Comparison of Long-Term Tumor Control and Symptom Outcomes Following Microsurgical Resection or Gamma Knife Radiosurgery for Intracranial Trigeminal Schwannoma: The Mayo Clinic Experience
Anatomical Step-by-Step Dissection of Complex Skull Base Approaches for Trainees: Surgical Anatomy of the Translabyrinthine, Transotic, and Transcochlear Approaches
Intraoperative diagnosis of facial schwannomas: a multicenter summation of clinical experience, preoperative avoidance, and intraoperative management protocol
OBJECTIVE Preoperative differentiation of facial nerve schwannoma (FNS) from vestibular schwannoma (VS) can be challenging, and failure to differentiate between these two pathologies can result in potentially avoidable facial nerve injury. This study presents the combined experience of two high-volume centers in the management of intraoperatively diagnosed FNSs. The authors highlight clinical and imaging features that can distinguish FNS from VS and provide an algorithm to help manage intraoperatively diagnosed FNS. METHODS Operative records of 1484 presumed sporadic VS resections between January 2012 and December 2021 were reviewed, and patients with intraoperatively diagnosed FNSs were identified. Clinical data and preoperative imaging were retrospectively reviewed for features suggestive of FNS, and factors associated with good postoperative facial nerve function (House-Brackmann [HB] grade ≤ 2) were identified. A preoperative imaging protocol for suspected VS and recommendations for surgical decision-making following an intraoperative FNS diagnosis were created. RESULTS Nineteen patients (1.3%) with FNSs were identified. All patients had normal facial motor function preoperatively. In 12 patients (63%), preoperative imaging demonstrated no features suggestive of FNS, with the remainder showing subtle enhancement of the geniculate/labyrinthine facial segment, widening/erosion of the fallopian canal, or multiple tumor nodules in retrospect. Eleven (57.9%) of the 19 patients underwent a retrosigmoid craniotomy, and in the remaining patients, a translabyrinthine (n = 6) or transotic (n = 2) approach was used. Following FNS diagnosis, 6 (32%) of the tumors underwent gross-total resection (GTR) and cable nerve grafting, 6 (32%) underwent subtotal resection (STR) and bony decompression of the meatal facial nerve segment, and 7 (36%) underwent bony decompression only. All patients undergoing subtotal debulking or bony decompression exhibited normal postoperative facial function (HB grade I). At the last clinical follow-up, patients who underwent GTR with a facial nerve graft had HB grade III (3 of 6 patients) or IV facial function. Tumor recurrence/regrowth occurred in 3 patients (16%), all of whom had been treated with either bony decompression or STR. CONCLUSIONS Intraoperative diagnosis of an FNS during a presumed VS resection is rare, but its incidence can be reduced further by maintaining a high index of suspicion and undertaking further imaging in patients with atypical clinical or imaging features. If an intraoperative diagnosis does occur, conservative surgical management with bony decompression of the facial nerve only is recommended, unless there is significant mass effect on surrounding structures.
Implementation of genomic medicine for rare disease in a tertiary healthcare system: Mayo Clinic Program for Rare and Undiagnosed Diseases (PRaUD)
Abstract Background In the United States, rare disease (RD) is defined as a condition that affects fewer than 200,000 individuals. Collectively, RD affects an estimated 30 million Americans. A significant portion of RD has an underlying genetic cause; however, this may go undiagnosed. To better serve these patients, the Mayo Clinic Program for Rare and Undiagnosed Diseases (PRaUD) was created under the auspices of the Center for Individualized Medicine (CIM) aiming to integrate genomics into subspecialty practice including targeted genetic testing, research, and education. Methods Patients were identified by subspecialty healthcare providers from 11 clinical divisions/departments. Targeted multi-gene panels or custom exome/genome-based panels were utilized. To support the goals of PRaUD, a new clinical service model, the Genetic Testing and Counseling (GTAC) unit, was established to improve access and increase efficiency for genetic test facilitation. The GTAC unit includes genetic counselors, genetic counseling assistants, genetic nurses, and a medical geneticist. Patients receive abbreviated point-of-care genetic counseling and testing through a partnership with subspecialty providers. Results Implementation of PRaUD began in 2018 and GTAC unit launched in 2020 to support program expansion. Currently, 29 RD clinical indications are included in 11 specialty divisions/departments with over 142 referring providers. To date, 1,152 patients have been evaluated with an overall solve rate of 14.1% and as high as 66.7% depending on the phenotype. Noteworthy, 42.7% of the solved or likely solved patients underwent changes in medical management and outcome based on genetic test results. Conclusion Implementation of PRaUD and GTAC have enabled subspecialty practices advance expertise in RD where genetic counselors have not historically been embedded in practice. Democratizing access to genetic testing and counseling can broaden the reach of patients with RD and increase the diagnostic yield of such indications leading to better medical management as well as expanding research opportunities.