onc brain

About · curated by Nick Boehling, MD · @nb2276
Early signal

RT for nasal skin SCC, Princess Margaret experience

ForNasal skin SCC (excl. vestibule), mostly T1N0, elderly, primary or postop RT

TL;DRLocal relapse-free rate 90% at 2y and 85% at 5y, CSS 96%, no RTOG G4 late toxicity in 94 pts treated with mostly orthovoltage RT.

Why it mattersRadiation oncology

Failure pattern is the RT read: 6 of 10 local failures sat on the nasal bridge, and 3 of 4 bridge recurrences after CR had a marginal component, while 2 of 5 columella lesions failed. Curved surfaces and fusion planes argue for generous margins beyond the usual 1 cm.

Monday clinic

In an elderly pt with cN0 nasal skin SCC selected for RT over excision, this supports definitive hypofractionated RT to the primary alone with nodal surveillance; it does not extend to nasal vestibule SCC.

12 details

Retrospective chart review of 100 pts treated at Princess Margaret 1982-1993; 94 analyzed after 6 lost to follow-up. Median follow-up 2.9y (range 0.2-10.4) in the 45 survivors.

Histologically confirmed SCC of the nasal skin; nasal vestibule SCC excluded. T1 60, T2 11, T4 7, TX 16; only 1 pt N1 at presentation.

35 Gy/5 for lesions <2 cm, 45 Gy/10 for 2-5 cm, 50 Gy/20 for >5 cm or bone/cartilage invasion. Orthovoltage in 81%, energy chosen by lesion thickness (75-100 keV <2 mm, 125 keV 2-4 mm, 250 keV >4 mm); 1-cm field-edge margin; no elective nodal coverage.

Primary: local failure-free rate. Secondary: nodal failure-free rate, OS, cause-specific survival, late toxicity.

No RTOG G4 late toxicity and no cartilage or bone necrosis. Skin pallor, atrophy and telangiectasia common 1-5y post-RT, progressive but usually asymptomatic.

The Mazeron nose and vestibule series cited by the authors reported 11% local failure for SCC, in line with the 10% 2y local failure here. A cited vestibule series reported 5y local relapse-free 80%, consistent with the authors' point that vestibule disease does worse and was rightly excluded.

elderly pts with mostly T1N0 nasal skin SCC treated with definitive or postoperative RT
Does not represent nasal vestibule SCC or clinically node-positive disease.

Treatment-era orthovoltage technique and no formal cosmetic assessment, so the optimal schedule cannot be derived. Dose was chosen by size and frailty, confounding any dose-response read.

Authors now prefer 50 Gy/20 or 60 Gy/30 for large infiltrative lesions, since schedules under 4 weeks usually leave a visible cosmetic defect after 1-2y. Many elderly pts still accept 1-2 week courses and the cosmetic trade-off.

Endpoint2 years5 years
Local failure-free90% (SE 3%)85% (SE 5%)
Overall survival75% (SE 4%)51% (SE 6%)
Cause-specific survival96% (SE 2%)96% (SE 2%)

Retrospective single-institution series without a surgical comparator; toxicity and cosmesis not formally scored; short survivor follow-up in an elderly cohort.

  • Optimal dose-fractionation balancing cosmesis and local control
  • Electrons or brachytherapy vs orthovoltage on curved nasal surfaces
  • RT vs Mohs excision for nasal skin SCC
📚 Sources · 📄 1 paper
📄 PAPER May N. Tsao; Richard W. Tsang; Fei-Fei Liu et al. · International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics (2002)
Radiotherapy Management for Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Nasal Skin: The Princess Margaret Hospital Experience

The longer read

The value of this series is less the headline control rate than the failure map. A local failure-free rate of 90% at 2 years sits comfortably beside the 11% SCC local failure figure from the Mazeron experience the authors cite, so the result does not move the established view that RT is an effective definitive option for nasal skin SCC. What it adds is where control is lost. Six of ten local failures were on the bridge, and three of four bridge recurrences after a complete response had a marginal component, while two of five columella lesions failed. The authors read this as underestimation of tumor extent on curved surfaces and along embryonic fusion planes, a plausible mechanism that argues for generous margins and careful attention to dose fall-off where source-to-surface distance changes over the nasal contour.

The nodal finding is the second actionable point. Apart from one patient, nobody received intentional nodal coverage, and only 2 of 93 clinically node-negative patients failed regionally, with no adverse primary feature predicting it. That supports surveillance rather than elective nodal RT for cN0 disease, with the caveat that small numbers and short follow-up limit how much reassurance an absence of events can provide.

Confidence should be tempered in three directions. First, this is a retrospective chart review in which dose was chosen by lesion size, depth and patient frailty, so any attempt to infer dose-response is confounded by indication; the null univariate analysis with ten local events says more about power than biology. Second, the toxicity claim is weaker than the abstract suggests: late effects were not formally scored, so the absence of G4 events means none were documented, not that they were systematically sought, and cosmesis by schedule could not be assessed. Third, median follow-up in survivors was 2.9 years, and with 5-year OS of 51% in an elderly cohort, competing mortality thins the population in whom late local failure or late cartilage toxicity could surface. The 96% cause-specific survival largely reflects that patients die of other causes.

The treatment era also matters for transfer. Most patients were treated with orthovoltage selected by lesion thickness, a technique still in use but now often replaced by electrons with bolus or brachytherapy molds, which carry different surface and depth dosimetry on the nose. The authors' own shift toward 50 Gy in 20 fractions, or 60 Gy in 30 for large infiltrative lesions, is driven by cosmesis rather than control, and their observation that elderly patients often accept a 1-2 week course with a cosmetic penalty frames the real decision: schedule length against appearance, not against local control.

The series would be wrong to lean on if bridge and columella failures reflected selection of larger or neglected tumors rather than geometry, or if longer follow-up revealed late chondritis that chart review missed. It leaves untouched the comparison with Mohs excision, which this cohort, already selected for RT in a multidisciplinary setting, cannot address.