RESUMO
Background: The objective outcomes of masseteric nerve transfer in the setting of parotid malignancy are unclear. Objective: To measure objective facial reanimation outcomes of masseteric nerve transfer in patients with parotid malignancy who underwent parotidectomy with facial nerve resection. Materials and Methods: Retrospective review of patients who underwent masseteric nerve transfer for facial paralysis secondary to parotid malignancy was carried out at a tertiary referral hospital from August 2017 to November 2021. Objective facial reanimation outcomes were analyzed using Emotrics. Minimal follow-up of 6 months was required for inclusion. Results: Eight patients (five males) with a median age of 75.5 years (range 53-91) met inclusion criteria. Fifty percent had metastatic squamous cell carcinoma, and 50% had primary parotid malignancy. Five patients underwent concomitant cancer resection with facial nerve reconstruction. Seven patients received postoperative adjuvant radiotherapy. After reinnervation, patients had improved oral commissure excursion (from 1.51 mm ±1.27 to 3.77 mm ±1.81; p < 0.01) and facial symmetry during smile. Conclusion: In this study, masseteric nerve transfer enhanced oral commissure excursion and facial symmetry during smile in patients with parotid malignancy and facial nerve resection.
Assuntos
Paralisia Facial , Transferência de Nervo , Neoplasias Parotídeas , Masculino , Humanos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Paralisia Facial/etiologia , Paralisia Facial/cirurgia , Estudos Retrospectivos , Neoplasias Parotídeas/complicações , Neoplasias Parotídeas/cirurgia , Músculo Masseter/inervação , Nervo MandibularRESUMO
PURPOSE: To elucidate the role of biological and clinical impact of aberrant promoter hypermethylation (PH) in ovarian cancer (OC). EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: PH of PGP9.5, HIC1, AIM1, APC, PAK3, MGMT, KIF1A, CCNA1, ESR1, SSBP2, GSTP1, FKBP4 and VGF were assessed by quantitative methylation specific PCR (QMSP) in a training set. We selected two genes (VGF and PGP9.5) for further QMSP analysis in a larger independent validation (IV) set with available clinical data. Biologic relevance of VGF gene was also evaluated. RESULTS: PH frequency for PGP9.5 and VGF were 85% (316/372) and 43% (158/366) respectively in the IV set of samples while no PH was observed in controls. In 372 OC cases with available follow up, PGP9.5 and VGF PH were correlated with better patient survival [Hazard Ratios (HR) for overall survival (OS) were 0.59 (95% Confidence Intervals (CI) â=â0.42-0.84, pâ=â0.004), and 0.73 (95%CIâ=â0.55-0.97, pâ=â0.028) respectively, and for disease specific survival (DSS) were 0.57 (95%CI 0.39-0.82, pâ=â0.003) and 0.72 (95%CI 0.54-0.96, pâ=â0.027). In multivariate analysis, VGF PH remained an independent prognostic factor for OS (HR 0.61, 95%CI 0.43-0.86, p<0.005) and DSS (HR 0.58, 95%CI 0.41-0.83, p<0.003). Furthermore, PGP9.5 PH was significantly correlated with lower grade, early stage tumors, and with absence of residual disease. Forced expression of VGF in OC cell lines inhibited cell growth. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that VGF and PGP9.5 PH are potential biomarkers for ovarian carcinoma. Confirmatory cohorts with longitudinal follow-up are required in future studies to define the clinical impact of VGF and PGP9.5 PH before clinical application.