Yao, William C

Abstract Background Sinonasal neoplasms, whether benign and malignant, pose a significant challenge to clinicians and represent a model area for multidisciplinary collaboration in order to optimize patient care. The International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Sinonasal Tumors (ICSNT) aims to summarize the best available evidence and presents 48 thematic and histopathology‐based topics spanning the field. Methods In accordance with prior International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology documents, ICSNT assigned each topic as an Evidence‐Based Review with Recommendations, Evidence‐Based Review, and Literature Review based on the level of evidence. An international group of multidisciplinary author teams were assembled for the topic reviews using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses format, and completed sections underwent a thorough and iterative consensus‐building process. The final document underwent rigorous synthesis and review prior to publication. Results The ICSNT document consists of four major sections: general principles, benign neoplasms and lesions, malignant neoplasms, and quality of life and surveillance. It covers 48 conceptual and/or histopathology‐based topics relevant to sinonasal neoplasms and masses. Topics with a high level of evidence provided specific recommendations, while other areas summarized the current state of evidence. A final section highlights research opportunities and future directions, contributing to advancing knowledge and community intervention. Conclusion As an embodiment of the multidisciplinary and collaborative model of care in sinonasal neoplasms and masses, ICSNT was designed as a comprehensive, international, and multidisciplinary collaborative endeavor. Its primary objective is to summarize the existing evidence in the field of sinonasal neoplasms and masses.

AbstractBackgroundWe identify chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) manifestations associated with how rhinologists assess CRS control, with a focus on patient perspectives (patient‐reported CRS control).MethodsFifteen rhinologists were provided with real‐world data from 200 CRS patients. Participating rhinologists first classified patients’ CRS control as “controlled,” “partly controlled,” and “uncontrolled” using seven CRS manifestations reflecting European Position Paper on Rhinosinusitis and Nasal Polyps (EPOS) CRS control criteria (nasal obstruction, drainage, impaired smell, facial pain/pressure, sleep disturbance, use of systemic antibiotics/corticosteroids in past 6 months, and nasal endoscopy findings) and patient‐reported CRS control. They then classified patients’ CRS control without knowledge of patient‐reported CRS control. Interrater reliability and agreement of rhinologist‐assessed CRS control with patient‐reported CRS control and EPOS guidelines were determined.ResultsCRS control classification with and without knowledge of patient‐reported CRS control was highly consistent across rhinologists (κw = 0.758). Rhinologist‐assessed CRS control agreed with patient‐reported CRS control significantly better when rhinologists had knowledge of patient‐reported CRS control (κw = 0.736 vs. κw = 0.554, p < 0.001). Patient‐reported CRS control, nasal obstruction, drainage, and endoscopy findings were most strongly associated with rhinologists’ assessment of CRS control. Rhinologists’ CRS control assessments weakly agreed with EPOS CRS control guidelines with (κw = 0.529) and without (κw = 0.538) patient‐reported CRS control. Rhinologists classified CRS as more controlled than EPOS guidelines in almost 50% of cases.ConclusionsThis study directly demonstrates the importance of patient‐reported CRS control as a dominant influence on rhinologists’ CRS control assessment. Knowledge of patient‐reported CRS control may better align rhinologists’ CRS control assessments and treatment decisions with patients’ perspectives.

AbstractIn the last two decades, the development of culture‐independent genomic techniques has facilitated an increased appreciation of the microbiota‐immunity interactions and their role in a multitude of chronic inflammatory diseases such as chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS), asthma, inflammatory bowel disease and dermatitis. While the pathologic role of bacteria in chronic inflammatory diseases is generally accepted, the understanding of the role of fungi remains controversial. Chronic rhinosinusitis, specifically the phenotype linked to nasal polyps, represents a spectrum of chronic inflammatory diseases typically characterized by a type 2 immune response. Studies on the microbiota within sinus cavities from healthy and diseased patients have focused on the bacterial community, mainly highlighting the loss of diversity associated with sinus inflammation. Within the various CRS with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) phenotypes, allergic fungal rhinosinusitis presents an opportunity to investigate the role of fungi in chronic type 2 immune responses as well as the antifungal immune pathways designed to prevent invasive fungal diseases. In this review, we examine the spectrum of fungi‐associated sinus diseases highlighting the interaction between fungal species and host immune status on disease presentation. With a focus on fungi and type 2 immune response, we highlight the current knowledge and its limitations of the sinus mycobiota along with cellular interactions and activated molecular pathways linked to fungi.

BackgroundBalloon sinus dilation (BSD) is a commonly performed sinus procedure in the United States. Several cadaveric studies have evaluated BSD accuracy and the maxillary sinus has consistently been shown to be the most challenging to cannulate. We designed an independent study to evaluate the intraoperative accuracy of maxillary sinus BSD.MethodsA prospective, single‐blinded trial evaluating the accuracy of maxillary sinus BSD was performed using 2 commercially available BSD systems (guidewire‐ and probe‐based systems) randomly assigned to patients undergoing endoscopic surgery for chronic rhinosinusitus without nasal polyps (CRSsNP) or a skullbase approach in patients without sinus disease. All patients underwent maxillary BSD followed by uncinectomy to reveal dilation of the natural maxillary sinus ostia. The recorded procedures were reviewed by 3 fellowship‐trained rhinologists from different institutions blinded to the BSD system utilized. The primary endpoint compared accuracy of maxillary BSD attempts. The secondary endpoint compared accuracy between the 2 systems.ResultsTwenty‐nine maxillary BSD procedures were performed in 18 patients (age range, 20‐79 years; mean, 51 years) without nasal polyposis undergoing maxillary antrostomy as part of a more extensive procedure. BSD was successful in 18 of 29 (62%) attempts and unsuccessful in 9 of 29 (31%) attempts, with statistically “almost perfect” interrater agreement (kappa = 0.86). There was no statistical difference between the 2 BSD systems (p = 0.81).ConclusionMaxillary BSD appeared to be less accurate in living patients when compared with findings from previously published cadaver studies. There were no differences in accuracy between the probe‐ and guidewire‐based systems. This is the first non‒industry‐sponsored study evaluating maxillary sinus BSD in living patients. Further studies are needed to investigate the clinical implications of our findings.