Kuan, Edward C

IntroductionUnilateral sphenoid sinus opacification on computed tomography is caused by a variety of pathologies including inflammatory and infectious sinusitis, benign and malignant tumors, and encephaloceles. The purpose of this study was to report craniofacial pain locations and outcomes in inflammatory unilateral sphenoid sinusitis (USS) patients who underwent endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS).MethodsA multi‐institutional retrospective cohort study was conducted on all adult patients who had ESS for USS from 2015 to 2022. Patient demographics, presenting symptoms and nasal endoscopy findings, extent of surgical dissection, and craniofacial pain locations and outcomes were recorded. Exclusion criteria included age <18 years, non‐inflammatory etiology, immunodeficiency, invasive fungal sinusitis, lack of follow‐up, lack of preoperative pain location, and neoplasia. Descriptive statistics were calculated.ResultsOf 57 patients with USS, 44 (77.2%) reported craniofacial pain at one or more locations. Retrobulbar (n = 19, 43.2%) was the most common pain location followed by frontal (n = 17, 38.6%) and occipital (n = 10, 22.7%). Surgical intervention resulted in pain resolution in 33/44 patients (75%), with a mean follow‐up of 83.7 (±97.8) days. There were no significant associations between presenting symptoms, imaging findings, endoscopy, surgical extent, or final pathology and the presence or resolution of facial pain (p > 0.05).ConclusionIn USS patients, the most common craniofacial pain locations were retrobulbar, occipital, and frontal, with a minority being vertex. Based on short‐term follow‐up, ESS resolved the craniofacial pain in 75% of cases. There were no clinical variables that predicted the presence or resolution of craniofacial pain.Level of Evidence4 Laryngoscope, 135:1915–1919, 2025

AbstractObjectiveCritical components of the nasal endoscopic examination have not been definitively established for either the normal examination or for clinical disorders. This study aimed to identify concordance among rhinologists regarding the importance of examination findings for various nasal pathologies.Study DesignA consortium of 19 expert rhinologists across the United States was asked to rank the importance of findings on nasal endoscopy for 5 different sinonasal symptom presentations.SettingAn online questionnaire was distributed in July 2023.MethodsThe questionnaire utilized JotForm® software and featured 5 cases with a set of 4 identical questions per case, each covering a common indication for nasal endoscopy. Rankings were synthesized into Normalized Attention Scores (NASs) and Weighted Normalized Attention Scores (W‐NASs) to represent the perceived importance of each feature, scaled from 0 to 1.ResultsGeneral concordance was found for examination findings on nasal endoscopy within each case. The perceived features of importance differed between cases based on clinical presentation. For instance, in evaluating postnasal drip, the middle meatus was selected as the most important structure to examine (NAS, 0.73), with mucus selected as the most important abnormal finding (W‐NAS, 0.66). The primary feature of interest for mucus was whether it was purulent or not (W‐NAS, 0.67). Similar analyses were performed for features in each case.ConclusionThe implicit framework existing among rhinologists may help standardize examinations and improve diagnostic accuracy, augment the instruction of trainees, and inform the development of artificially intelligent algorithms to enhance clinical decision‐making during nasal endoscopy.

Abstract Background Sinonasal malignancies with orbital invasion have dismal prognosis even when treated with orbital exenteration (OE). Sugawara et al. developed a surgical strategy called “extended‐OE (EOE),” showing encouraging outcomes. We hypothesized that a similar resection is achievable under endoscopic guidance through the exenterated orbit (endoscopic‐EOE). Methods The study was conducted in three institutions: University of Vienna; Mayo Clinic; University of Insubria; 48 orbital dissections were performed. A questionnaire was developed to evaluate feasibility and safety of each step, scoring from 1 to 10, (“impossible” to “easy,” and “high risk” to “low risk,” respectively), most likely complication(s) were hypothesized. Results The step‐by‐step technique is thoroughly described. The questionnaire was answered by 25 anterior skull base surgeons from six countries. Mean, median, range, and interquartile range of both feasibility and safety scores are reported. Conclusions Endoscopic‐EOE is a challenging but feasible procedure. Clinical validation is required to assess real‐life outcomes.

AbstractPurposeSinonasal malignancies (SNMs) adversely impact patients’ quality of life (QOL) and are frequently identified at an advanced stage. Because these tumors are rare, there are few studies that examine the specific QOL areas that are impacted. This knowledge would help improve the care of these patients.MethodsIn this prospective, multi‐institutional study, 273 patients with SNMs who underwent definitive treatment with curative intent were evaluated. We used the University of Washington Quality of Life (UWQOL) instrument over 5 years from diagnosis to identify demographic, treatment, and disease‐related factors that influence each of the 12 UWQOL subdomains from baseline to 5 ‐years post‐treatment.ResultsMultivariate models found endoscopic resection predicted improved pain (vs. nonsurgical treatment CI 2.4, 19.4, p = 0.01) and appearance versus open (CI 27.0, 35.0, p < 0.001) or combined (CI 10.4, 17.1, p < 0.001). Pterygopalatine fossa involvement predicted worse swallow (CI −10.8, −2.4, p = 0.01) and pain (CI −17.0, −4.0, p < 0.001). Neck dissection predicted worse swallow (CI −14.8, −2.8, p < 0.001), taste (CI −31.7, −1.5, p = 0.02), and salivary symptoms (CI −28.4, −8.6, p < 0.001). Maxillary involvement predicted worse chewing (CI 9.8, 33.2; p < 0.001) and speech (CI −21.8, −5.4, p < 0.001) relative to other sites. Advanced T stage predicted worse anxiety (CI −13.0, −2.0, p = 0.03).ConclusionsSurgical approach, management of cervical disease, tumor extent, and site of involvement impacted variable UWQOL symptom areas. Endoscopic resection predicted better pain, appearance, and chewing compared with open. These results may aid in counseling patients regarding potential QOL expectations in their SNM treatment and recovery course.

AbstractBackgroundPatients with sinonasal malignancy (SNM) present with significant sinonasal quality of life (QOL) impairment. Global sinonasal QOL as measured by the 22‐item Sinonasal Outcomes Test (SNOT‐22) has been shown to improve with treatment. This study aims to characterize SNOT‐22 subdomain outcomes in SNM.MethodsPatients diagnosed with SNM were prospectively enrolled in a multi‐center patient registry. SNOT‐22 scores were collected at the time of diagnosis and through the post‐treatment period for up to 5 years. Multivariable regression analysis was used to identify drivers of variation in SNOT‐22 subdomains.ResultsNote that 234 patients were reviewed, with a mean follow‐up of 22 months (3 months–64 months). Rhinologic, psychological, and sleep subdomains significantly improved versus baseline (all p < 0.05). Subanalysis of 40 patients with follow‐up at all timepoints showed statistically significant improvement in rhinologic, extra‐nasal, psychological, and sleep subdomains, with minimal clinically important difference met between 2 and 5 years in sleep and psychological subdomains. Adjuvant chemoradiation was associated with worse outcomes in rhinologic (adjusted odds ratio (5.22 [1.69–8.66])), extra‐nasal (2.21 [0.22–4.17]) and ear/facial (5.53 [2.10–8.91]) subdomains. Pterygopalatine fossa involvement was associated with worse outcomes in rhinologic (3.22 [0.54–5.93]) and ear/facial (2.97 [0.32–5.65]) subdomains. Positive margins (5.74 [2.17–9.29]) and surgical approach—combined versus endoscopic (3.41 [0.78–6.05])—were associated with worse psychological outcomes. Adjuvant radiation (2.28 [0.18–4.40]) was associated with worse sleep outcomes.ConclusionsSinonasal QOL improvements associated with treatment of SNM are driven by rhinologic, extra‐nasal, psychological, and sleep subdomains.

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.

AbstractBackgroundThe impact of sinonasal malignancies (SNMs) on quality of life (QOL) at presentation is poorly understood. The Sinonasal Outcome Test (SNOT‐22) and University of Washington Quality of Life (UWQOL) are validated QOL instruments with distinctive subdomains. This study aims to identify factors impacting pretreatment QOL in SNM patients to personalize multidisciplinary management and counseling.MethodsPatients with previously untreated SNMs were prospectively enrolled (2015–2022) in a multicenter observational study. Baseline pretreatment QOL instruments (SNOT‐22, UWQOL) were obtained along with demographics, comorbidities, histopathology/staging, tumor involvement, and symptoms. Multivariable regression models identified factors associated with reduced baseline QOL.ResultsAmong 204 patients, presenting baseline QOL was significantly reduced. Multivariable regression showed worse total SNOT‐22 QOL in patients with skull base erosion (p = 0.02). SNOT‐rhinologic QOL was worse in women (p = 0.009), patients with epistaxis (p = 0.036), and industrial exposure (p = 0.005). SNOT extranasal QOL was worse in patients with industrial exposure (p = 0.016); worse SNOT ear/facial QOL if perineural invasion (PNI) (p = 0.027). Squamous cell carcinoma pathology (p = 0.037), palate involvement (p = 0.012), and pain (p = 0.017) were associated with worse SNOT sleep QOL scores. SNOT psychological subdomain scores were significantly worse in patients with palate lesions (p = 0.022), skull base erosion (p = 0.025), and T1 staging (p = 0.023). Low QOL was more likely in the presence of PNI on UW health (p = 0.019) and orbital erosion on UW overall (p = 0.03). UW social QOL was worse if palatal involvement (p = 0.023) or PNI (p = 0.005).ConclusionsOur findings demonstrate a negative impact on baseline QOL in patients with SNMs and suggest sex‐specific and symptom‐related lower QOL scores, with minimal histopathology association. Anatomical tumor involvement may be more reflective of QOL than T‐staging, as orbital and skull base erosion, PNI, and palate lesions are significantly associated with reduced baseline QOL.

AbstractObjectiveTo evaluate recurrence patterns and survival after recurrence among patients with sinonasal mucosal melanoma (SNMM).MethodsThis was a multi‐institutional retrospective review from seven U.S. institutions of patients with SNMM from 1991 to 2022. Recurrence was categorized as local, regional, distant, or multifocal. Kaplan‐Meier tests were used to evaluate disease‐free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), and post‐recurrence survival (PRS) reported with standard errors (SE) and log‐rank testing used for comparison. Cox‐regression was further used, with hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) reported.ResultsAmong 196 patients with SNMM, there were 146 patients with recurrence (74.5%). Among all patients, 60‐month DFS (SE) was 15.5% (2.9%), 60‐month OS (SE) was 44.7% (3.7%), mean age ± standard deviation at diagnosis was 69.7 ± 12.5 years, and 54.6% were female. In 26 patients who underwent primary treatment of the neck, 60‐month DFS did not differ from no treatment (p > 0.05). Isolated distant recurrence was most common (42.8%), followed by local (28.3%), multifocal (20.7%), and regional recurrence (8.3%). Among patients with regional recurrence in the neck, there was no 60‐month PRS benefit for patients undergoing salvage neck dissection or radiation (p > 0.05). Among patients with distant recurrence, only immunotherapy was associated with improved 12‐month PRS (HR = 0.32, 95% CI = 0.11–0.92, p = 0.034), and no treatment group was associated with improved 24‐ or 60‐month PRS (p > 0.05).ConclusionSNMM is associated with a high recurrence rate and poor survival. Primary treatment of the neck was not associated with reduced recurrence, and immunotherapy for treatment of distant recurrence was associated with increased 12‐month PRS.