Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare the long-term outcomes after intra-arterial cytoreductive chemotherapy (IACC) with conventional treatment for lacrimal gland adenoid cystic carcinoma (ACC). DESIGN: Retrospective case series. PARTICIPANTS: Nineteen consecutive patients treated with IACC, followed by orbital exenteration, chemoradiotherapy, and intravenous chemotherapy. INTERVENTIONS: Analyses of the histologic characteristics of biopsy specimens, extent of disease at the time of diagnosis, diagnostic surgical procedures, incidence of locoregional recurrences or distant metastases, disease-free survival time, response to IACC, tumor margins at definitive surgery, and toxicity and complications. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Disease relapse, disease-free survival, and chemotherapeutic complications. RESULTS: Eight patients with an intact lacrimal artery had significantly better outcomes for survival (100% vs. 28.6% at 10 years), cause-specific mortality, and recurrences (all P = 0.002, log-rank test) than conventionally treated patients from the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine. These 8 patients (group 1) had cumulative 10-year disease-free survival of 100% compared with 50% for 11 patients (group 2) who had an absence of the lacrimal artery or deviated from the treatment protocol (P = 0.035) and 14.3% for conventionally treated patients (P<0.001). Likewise, group 2 was associated with lower cause-specific mortality than the institutional comparator group (P = 0.038). Prior tumor resection with lateral wall osteotomy, delay in IACC implementation or exenteration, and failure to adhere to protocol are risk factors for suboptimal outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Neoadjuvant IACC seems to improve overall survival and decrease disease recurrence. An intact lacrimal artery, no disruption of bone barrier or tumor manipulation other than incisional biopsy, and protocol compliance are factors responsible for favorable outcomes. The chemotoxicity complication rate is limited and manageable. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.

View details for DOI 10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.01.027

View details for PubMedID 23582989