Wang, Eric W

ABSTRACT Background Olfactory neuroblastoma (ONB) exhibits variable recurrence patterns, with significant late recurrences occurring years after treatment. We investigated cutoff periods to define late recurrence and identified predictors that distinguish patients at risk of late recurrence from those considered cured. Methods From a multi‐institutional cohort of 219 ONB patients treated at nine centers, we analyzed 77 patients with documented recurrence. Using a 48‐month cutoff to define early (< 48 months) versus late (≥ 48 months) recurrence, we evaluated 35 clinical, anatomic, and treatment variables using Firth penalized logistic regression across three comparisons: (1) late versus early recurrence timing, (2) late recurrence versus no recurrence, and (3) early recurrence versus no recurrence. Results Thirty‐four of the 77 (44.2%) recurrences were classified as late. Among the 77 patients who recurred, smaller tumor volume (OR 0.243, p = 0.035) and lower novel Dulguerov staging (OR 0.802, p = 0.038) were associated with late, rather than early recurrence. When patients with late recurrence were compared to those who remained disease‐free, radiographic skull base bone involvement was the strongest independent predictor (OR 2.90, 95% CI 1.14–8.64, p = 0.025), and this effect strengthened after adjusting for tumor volume (OR 3.80, p = 0.029). Pathologic dural invasion (OR 3.29, p = 0.013), Kadish stage (OR 2.02, p = 0.026), and T‐stage (OR 1.32, p = 0.040) were also significant. Conclusions A 48‐month cutoff effectively stratifies ONB recurrence risk. Skull base bone involvement independently predicts recurrence when compared to nonrecurrent cases and uniquely persists as a risk factor for late recurrence. These findings establish skull base bone involvement as a novel biomarker for risk‐stratified surveillance protocols.

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.

ABSTRACT Introduction Sinonasal sarcomas are exceedingly rare entities, constituting less than 7% of head and neck sarcomas. Their complex histology needs specialized treatment, which is often based on multimodal approaches including surgery, radiation therapy, and/or chemotherapy. This manuscript aims to gather expert opinions to establish common management principles for sinonasal sarcomas. Methods This international consensus followed a modified Delphi method in seven steps, including statements definition by the core group, expert panel recruitment, and a two‐round survey. Sixty‐two statements on sinonasal sarcoma management were developed. Experts from multiple continents participated, and results were anonymized and analyzed between March and May 2025. Results A total of 44 invited experts were recruited, 43.2% otorhinolaryngologists/head and neck surgeons, 31.8% medical oncologists, and 25% radiation oncologists. Participants varied in age and experience, representing Europe (70.5%), North America (18.2%), South America (6.8%), and Asia (4.5%). Among all histologies, biphenotypic sarcoma, chondrosarcoma, leiomyosarcoma, and myofibrosarcoma are principally treated with an upfront surgical management, differently from Ewing sarcoma and rhabdomyosarcoma in which chemotherapy, eventually associated with radiotherapy, is often chosen. In the remaining histologies (angiosarcoma, liposarcoma, malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor [MPNST], osteosarcoma, and synovial sarcoma), a precise multimodal treatment is less standardized and needs to be discussed on a case‐by‐case basis. Conclusion Sinonasal sarcomas require a histology‐driven approach to determine upfront treatment, whether surgical, medical, or multimodal. Despite this structured strategy, prognosis remains highly variable across subtypes. Multidisciplinary evaluation and individualized management in referral centers are crucial to address the biological diversity and anatomical complexity of these rare malignancies.

ABSTRACT Objective There is limited consensus on endoscopic skull base surgery (ESBS) reconstruction principles. This study aims to generate comprehensive themes regarding ESBS reconstruction by pooling the experiences of ESBS experts, with comparison to a literature review of current published evidence. Methods Structured qualitative interviews of ESBS experts regarding postoperative management and reconstruction of various defect locations were conducted. Results A total of 68 experts comprising 40 academic teams across 13 countries with an average of 18 years of ESBS experience were included. We propose 10 stepwise algorithms for common skull base reconstruction scenarios based on these expert interviews. When available, the nasoseptal flap is used for all high_flow cerebrospinal leak defects. Multilayered reconstruction is favored at all anatomical subsites with increasing number of layers for increasing defect size and complexity. Heterogeneity exists in terms of inlay technique and materials, free grafting versus various pedicled flap options for low‐flow defects or in the absence of a nasal septum, nasal packing, tissue sealant, lumbar drain use, and postoperative management. Commonalities and discrepancies between experts were summarized. Conclusion Skull base reconstruction and post‐ESBS management is highly complex with a wide variety of practice patterns and expert strategies. Further research of higher quality evidence is warranted to identify optimal management patterns, though the current work aims to inform surgeons on these controversial areas by drawing from numerous experiences.