are warranted.

Flap delineation guidelines in postoperative head and neck radiation therapy for head and neck cancers.

INTRODUCTION: Reconstructive surgery in head and neck cancers frequently involves the use of autologous flaps to improve functional outcomes. However, the literature suggests that postoperative radiotherapy deteriorates functional outcomes due to flap atrophy and fibrosis. Data on patterns of relapse after postoperative radiotherapy with a flap are lacking, resulting in heterogenous delineation of postoperative clinical target volumes (CTV). Flap delineation is unusual in routine practice and there are no guidelines on how to delineate flaps. Therefore, we aim to propose a guideline for flap delineation in head and neck cancers to assess dose-effects more accurately with respect to flaps. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Common flaps were selected. They were delineated by radiation oncologists and head and neck surgeons based on operative reports, on contrast-enhanced planning CTs and checked by a radiologist. Each flap was divided into its vascular pedicle and its soft tissue components (fat, fascia/ muscle, skin, bone). RESULTS: Delineation (body and pedicle) of Facial Artery Musculo-Mucosal, pectoralis, radial forearm, anterolateral thigh, fibula and scapula flaps was performed. Based on information provided in operative reports, i.e. tissue components, size and location, flaps can be identified. The various tissue components of each flap can be individualized to facilitate the delineation. CONCLUSION: This atlas could serve as a guide for the delineation of flaps and may serve to conduct studies evaluating dose-effects, geometric patterns of failure or functional outcomes after reconstructive surgery. Changes in postoperative CTV definitions might be needed to improve risk/benefit ratio in the future based on surgery-induced changes.

Impact of locoregional irradiation in patients with upfront metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the frequency of use, modalities and potential interest of locoregional irradiation (LRT) in patients with upfront metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). METHODS: Retrospective multicentric study. Were included all patients presenting an upfront metastatic HNSCC treated by platin-5FU- cetuximab based regimen, from 2008 to 2016. Patients with past history of cervical irradiation or HNSCC within the 5 years before metastasis diagnosis were excluded. RESULTS: 65 patients were included. 25 patients (38%) presented a response or stable disease with chemotherapy. Forty-one patients (63%) underwent a locoregional irradiation: 5 patients before chemotherapy (upfront RT), 13 patients with stable disease or response after chemotherapy (consolidation RT), and 23 patients with progressive disease. Median overall survival (OS) was 11.6 months, median progression free survival was 7.9 months. OS was significantly improved for patients who underwent LRT (median OS 16.1 vs 7.5 months, p < 0.01). Among patients who received LRT, OS trended to be better if LRT was performed as consolidation RT compared to upfront RT (median OS of 22.1 vs 15.5 months, p = 0.11). Among patients with stable disease or response after chemotherapy, there was a non-significant better OS for the 13 patients treated by LRT (median OS 22.1 vs 11.8 months, p = 0.21)). Radical dose was not associated with better locoregional control compared to palliative dose (p = 0.37). CONCLUSION: LRT is frequently performed during management of upfront metastatic HNSCC and associated with better OS. Non-progressive disease after firs-line chemotherapy seems a good way to select patients who would benefit from radical LRT.