A systematic review reveals clinical characteristics and effective management of extranasopharyngeal angiofibromas in diverse populations, suggesting favorable outcomes after surgical treatment.
Purpose Extranasopharyngeal angiofibromas of the sinonasal tract (ENA-SNT) are exceptionally rare tumors that remain poorly characterized in the literature. We aim to systematically review and synthesize the clinical characteristics, management, and outcomes of ENA-SNT. Methods This review adhered to PRISMA guidelines. A literature search was conducted across major databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. Articles that reported ENA-SNT cases in humans were eligible for inclusion. Data extraction and quality assessment were independently performed by two reviewers. Results A total of 145 studies were included, comprising 163 patients. The mean age was 28.8 years (range, 0–78), with a male-to-female ratio of 2.1:1. The nasal septum (33.3%), inferior turbinate (16.6%), and maxillary sinus (16.0%) were the most frequent tumor sites. Common symptoms included nasal obstruction (73.0%) and epistaxis (68.1%), often in combination (55.2%). Angiography demonstrated no hypervascularity in 23.1% of cases; when present, the internal maxillary artery supplied the tumor in 96.1%. Preoperative biopsy caused brisk bleeding in 44.5%. Surgery was the primary treatment in 94.4% of cases, with a recurrence rate of 5.3% and an average time to recurrence of 3.8 months. Intracranial and orbital involvement were rare: 1.84% and 2.45%, respectively. Conclusion This review supports ENA-SNT as a clinical entity distinct from juvenile nasopharyngeal angiofibroma. Symptoms develop more rapidly, but the tumor is less aggressive, less vascularized, and has a better prognosis. ENA-SNT can occur across all age groups and in female individuals. Surgical resection is the treatment of choice, with low recurrence rates.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gazmenga et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: