Abstract ID: 26-358
Eyelid vs Non-Eyelid Head and Neck Sebaceous Carcinoma: An Institutional Comparative Cohort with Periocular Surgical Outcomes
Author: Reem Alshammari Base Hospital / Institution: Charité University Hospital
Presentation Type: ePoster Presentation
Purpose
Compare clinicopathologic features of eyelid versus non-eyelid head and neck sebaceous carcinoma.
Methods
Retrospective cohort study of head and neck SC cases diagnosed from 2010 to 2024, categorized as eyelid or non-eyelid primaries. Overall survival OS was estimated using Kaplan Meier methods with log-rank testing and univariable Cox regression. Largest tumor diameter (mm) was analyzed when available
Results
Twenty-three patients were included (8 eyelid, 15 non-eyelid). Survival analyses included 22 patients (one excluded for zero follow-up), with 9 deaths. Median OS for the full cohort was 105.4 months. No difference in OS by eyelid status was detected (log-rank χ² = 0.186, p = 0.666), and eyelid primary was not associated with OS in univariable Cox regression (HR 0.74, p = 0.667). Tumor diameter was available for 16 patients (7 eyelid, 9 non-eyelid) and was descriptively larger in eyelid primaries (mean 14.0 vs 7.9 mm). Among eyelid cases, chart review showed frequent reconstructive complexity and postoperative ocular morbidity, including tissue-sharing flaps, staged or revision reconstruction in 3 of 8 cases, orbital involvement in 2 of 8, lagophthalmos in 3 of 8, cicatricial or eyelid surface sequelae in 2 of 8, and corneal complication in 1 of 8.
Conclusion
In this cohort, OS was similar between eyelid and non-eyelid head and neck sebaceous carcinoma. However, eyelid primaries showed a distinct pattern of clinical burden, with descriptively larger tumors at presentation and substantial reconstructive and postoperative ocular morbidity. These findings suggest that outcome assessment in eyelid sebaceous carcinoma should extend beyond survival alone. The principal contribution of this study is the integration of comparative head and neck site analysis with chart-level periocular reconstructive and complication data not typically available in registry studies.
Additional Authors
| First name | Last name | Base Hospital / Institution |
|---|---|---|
| Lukas M. | Möhwald | Charité University Hospital |
| Eckart | Bertelmann | Charité University Hospital |
| Alexander L. | Rattunde | Charité University Hospital |