Goetschel, Kaitlin

Importance Adjuvant radiotherapy can improve locoregional control and survival in patients with olfactory neuroblastoma (ONB), particularly with advanced-stage and histologic-grade disease. Standard radiotherapy treatment is with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). Proton beam radiotherapy (PBRT) provides theoretical advantages in greater sparing of dose to uninvolved organs at risk. Objective To investigate if there are differences in the effectiveness and radiation treatment–related adverse events (RTAEs) between adjuvant IMRT and PBRT for patients with ONB. Design, Setting, and Participants This propensity score–matched cohort study included patients with ONB treated between February 2005 and April 2021 with either IMRT or PBRT at 9 academic tertiary care centers in North America. Patients were matched 1:2 based on age, modified Kadish stage, and Hyams grade. Data were analyzed from July 2024 to January 2025. Exposure Adjuvant IMRT or adjuvant PBRT. Main Outcomes and Measures Local recurrence-free survival (RFS), any RFS, and overall survival (OS). RTAEs, ie, grade 2 events or higher based on Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, were recorded for both modalities. Results Of 54 included patients, 27 (50%) were female, and the mean (SD) age was 46.2 (15.4) years. A total of 18 were treated with PBRT and 36 were treated with IMRT. Most patients had modified Kadish stage C disease (33 of 54 [61%]), and 24 patients (44%) had Hyams grade III or IV disease. The RTAE rate was 20% (8 of 40); IMRT had a rate of 21% (6 of 29), and PBRT had a rate of 18% (2 of 11). The difference in the point estimates for 10-year RFS showed a potential clinical benefit favoring IMRT, although the wide confidence interval indicates uncertainty (10-year RFS: IMRT, 63.3%; 95% CI, 44.6-89.8; PBRT, 37.8%; 95% CI, 14.2-100; difference, 25.5 percentage points; 95% CI, −17.6 to 68.6). There were no clinically meaningful differences in 10-year local RFS (IMRT, 75.6%; 95% CI, 59.8-95.4; PBRT, 72.7%; 95% CI, 45.2-100; difference, 2.9 percentage points; 95% CI, −35.9 to 41.7) or 10-year OS (IMRT, 61.8%; 95% CI, 42.8-89.1; PBRT, 57.1%; 95% CI, 24.3-100; difference, 4.7 percentage points; 95% CI, −49.2 to 58.6), although wide confidence intervals indicate considerable uncertainty. Conclusions and Relevance Due to the imprecision of estimates, no definitive conclusions can be made regarding the comparative effectiveness of IMRT vs PBRT for patients with ONB. These preliminary data may inform the design of appropriately powered prospective studies evaluating the efficacy of PBRT vs IMRT in this population.

AbstractIntroductionSurgical techniques for sellar reconstruction include no reconstruction, use of synthetic materials, autologous grafts, and/or vascularized flaps. The aim of this study was to conduct a multi‐center study comparing the efficacy and postoperative morbidity associated with different sellar reconstruction techniques.MethodsA retrospective chart review of patients who underwent endoscopic transsphenoidal surgery for pituitary tumors from five participating sites between January 2021 and March 2023 was performed. The variables included demographics, tumor characteristics, reconstruction technique, postoperative cerebrospinal fluid leak (CSF) leak, and 22‐item Sino‐Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT‐22) scores. Comparisons of postoperative complications, SNOT‐22 scores, and duration of surgery by type of onlay reconstruction were evaluated using Fisher's exact test, analysis of variance, and Kruskal‒Wallis test.ResultsFive hundred and one patients were identified. The median tumor size was 2.1 cm, and 64% were non‐functioning. Intraoperative CSF leak was identified in 38% of patients. A total of 89% of patients underwent onlay reconstruction: 49% were reconstructed with mucosal grafts, 35% with nasoseptal flaps, and 5% with other onlay techniques. Nasoseptal flaps were utilized more frequently in the setting of giant pituitary adenomas (>3 cm), medial cavernous sinus wall resection, and high‐flow intraoperative CSF leaks. Cases who utilized mucosal grafts had an overall shorter operating time (median: 183 min vs. 240 min; p < 0.001). Five postoperative CSF leaks were identified, and therefore, statistical analysis could not be performed for this complication.ConclusionThe effectiveness and morbidity of different sellar reconstruction techniques are comparable. Vascularized flaps were utilized more frequently in the setting of larger tumors and high‐flow intraoperative CSF leaks.