Evidence Hub

Ewing Sarcoma of the Craniofacial Bones: A Qualitative Systematic Review

Rehman R, Osto M, Parry N, Awada N, Agemy J, Arianpour K, Folbe AJ

Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, 2022

102 participants

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To conduct a systematic review on the demographics, characteristics, management, treatment, complications, and outcomes of Ewing sarcomas in the craniofacial bones.

DATA SOURCES: Using Cochrane Library, EmBase, and PubMed, the authors identified 71 studies to be included.

REVIEW METHODS: The Cochrane Library, EmBase, and PubMed databases were used to identify literature relating to Ewing sarcomas in the craniofacial bone to conduct a systematic review. Patient demographics, clinical characteristics, and treatment strategies were extracted.

RESULTS: Seventy-one studies encompassing 102 patients were identified. The most common craniofacial locations involved were the frontal bone (16.7%, n = 17), nasal cavity (16.7%, n = 17), and temporal bone (14.7%, n = 15). Stratified by location, the most common presenting symptoms were frontal bone (palpable mass, n = 8, 47.1%), nasal cavities (epistaxis, n = 9, 52.9%), and temporal bones (headache, n = 5, 33.3%). The 3 most commonly used treatment strategies were a combination of surgical intervention/radiotherapy/chemotherapy (n = 43, 43%), a combination of radiotherapy/chemotherapy (n = 18, 18%), and a combination of surgical intervention/chemotherapy (n = 15, 15%). Patients who received a combination of surgical intervention/radiotherapy/chemotherapy experienced local recurrence rate of 16.6%. However, other combinations of therapies such as surgical intervention/chemotherapy and radiotherapy/chemotherapy had a lower…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 102 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free