Extent of Endoscopic Resection for Anterior Skull Base Tumors: An MRI-Based Volumetric Analysis

Abstract

Objective To determine the volume of ventral skull base tumor removed following endoscopic endonasal (EEA) resection using MRI-based volumetric analysis and to evaluate the inter-rater reliability of such analysis.

Design Retrospective case series.

Setting Academic tertiary care hospital.

Participants EEA patients November 2012 to August 2015.

Main Outcome Measures Volumetric analysis of pre- and immediately postoperative MR imaging was performed independently by two investigators. The percentage of total tumor resected was evaluated according to resection goal and tumor type.

Results A total of 39 patients underwent resection. Intraclass correlation coefficients between the raters were 0.9988 for preoperative and 0.9819 for postoperative images. Tumors (and average percentage removed) included 17 nonsecreting pituitary adenomas (95.3%), 8 secreting pituitary adenomas (86.2%), 4 meningiomas (81.6%), 3 olfactory neuroblastomas (100%), 2 craniopharyngiomas (100%), 1 large B–cell lymphoma (90.5%), 1 germ cell neoplasm (48.3), 1 benign fibrous connective tissue mass (93.4%), 1 epidermoid cyst (68.4%), and 1 chordoma (100%). For tumors treated with intent for gross total resection, 96.9 ± 4.8% was removed.

Conclusion EEAs achieved tumor resection rates of ∼97% when total resection was attempted. The radiographic finding of residual tumor is of uncertain clinical significance. The volumetric analysis employed in this study demonstrated high inter-rater reliability and could facilitate further study.

Keywords

endoscopic skull base surgery - tumor volume - endonasal - extent of resection

• References

• 1 Ketcham AS, Wilkins RH, Vanburen JM, Smith RR. A combined intracranial facial approach to the paranasal sinuses. Am J Surg 1963; 106: 698-703
• 2 Maroon JC. Skull base surgery: past, present, and future trends. Neurosurg Focus 2005; 19 (01) E1
• 3 Krischek B, Carvalho FG, Godoy BL, Kiehl R, Zadeh G, Gentili F. From craniofacial resection to endonasal endoscopic removal of malignant tumors of the anterior skull base. World Neurosurg 2014; 82 (6 Suppl): S59-S65
• 4 Lobo B, Heng A, Barkhoudarian G, Griffiths CF, Kelly DF. The expanding role of the endonasal endoscopic approach in pituitary and skull base surgery: a 2014 perspective. Surg Neurol Int 2015; 6: 82
• 5 Eloy JA, Vivero RJ, Hoang K. , et al. Comparison of transnasal endoscopic and open craniofacial resection for malignant tumors of the anterior skull base. Laryngoscope 2009; 119 (05) 834-840
• 6 Clark AJ, Jahangiri A, Garcia RM. , et al. Endoscopic surgery for tuberculum sellae meningiomas: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurosurg Rev 2013; 36 (03) 349-359
• 7 Jeswani S, Nuño M, Wu A. , et al. Comparative analysis of outcomes following craniotomy and expanded endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal resection of craniopharyngioma and related tumors: a single-institution study. J Neurosurg 2016; 124 (03) 627-638
• 8 Komotar RJ, Starke RM, Raper DMS, Anand VK, Schwartz TH. Endoscopic endonasal compared with microscopic transsphenoidal and open transcranial resection of craniopharyngiomas. World Neurosurg 2012; 77 (02) 329-341
• 9 Bhatki AM, Pant H, Snyderman CH. , et al. The expanded endonasal approach for the treatment of anterior skull base tumors. Oper Tech Otolaryngol--Head Neck Surg 2010; 21 (01) 66-73
• 10 Tosun F, Yildizoğlu Ü, Polat B, Durmaz A. Types of endoscopic endonasal resections for sinonasal malignancies. J Craniofac Surg 2014; 25 (02) 425-428
• 11 Wellman BJ, Traynelis VC, McCulloch TM, Funk GF, Menezes AH, Hoffman HT. Midline anterior craniofacial approach for malignancy: results of en bloc versus piecemeal resections. Skull Base Surg 1999; 9 (01) 41-46
• 12 Khan OH, Krischek B, Holliman D. , et al. Pure endoscopic expanded endonasal approach for olfactory groove and tuberculum sellae meningiomas. J Clin Neurosci 2014; 21 (06) 927-933
• 13 Grabowski MM, Recinos PF, Nowacki AS. , et al. Residual tumor volume versus extent of resection: predictors of survival after surgery for glioblastoma. J Neurosurg 2014; 121 (05) 1115-1123
• 14 Juraschka K, Khan OH, Godoy BL. , et al. Endoscopic endonasal transsphenoidal approach to large and giant pituitary adenomas: institutional experience and predictors of extent of resection. J Neurosurg 2014; 121 (01) 75-83
• 15 Khan OH, Anand VK, Schwartz TH. Endoscopic endonasal resection of skull base meningiomas: the significance of a “cortical cuff” and brain edema compared with careful case selection and surgical experience in predicting morbidity and extent of resection. Neurosurg Focus 2014; 37 (04) E7
• 16 Leng LZ, Greenfield JP, Souweidane MM, Anand VK, Schwartz TH. Endoscopic, endonasal resection of craniopharyngiomas: analysis of outcome including extent of resection, cerebrospinal fluid leak, return to preoperative productivity, and body mass index. Neurosurgery 2012; 70 (01) 110-123 , discussion 123–124
• 17 Hadad G, Bassagasteguy L, Carrau RL. , et al. A novel reconstructive technique after endoscopic expanded endonasal approaches: vascular pedicle nasoseptal flap. Laryngoscope 2006; 116 (10) 1882-1886
• 18 Kassam AB, Gardner P, Snyderman C, Mintz A, Carrau R. Expanded endonasal approach: fully endoscopic, completely transnasal approach to the middle third of the clivus, petrous bone, middle cranial fossa, and infratemporal fossa. Neurosurg Focus 2005; 19 (01) E6
• 19 Kassam A, Snyderman CH, Mintz A, Gardner P, Carrau RL. Expanded endonasal approach: the rostrocaudal axis. Part I. Crista galli to the sella turcica. Neurosurg Focus 2005; 19 (01) E3
• 20 Kassam A, Snyderman CH, Mintz A, Gardner P, Carrau RL. Expanded endonasal approach: the rostrocaudal axis. Part II. Posterior clinoids to the foramen magnum. Neurosurg Focus 2005; 19 (01) E4
• 21 Rivera-Serrano CM, Snyderman CH, Gardner P. , et al. Nasoseptal “rescue” flap: a novel modification of the nasoseptal flap technique for pituitary surgery. Laryngoscope 2011; 121 (05) 990-993
• 22 Kaptain GJ, Vincent DA, Sheehan JP, Laws Jr ER. Transsphenoidal approaches for the extracapsular resection of midline suprasellar and anterior cranial base lesions. Neurosurgery 2001; 49 (01) 94-100 , discussion 100–101
• 23 Oldfield EH, Vortmeyer AO. Development of a histological pseudocapsule and its use as a surgical capsule in the excision of pituitary tumors. J Neurosurg 2006; 104 (01) 7-19
• 24 Di Ieva A, Rotondo F, Syro LV, Cusimano MD, Kovacs K. Aggressive pituitary adenomas--diagnosis and emerging treatments. Nat Rev Endocrinol 2014; 10 (07) 423-435
• 25 de Almeida JR, Carvalho F, Vaz Guimaraes Filho F. , et al. Comparison of endoscopic endonasal and bifrontal craniotomy approaches for olfactory groove meningiomas: a matched pair analysis of outcomes and frontal lobe changes on MRI. J Clin Neurosci 2015; 22 (11) 1733-1741
• 26 McLaughlin N, Carrau RL, Kelly DF, Prevedello DM, Kassam AB. Teamwork in skull base surgery: an avenue for improvement in patient care. Surg Neurol Int 2013; 4: 36
• 27 Dehdashti AR, Ganna A, Karabatsou K, Gentili F. Pure endoscopic endonasal approach for pituitary adenomas: early surgical results in 200 patients and comparison with previous microsurgical series. Neurosurgery 2008; 62 (05) 1006-1015 , discussion 1015–1017
• 28 Bohinski RJ, Warnick RE, Gaskill-Shipley MF. , et al. Intraoperative magnetic resonance imaging to determine the extent of resection of pituitary macroadenomas during transsphenoidal microsurgery. Neurosurgery 2001; 49 (05) 1133-1143 , discussion 1143–1144
• 29 Kang MD, Escott E, Thomas AJ. , et al. The MR imaging appearance of the vascular pedicle nasoseptal flap. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2009; 30 (04) 781-786