Facial deformation following treatment for pediatric head and neck rhabdomyosarcoma; the difference between treatment modalities. Results of a trans-Atlantic, multicenter cross-sectional cohort study.

BACKGROUND:The four different local therapy strategies used for head and neck rhabdomyosarcoma (HNRMS) include proton therapy (PT), photon therapy (RT), surgery with radiotherapy (Paris-method), and surgery with brachytherapy (AMORE). Local control and survival is comparable; however, the impact of these different treatments on facial deformation is still poorly understood. This study aims to quantify facial deformation and investigates the differences in facial deformation between treatment modalities. METHODS:Across four European and North American institutions, HNRMS survivors treated between 1990 and 2017, more than 2 years post treatment, had a 3D photograph taken. Using dense surface modeling, we computed facial signatures for each survivor to show facial deformation relative to 35 age-sex-ethnicity-matched controls. Additionally, we computed individual facial asymmetry. FINDINGS:A total of 173 HNRMS survivors were included, survivors showed significantly reduced facial growth (p < .001) compared to healthy controls. Partitioned by tumor site, there was reduced facial growth in survivors with nonparameningeal primaries (p = .002), and parameningeal primaries (p ≤.001), but not for orbital primaries (p = .080) All patients were significantly more asymmetric than healthy controls, independent of treatment modality (p ≤ .001). There was significantly more facial deformation in orbital patients when comparing RT to AMORE (p = .046). In survivors with a parameningeal tumor, there was significantly less facial deformation in PT when compared to RT (p = .009) and Paris-method (p = .007). INTERPRETATION:When selecting optimal treatment, musculoskeletal facial outcomes are an expected difference between treatment options. These anticipated differences are currently based on clinicians' bias, expertise, and experience. These data supplement clinician judgment with an objective analysis highlighting the impact of patient age and tumor site between existing treatment options.