A multi-institutional review of outcomes in biopsy-proven chronic invasive fungal sinusitis

Chronic invasive fungal rhinosinusitis and granulomatous invasive fungal sinusitis: A systematic review of symptomatology and outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Chronic invasive fungal rhinosinusitis (CIFRS) and granulomatous invasive fungal sinusitis are two uncommon diseases differentiated primarily by the pathologic finding of non-caseating granulomas in GIFRS. Both share many similarities in presentation. We aim to characterize the symptomatology and outcomes of these diseases.

METHODS

A comprehensive search strategy was designed to identify studies in the Cochrane, EMBASE and PubMed databases from database inception to January 2022. Inclusion criteria included all patients with a diagnosis of either CIFRS or GIFRS. All studies were screened by two reviewers. Chi-square analyses were used where appropriate.

RESULTS

51 studies were included totaling 513 patients. The majority were diagnosed with CIFRS (389, 75.8 %) compared to GIFRS (124, 24.4 %). CIFRS was more common in immunocompromised or diabetic patients (p < 0.0001; p = 0.02). Patients with CIFRS were more likely to exhibit nasal symptoms including discharge (p = 0.0001), obstruction (p = 0.03) and congestion (p = 0.001) as well as systemic symptoms including fever, which no GIFRS patient exhibited, facial pain (p = 0.007), headache (p = 0.004). Aspergillus was the most common organism identified in both groups with a slight predominance among GIFRS patients (p = 0.01). GIFRS patients were also more likely to present with no identifiable organisms (p = 0.0006). CIFRS patients were more likely to die of disease (p = 0.0008).

CONCLUSIONS

CIFRS generally presents with more symptoms and is associated with poorer outcomes primarily occurring in an immunocompromised population. GIFRS likely follows a more insidious course in immunocompetent patients. Understanding the key differences in symptomatology and outcomes for these two populations is critical for appropriate diagnosis and prognostication.

Diagnosis, Prognosticators, and Management of Acute Invasive Fungal Rhinosinusitis: Multidisciplinary Consensus Statement and Evidence-Based Review with Recommendations

BACKGROUND

Acute invasive fungal sinusitis (AIFS) is an aggressive disease that requires prompt diagnosis and multidisciplinary treatment given its rapid progression. However, there is currently no consensus on diagnosis, prognosis, and management strategies for AIFS, with multiple modalities routinely employed. The purpose of this multi-institutional and multidisciplinary evidence-based review with recommendations (EBRR) is to thoroughly review the literature on AIFS, summarize the existing evidence, and provide recommendations on the management of AIFS.

METHODS

The PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were systematically reviewed from inception through January 2022. Studies evaluating management for orbital, non-sinonasal head and neck, and intracranial manifestations of AIFS were included. An iterative review process was utilized in accordance with EBRR guidelines. Levels of evidence and recommendations on management principles for AIFS were generated.

RESULTS

A review and evaluation of published literature was performed on 12 topics surrounding AIFS (signs and symptoms, laboratory and microbiology diagnostics, endoscopy, imaging, pathology, surgery, medical therapy, management of extrasinus extension, reversing immunosuppression, and outcomes and survival). The aggregate quality of evidence was varied across reviewed domains.

CONCLUSION

Based on the currently available evidence, judicious utilization of a combination of history and physical examination, laboratory and histopathologic techniques, and endoscopy provide the cornerstone for accurate diagnosis of AIFS. In addition, AIFS is optimally managed by a multidisciplinary team via a combination of surgery (including resection whenever possible), antifungal therapy, and correcting sources of immunosuppression. Higher quality (i.e., prospective) studies are needed to better define the roles of each modality and determine diagnosis and treatment algorithms.

Intermediate Invasive Fungal Sinusitis, a Distinct Entity From Acute Fulminant and Chronic Invasive Fungal Sinusitis

BACKGROUND

The current classification system of invasive fungal sinusitis (IFS) includes acute (aIFS) and chronic (cIFS) phenotypes. Both phenotypes display histopathologic evidence of tissue necrosis, but differ by presence of angioinvasion, extent of necrosis, and disease progression. aIFS is defined by a rapid onset of symptoms, while cIFS slowly progresses over ≥12 weeks. However, a subset of IFS patients do not fit into the clinical presentation and histopathologic characteristics of either aIFS or cIFS.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the demographic, clinical, and histopathologic characteristics of a distinct subset of IFS.

METHODS

Retrospective review of patients with IFS from a single tertiary-care institution (2010-2020). Patients with symptoms for ≤4 weeks were classified as aIFS if they displayed endoscopic evidence of mucosal necrosis or fungal angioinvasion on pathology. Patients with slowly progressive IFS for ≥12 weeks were classified as cIFS. Patients with symptom duration between 4 and 12 weeks with evidence of invasive fungal disease were classified as a new entity and were further investigated.

RESULTS

Of the 8 patients identified, 50% were immunosuppressed at presentation. The mean symptom duration prior to presentation was 50.5 days (SD 16.8), and common symptoms included facial pain (100%), vision change (87.5%), and blindness (37.5%). Two patients (25%) died of their disease. Sites of fungal involvement confirmed by histopathology included sphenoid (62.5%) and ethmoid sinuses (12.5%), orbital apex (25%), optic nerve (12.5%), pterygopalatine fossa (12.5%), and clivus (12.5%). Fungal elements but without obvious angioinvasion, were identified in all specimens, and fungus balls (50%), granulomas (37.5%), and giant cells (25%) were also observed on histopathology. CT and MRI radiographic imaging showed findings consistent with orbital, intracranial, or skull base involvement in all patients.

CONCLUSION

We propose intermediate IFS as a new subgroup of patients with IFS who do not fit into the standard classification of aIFS or cIFS.