IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0208786.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Surgery and protontherapy in Grade I and II skull base chondrosarcoma: A comparative retrospective study

Author

Listed:
  • François Simon
  • Loïc Feuvret
  • Damien Bresson
  • Jean-Pierre Guichard
  • Sophie El Zein
  • Anne-Laure Bernat
  • Moujahed Labidi
  • Valentin Calugaru
  • Sébastien Froelich
  • Philippe Herman
  • Benjamin Verillaud

Abstract

Objective: Skull base chondrosarcoma is a rare tumour usually treated by surgery and proton therapy. However, as mortality rate is very low and treatment complications are frequent, a less aggressive therapeutic strategy could be considered. The objective of this study was to compare the results of surgery only vs surgery and adjuvant proton therapy, in terms of survival and treatment adverse effects, based on a retrospective series. Methods: Monocentric retrospective study at a tertiary care centre. All patients treated for a skull base grade I and II chondrosarcoma were included. We collected data concerning surgical and proton therapy treatment and up-to-date follow-up, including Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) scores. Results: 47 patients (23M/24F) were operated on between 2002 and 2015; mean age at diagnosis was 47 years-old (10–85). Petroclival and anterior skull base locations were found in 34 and 13 patients, respectively. Gross total resection was achieved in 17 cases (36%) and partial in 30 (64%). Adjuvant proton therapy (mean total dose 70 GyRBE,1.8 GyRBE/day) was administered in 23 cases. Overall mean follow-up was 91 months (7–182). Of the patients treated by surgery only, 8 (34%) experienced residual tumour progression (mean delay 51 months) and 5 received second-line proton therapy. Adjuvant proton therapy was associated with a significantly lower rate of relapse (11%; p = 0.01). There was no significant difference in 10-year disease specific survival between patients initially treated with or without adjuvant proton therapy (100% vs 89.8%, p = 0.14). Difference in high-grade toxicity was not statistically significant between patients in both groups (25% (7) vs 11% (5), p = 0.10). The most frequent adverse effect of proton therapy was sensorineural hearing loss (39%). Conclusion: Long-term disease specific survival was not significantly lower in patients without adjuvant proton therapy, but they experienced less adverse effects. We believe a surgery only strategy could be discussed, delaying as much as possible proton therapy in cases of relapse. Further prospective studies are needed to validate this more conservative strategy in skull base chondrosarcoma.

Suggested Citation

  • François Simon & Loïc Feuvret & Damien Bresson & Jean-Pierre Guichard & Sophie El Zein & Anne-Laure Bernat & Moujahed Labidi & Valentin Calugaru & Sébastien Froelich & Philippe Herman & Benjamin Veril, 2018. "Surgery and protontherapy in Grade I and II skull base chondrosarcoma: A comparative retrospective study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-12, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0208786
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0208786
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0208786
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0208786&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0208786?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0208786. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.