Psaltis, Alkis J.

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 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.

I. Executive Summary Background The 5 years since the publication of the first International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Rhinosinusitis (ICAR‐RS) has witnessed foundational progress in our understanding and treatment of rhinologic disease. These advances are reflected within the more than 40 new topics covered within the ICAR‐RS‐2021 as well as updates to the original 140 topics. This executive summary consolidates the evidence‐based findings of the document. Methods ICAR‐RS presents over 180 topics in the forms of evidence‐based reviews with recommendations (EBRRs), evidence‐based reviews, and literature reviews. The highest grade structured recommendations of the EBRR sections are summarized in this executive summary. Results ICAR‐RS‐2021 covers 22 topics regarding the medical management of RS, which are grade A/B and are presented in the executive summary. Additionally, 4 topics regarding the surgical management of RS are grade A/B and are presented in the executive summary. Finally, a comprehensive evidence‐based management algorithm is provided. Conclusion This ICAR‐RS‐2021 executive summary provides a compilation of the evidence‐based recommendations for medical and surgical treatment of the most common forms of RS.

BackgroundThe impact of failed cerebrospinal fluid leak (CSF) leak repair in endoscopic skull base surgery has not been adequately studied.MethodsIn this investigation we reviewed patients who had undergone endoscopic skull base surgery between 2002 and 2014 at 7 international centers. Demographic variables, comorbidities, tumor characteristics, and repair techniques were evaluated to determine association with successful repair of CSF leak. Postoperative complications and length of stay were compared among groups.ResultsData were collected on 2097 patients who were divided into 3 groups: (1) those with no intraoperative leak (n = 1533); (2) those with successful repair of their intraoperative leak (n = 452); and (3) those with failed repair (n = 112). Compared with successful repair, failed repair was associated with an increased risk of intracranial infection (odds ratio [OR], 5.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 5.3‐13.15), pneumocephalus (OR, 16; 95% CI, 5.8‐44.4), 30‐day readmission (OR, 8.4; 95% CI, 5.3‐13.5), reoperation (OR, 115.4; 95% CI, 56.3‐236.8), and prolonged hospital stay (14.9 vs 7.0 days, p < 0.01). Outcomes in patients who had successful repairs of intraoperative leaks were similar to those who never had leakage. Intraoperative use of pedicled nasoseptal flaps was associated with successful repair (OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.34‐0.92).ConclusionIntraoperative CSF leaks are a frequent and expected occurrence during endoscopic skull base surgery. Failed CSF leak repair has a significant impact on patient outcomes, with increased rates of postoperative pneumocephalus, intracranial infections, reoperation, deep vein thrombosis, readmission, and prolonged hospital stay. Recognition and repair of intraoperative CSF leaks reduces postoperative complications. Use of pedicled nasoseptal flaps improves outcomes in reconstructing defects at higher risk for postoperative leak.

BackgroundIn patients undergoing transnasal endoscopic sellar surgery, an analysis of risk factors and predictors of intraoperative and postoperative cerebrospinal fluid leak (CSF) would provide important prognostic information.MethodsA retrospective review of patients undergoing endoscopic sellar surgery for pituitary adenomas or craniopharyngiomas between 2002 and 2014 at 7 international centers was performed. Demographic, comorbidity, and tumor characteristics were evaluated to determine the associations between intraoperative and postoperative CSF leaks. Correlations between reconstructive and CSF diversion techniques were associated with postoperative CSF leak rates. Odds ratios (OR) were identified using a multivariate logistic regression model.ResultsData were collected on 1108 pituitary adenomas and 53 craniopharyngiomas. Overall, 30.1% of patients had an intraoperative leak and 5.9% had a postoperative leak. Preoperative factors associated with increased intraoperative leaks were mild liver disease, craniopharyngioma, and extension into the anterior cranial fossa. In patients with intraoperative CSF leaks, postoperative leaks occurred in 10.3%, with a higher postoperative leak rate in craniopharyngiomas (20.8% vs 5.1% in pituitary adenomas). Once an intraoperative leak occurred, craniopharyngioma (OR = 4.255, p = 0.010) and higher body mass index (BMI) predicted postoperative leak (OR = 1.055, p = 0.010). In patients with an intraoperative leak, the use of septal flaps reduced the occurrence of postoperative leak (OR = 0.431, p = 0.027). Rigid reconstruction and CSF diversion techniques did not impact postoperative leak rates.ConclusionIntraoperative CSF leaks can occur during endoscopic sellar surgery, especially in larger tumors or craniopharyngiomas. Once an intraoperative leak occurs, risk factors for postoperative leaks include craniopharyngiomas and higher BMI. Use of septal flaps decreases this risk.