McMillan, Ryan

AbstractObjectivesSingle‐use rhinolaryngoscopes were brought to market in 2019 as an alternative to traditional reusable scopes and have garnered interest across settings given portability and potential cost advantages. While single‐use was previously evaluated compared to traditional devices, the overall impact to the consult experience for both users and patients has not been captured.MethodsEighteen residents performed consults with both single‐use and reusable rhinolaryngoscope systems on alternating weeks. A five‐question cumulative survey administered across three assessment points over a 12‐week period using a five‐point rating system to rate favorability. Residents and patients also completed four‐point scale surveys following procedure(s) to capture the consult experience. Statistical analyses were performed to measure significance differences between survey responses between the two systems.ResultsSingle‐use rhinolaryngoscopes received higher overall ratings compared with reusables across each metric captured including overall consult time (4.3 vs. 2.2, p < .001), multiscope consults (4.4 vs. 3.1, p < .001), patient communication (4.6 vs. 2.1, p < .001), teaching opportunities (4.6 vs. 2.1, p < .001), and overall ease of use (4.7 vs. 2.6, p < .001). Residents rated single‐use higher than reusable after each procedure in terms of ease of use (1.07 vs. 2.68, p < .001) and visual clarity (1.27 vs. 1.89, p = .003), while patients rated single‐use higher for understanding of illness (3.9 vs. 3.1, p < .001) and understanding of treatment rationale (3.9 vs. 3.1, p < .001).ConclusionResident and patient experience feedback favored single‐use rhinolaryngoscopes compared to reusable scope technology across multiple surveyed measurables. Single‐use rhinolaryngoscopes provide a viable tool for otorhinolaryngologist and other clinicians to perform rhinolaryngoscopy consults.Level of Evidence4.

ImportanceCurrent olfactory neuroblastoma (ONB) staging systems inadequately delineate locally advanced tumors, do not incorporate tumor grade, and poorly estimate survival and recurrence.ObjectiveThe primary aims of this study were to (1) examine the clinical covariates associated with survival and recurrence of ONB in a modern-era multicenter cohort and (2) incorporate Hyams tumor grade into existing staging systems to assess its ability to estimate survival and recurrence.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis retrospective, multicenter, case-control study included patients with ONB who underwent treatment between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2021, at 9 North American academic medical centers.InterventionStandard-of-care ONB treatment.Main Outcome and MeasuresThe main outcomes were overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and disease-specific survival (DSS) as C statistics for model prediction.ResultsA total of 256 patients with ONB (mean [SD] age, 52.0 [15.6] years; 115 female [44.9%]; 141 male [55.1%]) were included. The 5-year rate for OS was 83.5% (95% CI, 78.3%-89.1%); for DFS, 70.8% (95% CI, 64.3%-78.0%); and for DSS, 94.1% (95% CI, 90.5%-97.8%). On multivariable analysis, age, American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage, involvement of bilateral maxillary sinuses, and positive margins were associated with OS. Only AJCC stage was associated with DFS. Only N stage was associated with DSS. When assessing the ability of staging systems to estimate OS, the best-performing model was the novel modification of the Dulguerov system (C statistic, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.59-0.76), and the Kadish system performed most poorly (C statistic, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.50-0.63). Regarding estimation of DFS, the modified Kadish system performed most poorly (C statistic, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.51-0.66), while the novel modification of the AJCC system performed the best (C statistic, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.66-0.80). Regarding estimation of DSS, the modified Kadish system was the best-performing model (C statistic, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.70-0.94), and the unmodified Kadish performed the worst (C statistic, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.51-0.68). The ability for novel ONB staging systems to estimate disease progression across stages was also assessed. In the novel Kadish staging system, patients with stage VI disease were approximately 7 times as likely to experience disease progression as patients with stage I disease (hazard ratio [HR], 6.84; 95% CI, 1.60-29.20). Results were similar for the novel modified Kadish system (HR, 8.99; 95% CI, 1.62-49.85) and the novel Dulguerov system (HR, 6.86; 95% CI, 2.74-17.18).Conclusions and RelevanceThe study findings indicate that 5-year OS for ONB is favorable and that incorporation of Hyams grade into traditional ONB staging systems is associated with improved estimation of disease progression.