Endoscopic endonasal versus transcranial surgery for primary resection of craniopharyngiomas based on a new QST classification system: a comparative series of 315 patients

Jun Fan MD, PhD,1, Yi Liu MD, PhD1, Jun Pan MD, PhD1, Yuping Peng MD, PhD1, Junxiang Peng MD, PhD1, Yun Bao MD, PhD1, Jing Nie MD, PhD1, Chaohu Wang MD, PhD1, Binghui Qiu MD, PhD1, and Songtao Qi MD, PhD1
View More View Less
  • 1 Department of Neurosurgery, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, People's Republic of China
Restricted access

Purchase Now

USD  $45.00

JNS + Pediatrics - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $515.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $612.00
Print or Print + Online

OBJECTIVE

An assessment of the transcranial approach (TCA) and the endoscopic endonasal approach (EEA) for craniopharyngiomas (CPs) according to tumor types has not been reported. The aim of this study was to evaluate both surgical approaches for different types of CPs.

METHODS

A retrospective review of primary resected CPs was performed. A QST classification system based on tumor origin was used to classify tumors into 3 types as follows: infrasellar/subdiaphragmatic CPs (Q-CPs), subarachnoidal CPs (S-CPs), and pars tuberalis CPs (T-CPs). Within each tumor type, patients were further arranged into two groups: those treated via the TCA and those treated via the EEA. Patient and tumor characteristics, surgical outcomes, and postoperative complications were obtained. All variables were statistically analyzed between surgical groups for each tumor type.

RESULTS

A total of 315 patients were included in this series, of whom 87 were identified with Q-CPs (49 treated via TCA and 38 via EEA); 56 with S-CPs (36 treated via TCA and 20 via EEA); and 172 with T-CPs (105 treated via TCA and 67 via EEA). Patient and tumor characteristics were equivalent between both surgical groups in each tumor type. The overall gross-total resection rate (90.5% TCA vs 91.2% EEA, p = 0.85) and recurrence rate (8.9% TCA vs 6.4% EEA, p = 0.35) were similar between surgical groups. The EEA group had a greater chance of visual improvement (61.6% vs 35.8%, p = 0.01) and a decreased risk of visual deterioration (1.6% vs 11.0%, p < 0.001). Of the patients with T-CPs, postoperative hypothalamic status was better in the TCA group than in the EEA group (p = 0.016). Postoperative CSF leaks and nasal complication rates occurred more frequently in the EEA group (12.0% vs 0.5%, and 9.6% vs 0.5%; both p < 0.001). For Q-CPs, EEA was associated with an increased gross-total resection rate (97.4% vs 85.7%, p = 0.017), decreased recurrence rate (2.6% vs 12.2%, p = 0.001), and lower new hypopituitarism rate (28.9% vs 57.1%, p = 0.008). The recurrence-free survival in patients with Q-CPs was also significantly different between surgical groups (log-rank test, p = 0.037). The EEA required longer surgical time for T-CPs (p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

CPs could be effectively treated by radical surgery with favorable results. Both TCA and EEA have their advantages and limitations when used to manage different types of tumors. Individualized surgical strategies based on tumor growth patterns are mandatory to achieve optimal outcomes.

ABBREVIATIONS

CP = craniopharyngioma; DI = diabetes insipidus; EEA = endoscopic endonasal approach; EOR = extent of resection; GTR = gross-total resection; NTR = near-total resection; Q-CP = infrasellar/subdiaphragmatic CP; RFS = recurrence-free survival; S-CP = subarachnoidal CP; STR = subtotal resection; TCA = transcranial approach; T-CP = pars tuberalis CP.

Illustration from Fan et al. (pp 1298–1309). Copyright Jun Fan. Published with permission.

JNS + Pediatrics - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $515.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $612.00
  • 1

    Karavitaki N, Cudlip S, Adams CB, Wass JA.Craniopharyngiomas. Endocr Rev. 2006;27(4):371397.

  • 2

    Samii M, Tatagiba M.Craniopharyngioma. In: Kaye AH, Laws ER Jr, eds.Brain Tumors: An Encyclopedic Approach. Churchill Livingstone;1995:873894.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3

    Dhellemmes P, Vinchon M.Radical resection for craniopharyngiomas in children: surgical technique and clinical results. J Pediatr Endocrinol Metab. 2006;19(1)(suppl 1):329335.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    Elliott RE, Hsieh K, Hochm T, et al. Efficacy and safety of radical resection of primary and recurrent craniopharyngiomas in 86 children. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2010;5(1):3048.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5

    Okada T, Fujitsu K, Ichikawa T, et al. Radical resection of craniopharyngioma: discussions based on long-term clinical course and histopathology of the dissection plane. Asian J Neurosurg. 2018;13(3):640646.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6

    Yaşargil MG, Curcic M, Kis M, et al. Total removal of craniopharyngiomas. Approaches and long-term results in 144 patients. J Neurosurg. 1990;73(1):311.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7

    Conti A, Pontoriero A, Ghetti I, et al. Benefits of image-guided stereotactic hypofractionated radiation therapy as adjuvant treatment of craniopharyngiomas. A review. Childs Nerv Syst. 2019;35(1):5361.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8

    Kawamata T, Amano K, Aihara Y, et al. Optimal treatment strategy for craniopharyngiomas based on long-term functional outcomes of recent and past treatment modalities. Neurosurg Rev. 2010;33(1):7181.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

    Mortini P, Losa M, Pozzobon G, et al. Neurosurgical treatment of craniopharyngioma in adults and children: early and long-term results in a large case series. J Neurosurg. 2011;114(5):13501359.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10

    Yang I, Sughrue ME, Rutkowski MJ, et al. Craniopharyngioma: a comparison of tumor control with various treatment strategies. Neurosurg Focus. 2010;28(4):E5.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11

    Cavallo LM, Frank G, Cappabianca P, et al. The endoscopic endonasal approach for the management of craniopharyngiomas: a series of 103 patients. J Neurosurg. 2014;121(1):100113.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12

    Feng SY, Zhang YY, Yu XG, et al. Microsurgical treatment of craniopharyngioma: experiences on 183 consecutive patients. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018;97(34):e11746.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13

    Hofmann BM, Höllig A, Strauss C, et al. Results after treatment of craniopharyngiomas: further experiences with 73 patients since 1997. J Neurosurg. 2012;116(2):373384.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14

    Shi X, Zhou Z, Wu B, et al. Outcome of radical surgical resection for craniopharyngioma with hypothalamic preservation: a single-center retrospective study of 1054 patients. World Neurosurg. 2017;102:167180.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15

    Moussazadeh N, Prabhu V, Bander ED, et al. Endoscopic endonasal versus open transcranial resection of craniopharyngiomas: a case-matched single-institution analysis. Neurosurg Focus. 2016;41(6):E7.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16

    Fahlbusch R, Honegger J, Paulus W, et al. Surgical treatment of craniopharyngiomas: experience with 168 patients. J Neurosurg. 1999;90(2):237250.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17

    Maira G, Anile C, Rossi GF, Colosimo C.Surgical treatment of craniopharyngiomas: an evaluation of the transsphenoidal and pterional approaches. Neurosurgery. 1995;36(4):715724.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18

    Shirane R, Ching-Chan S, Kusaka Y, et al. Surgical outcomes in 31 patients with craniopharyngiomas extending outside the suprasellar cistern: an evaluation of the frontobasal interhemispheric approach. J Neurosurg. 2002;96(4):704712.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19

    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(3):627638.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20

    de Divitiis E, Cappabianca P, Cavallo LM, et al. Extended endoscopic transsphenoidal approach for extrasellar craniopharyngiomas. Neurosurgery. 2007;61(5)(suppl 2):219228.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21

    Gardner PA, Prevedello DM, Kassam AB, et al. The evolution of the endonasal approach for craniopharyngiomas. J Neurosurg. 2008;108(5):10431047.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22

    Laufer I, Anand VK, Schwartz TH.Endoscopic, endonasal extended transsphenoidal, transplanum transtuberculum approach for resection of suprasellar lesions. J Neurosurg. 2007;106(3):400406.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23

    Wannemuehler TJ, Rubel KE, Hendricks BK, et al. Outcomes in transcranial microsurgery versus extended endoscopic endonasal approach for primary resection of adult craniopharyngiomas. Neurosurg Focus. 2016;41(6):E6.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24

    Liu Y, Qi ST, Wang CH, et al. Pathological relationship between adamantinomatous craniopharyngioma and adjacent structures based on QST classification. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol. 2018;77(11):10171023.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25

    Pan J, Qi S, Liu Y, et al. Growth patterns of craniopharyngiomas: clinical analysis of 226 patients. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2016;17(4):418433.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26

    Tena-Suck ML, Salinas-Lara C, Arce-Arellano RI, et al. Clinico-pathological and immunohistochemical characteristics associated to recurrence/regrowth of craniopharyngiomas. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2006;108(7):661669.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27

    Weiner HL, Wisoff JH, Rosenberg ME, et al. Craniopharyngiomas: a clinicopathological analysis of factors predictive of recurrence and functional outcome. Neurosurgery. 1994;35(6):10011011.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28

    Zacharia BE, Bruce SS, Goldstein H, et al. Incidence, treatment and survival of patients with craniopharyngioma in the surveillance, epidemiology and end results program. Neuro Oncol. 2012;14(8):10701078.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 29

    Fomichev D, Kalinin P, Kutin M, Sharipov O.Extended transsphenoidal endoscopic endonasal surgery of suprasellar craniopharyngiomas. World Neurosurg. 2016;94:181187.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 30

    Koutourousiou M, Gardner PA, Fernandez-Miranda JC, et al. Endoscopic endonasal surgery for craniopharyngiomas: surgical outcome in 64 patients. J Neurosurg. 2013;119(5):11941207.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 31

    Morisako H, Goto T, Goto H, et al. Aggressive surgery based on an anatomical subclassification of craniopharyngiomas. Neurosurg Focus. 2016;41(6):E10.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 32

    Ordóñez-Rubiano EG, Forbes JA, Morgenstern PF, et al. Preserve or sacrifice the stalk? Endocrinological outcomes, extent of resection, and recurrence rates following endoscopic endonasal resection of craniopharyngiomas. J Neurosurg. 2019;131(4):11631171.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 33

    Park HR, Kshettry VR, Farrell CJ, et al. Clinical outcome after extended endoscopic endonasal resection of craniopharyngiomas: two-institution experience. World Neurosurg. 2017;103:465474.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 34

    Frank G, Pasquini E, Doglietto F, et al. The endoscopic extended transsphenoidal approach for craniopharyngiomas. Neurosurgery. 2006;59(1)(suppl 1):ONS75ONS83.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 35

    Komotar RJ, Starke RM, Raper DM, et al. Endoscopic endonasal compared with microscopic transsphenoidal and open transcranial resection of craniopharyngiomas. World Neurosurg. 2012;77(2):329341.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 36

    Leng LZ, Greenfield JP, Souweidane MM, et al. 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(1):110124.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 37

    Liu JK, Sevak IA, Carmel PW, Eloy JA.Microscopic versus endoscopic approaches for craniopharyngiomas: choosing the optimal surgical corridor for maximizing extent of resection and complication avoidance using a personalized, tailored approach. Neurosurg Focus. 2016;41(6):E5.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 38

    Kim SK, Wang KC, Shin SH, et al. Radical excision of pediatric craniopharyngioma: recurrence pattern and prognostic factors. Childs Nerv Syst. 2001;17(9):531537.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 39

    Hoffman HJ, De Silva M, Humphreys RP, et al. Aggressive surgical management of craniopharyngiomas in children. J Neurosurg. 1992;76(1):4752.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 40

    Kassam AB, Gardner PA, Snyderman CH, et al. Expanded endonasal approach, a fully endoscopic transnasal approach for the resection of midline suprasellar craniopharyngiomas: a new classification based on the infundibulum. J Neurosurg. 2008;108(4):715728.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 41

    Samii M, Bini W.Surgical treatment of craniopharyngiomas. Zentralbl Neurochir. 1991;52(1):1723.

  • 42

    Steno J, Malácek M, Bízik I. Tumor-third ventricular relationships in supradiaphragmatic craniopharyngiomas: correlation of morphological, magnetic resonance imaging, and operative findings. Neurosurgery. 2004;54(5):10511060.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 43

    Wang KC, Kim SK, Choe G, et al. Growth patterns of craniopharyngioma in children: role of the diaphragm sellae and its surgical implication. Surg Neurol. 2002;57(1):2533.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 44

    Lu YT, Qi ST, Xu JM, et al. A membranous structure separating the adenohypophysis and neurohypophysis: an anatomical study and its clinical application for craniopharyngioma. J Neurosurg Pediatr. 2015;15(6):630637.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 45

    Qi S, Lu Y, Pan J, et al. Anatomic relations of the arachnoidea around the pituitary stalk: relevance for surgical removal of craniopharyngiomas. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2011;153(4):785796.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 731 731 571
Full Text Views 255 255 195
PDF Downloads 345 345 256
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0