BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:Because sinonasal inverted papilloma can harbor squamous cell carcinoma, differentiating these tumors is relevant. The objectives of this study were to determine whether MR imaging-based texture analysis can accurately classify cases of noncoexistent squamous cell carcinoma and inverted papilloma and to compare this classification performance with neuroradiologists' review.

No abstract

BackgroundBiological sex is increasingly recognized as a critical variable in health care. The authors reviewed the current literature regarding sex‐based differences in rhinology to summarize the data and identify critical knowledge gaps.MethodsA scoping review was conducted. Publications reporting sex‐based differences in anatomy, physiology, and pathology focusing on disease prevalence, disease burden, and outcomes in rhinology were identified.ResultsSeventy‐five relevant manuscripts were identified. While paranasal sinuses are of similar size at birth, they become larger in males leading to differences in ostium location. Females outperform males in olfactory identification but only in the 18‐ to 50‐year age group. Estrogen and progesterone administration can impact muscarinic and α1‐adrenergic nasal mucosa receptor density. Chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) and CRS without nasal polyps are more prevalent in females while CRS with nasal polyps is more prevalent in males. CRS symptom burden is higher in females before and after endoscopic sinus surgery; however, no difference in endoscopic sinus surgery utilization was found based on sex. Allergic rhinitis is more common in males before puberty and in females after puberty. Epistaxis is more prevalent in males and postmenopausal females compared with premenopausal females, perhaps from differences in sex‐hormonal and hypertension status. In nasopharyngeal carcinoma, the incidence of sinus abnormalities was higher in males than females.ConclusionsAlthough many sex‐based differences exist in rhinology, further research is necessary to offer evidence‐based treatment guidelines. Gonadal hormones should be studied as a therapeutic in rhinologic pathology as baseline physiologic differences exist such as those found in nasal mucosa receptor density.

KEY POINTS There is no consensus on the extent of appropriate surgery for chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS), particularly CRS without polyps (CRSsNP). There is wide heterogeneity in the definition of “limited” and “extensive” endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS). Studies on the appropriate extent of surgery for CRS are needed.

No abstract

Background There has been conflicting evidence on the independent prognostic role of human papillomavirus (HPV) status in sinonasal cancer. The objective of this study was to assess whether the survival of patients with sinonasal cancer differs based on various HPV statuses, including HPV‐negative, positive for the high‐risk HPV‐16 and HPV‐18 (HPV16/18) subtypes, and positive for other high‐risk and low‐risk HPV subtypes. Methods In this retrospective cohort study, data from the National Cancer Database were extracted from the years 2010–2017 for patients who had primary sinonasal cancer (N = 12,009). The outcome of interest was overall survival based on HPV tumor status. Results Study included an analytic cohort of 1070 patients with sinonasal cancer who had confirmed HPV tumor status (732 [68.4%] HPV‐negative; 280 [26.2%] HPV16/18‐positive; 40 [3.7%] positive for other high‐risk HPV; and 18 [1.7%] positive for low‐risk HPV). HPV‐negative patients had the lowest all‐cause survival probability at 5 years postdiagnosis (0.50). After controlling for covariates, HPV16/18‐positive patients had a 37% lower mortality hazard than HPV‐negative patients (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.48–0.82). Patients aged 64–72 years (crude prevalence ratio, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.51–0.86) and 73 years and older (crude prevalence ratio, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.31–0.59) presented with lower rates of HPV16/18‐positive sinonasal cancer than those aged 40–54 years. In addition, Hispanic patients had a 2.36 times higher prevalence of non‐HPV16/18 sinonasal cancer than non‐Hispanic White patients. Conclusions These data suggest that, for patients with sinonasal cancer, HPV16/18‐positive disease may confer a significant survival advantage compared with HPV‐negative disease. Other high‐risk and low‐risk HPV subtypes have survival rates similar to the rates for HPV‐negative disease. HPV status might be an important independent prognostic factor in sinonasal cancer that could be used in patient selection and clinical decisions.

Shared decision-making is an approach where physicians and patients work together to determine a personalized treatment course. Such an approach is integral to patient-centered care in chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP). CRSwNP is a chronic inflammatory condition of the sinonasal cavity that can severely impact physical health, smell, and quality of life (QOL). Traditional standard-of-care treatment options include topical (i.e. sprays) and oral corticosteroids and endoscopic sinus surgery, but more recently, novel corticosteroid delivery methods (i.e. high volume irrigations, recently-approved exhalation breath-powered delivering devices, and drug-eluting steroid implants) and 3 new FDA approved biologics directed against type II immunomodulators have become available. The availability of these therapeutics offers exciting new opportunities in CRSwNP management but requires personalized and shared-decision making as each modality has variable impacts on CRSwNP and related comorbid conditions. Studies have published treatment algorithms, but the practical use of these lean guidelines is heavily influenced by the lens of the treating physician, the most common being otolaryngologists and allergy immunologists. Clinical equipoise occurs when there is no basis for one intervention to be regarded as “better” than another. While most guidelines, in general, support the use of topical corticosteroids with or without oral corticosteroids followed by ESS for the majority of unoperated CRSwNP patients, there are situations of clinical equipoise that arise particularly in CRSwNP who have failed surgery or those with severe comorbid conditions. In the shared decision-making process, clinicians and patients must consider symptomatology, goals, comfort, compliance, treatment efficacy, and treatment cost when determining the initial choice of therapy and escalation of therapy with the potential use of multiple modalities for recalcitrant CRSwNP. A summary of salient considerations that might constitute shared decision-making is presented in this summary.

Background: Despite the increasing prevalence of breast implant associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma, there remains a paucity of literature guiding management of asymptomatic patients with textured breast implants. This risk can be anxiety provoking in breast reconstruction patients given their history of cancer or increased future risk. The purpose of this study is to evaluate current practice trends when managing the concerned asymptomatic patient following textured implant-based breast reconstruction. Methods: An electronic survey was distributed to members of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, regarding management of asymptomatic breast reconstruction patients with textured devices. Anonymous responses were collected, and statistical analysis was performed. Results: A total of 304 responses were received. Of respondents, 237 (92%) have managed asymptomatic patients with textured devices. Historically, the overwhelming majority (89%) used textured devices; however, only 25% report current use. Regarding management of asymptomatic breast reconstruction patients, 87% recommend conservative management, while 13% recommend surgical management. When surgery is performed, 16.3% of respondents elected for implant exchange, 33.8% recommended implant exchange with partial capsulectomy, and 49.8% elected for implant exchange with total capsulectomy. Evaluation of practice patterns based on demographics demonstrated statistically significant differences in current use of textured devices and management of acellular dermal matrix. Conclusions: Despite decreased current use, there is a significant population of asymptomatic breast reconstruction patients with a history of textured devices concerned for risk of breast implant associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma. This survey demonstrates ongoing variability in surgeon recommendations regarding conservative and surgical management of these patients and the need for continued development of evidence-based guidelines.