Purpose of review: Sinonasal neoplasms have a high rate of recurrence following treatment, and clinicians utilize a variety of surveillance techniques. Generally, surveillance modality and frequency of follow-up are determined by the guidelines for head and neck cancer as a broad category. However, recent studies have demonstrated that a more tailored approach to follow-up may be necessary. Recent findings: Endoscopy has low sensitivity in recurrence detection, especially in the asymptomatic patient. However, it is able to identify superficial recurrences that may be more amenable to repeat resection. Conversely, imaging [computed tomography (CT), MRI, and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-PET/CT] is useful in ruling out disease, but the inflammatory environment of the posttreatment sinonasal cavity leads to a high number of false positives. This is especially notable in PET/CT, which has worse specificity and positive predictive value in sinonasal malignancy than in head and neck malignancy overall, especially in the early posttreatment period. Little data are available on optimal timing and duration of follow-up, but tumor histology and aggressiveness should be considered when choosing a surveillance approach. Summary: Sinonasal malignancy surveillance strategies may warrant modifications of current protocols used for head and neck malignancy. This is due to a number of factors, including a greater diversity of sinonasal disorder and increased duration of posttreatment sinonasal inflammation. Clinicians should be aware of the performance parameters of commonly used surveillance techniques and adjust follow-up regimens based on this information.
Featured Articles for CME Credit February 2017 - No abstract available from Uncategorized via xlomafota13 on Inoreader http://ift.tt/2jL0CsH