From bench to bedside: trends in National Institutes of Health funding for neurosurgeons from 1991 to 2015.

OBJECTIVE: Neurosurgeons play an important role in advancing medicine through research, the funding of which is historically linked to the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The authors defined variables associated with neurosurgical NIH funding, prevalence of funded topics by neurosurgical subspecialty, and temporal trends in NIH neurosurgical funding. METHODS: The authors conducted a retrospective review of NIH-funded American Association of Neurological Surgeons members using NIH RePORTER (http://report.nih.gov/) for the years 1991-2015. RESULTS: The authors followed 6515 neurosurgeons from 1991 to 2015, including 6107 (94%) non-MD-PhD physicians and 408 (6%) MD-PhDs. NIH grants were awarded to 393 (6%) neurosurgeons, with 23.2% of all first-time grants awarded to the top 5 funded institutions. The average total funded grant-years per funded neurosurgeon was 12.5 (range 1-85 grant-years). A higher percentage of MD-PhDs were NIH funded than MDs (22% [n = 91] vs 5% [n = 297], p < 0.0001). The most common grants awarded were R01 (128, 33%), K08 (69, 18%), F32 (60, 15%), M01 (50, 13%), and R21 (39, 10%). F32 and K08 recipients were 9-fold (18% vs 2%, p < 0.001) and 19-fold (38% vs 2%, p < 0.001) more likely to procure an R01 and procured R01 funding earlier in their careers (F32: 7 vs 12 years after residency, p = 0.03; K08: 9 vs 12 years, p = 0.01). Each year, the number of neurosurgeons with active grants linearly increased by 2.2 (R2 = 0.81, p < 0.001), whereas the number of total active grants run by neurosurgeons increased at nearly twice the rate (4.0 grants/year) (R2 = 0.91, p < 0.001). Of NIH-funded neurosurgical grants, 33 (9%) transitioned to funded clinical trial(s). Funded neurosurgical subspecialties included neuro-oncology (33%), functional/epilepsy (32%), cerebrovascular (17%), trauma (10%), and spine (6%). Finally, the authors modeled trends in the number of active training grants and found a linear increase in active R01s (R2 = 0.95, p < 0.001); however, both F32 (R2 = 0.36, p = 0.01) and K08 (R2 = 0.67, p < 0.001) funding had a significant parabolic rise and fall centered around 2003. CONCLUSIONS: The authors observed an upward trend in R01s awarded to neurosurgeons during the last quarter century. However, their findings of decreased K08 and F32 training grant funding to neurosurgeons and the impact of these training grants on the ultimate success and time to success for neurosurgeons seeking R01 funding suggests that this upward trend in R01 funding for neurosurgeons will be difficult to maintain. The authors' work underscores the importance of continued selection and mentorship of neurosurgeons capable of impacting patient care through research, including the MD-PhDs, who are noted to be more represented among NIH-funded neurosurgeons.

Developing an Algorithm for Optimizing Care of Elderly Patients With Glioblastoma.

BACKGROUND: Elderly patients with glioblastoma have an especially poor prognosis; optimizing their medical and surgical care remains of paramount importance. OBJECTIVE: To investigate patient and treatment characteristics of elderly vs nonelderly patients and develop an algorithm to predict elderly patients' survival. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 554 patients (mean age = 60.8; 42.0% female) undergoing first glioblastoma resection or biopsy at our institution (2005-2011). RESULTS: Of the 554 patients, 218 (39%) were elderly (≥65 yr). Compared with nonelderly, elderly patients were more likely to receive biopsy only (26% vs 16%), have ≥1 medical comorbidity (40% vs 20%), and develop postresection morbidity (eg, seizure, delirium; 25% vs 14%), and were less likely to receive temozolomide (TMZ) (78% vs 90%) and gross total resection (31% vs 45%). To predict benefit of resection in elderly patients (n = 161), we identified 5 factors known in the preoperative period that predicted survival in a multivariate analysis. We then assigned points to each (1 point: Charlson comorbidity score >0, subtotal resection, tumor >3 cm; 2 points: preoperative weakness, Charlson comorbidity score >1, tumor >5 cm, age >75 yr; 4 points: age >85 yr). Having 3 to 5 points (n = 78, 56%) was associated with decreased survival compared to 0 to 2 points (n = 41, 29%, 8.5 vs 16.9 mo; P = .001) and increased survival compared to 6 to 9 points (n = 20, 14%, 8.5 vs 4.5 mo; P < .001). Patients with 6 to 9 points did not survive significantly longer than elderly patients receiving biopsy only (n = 57, 4.5 vs 2.7 mo; P = .58). CONCLUSION: Further optimization of the medical and surgical care of elderly glioblastoma patients may be achieved by providing more beneficial therapies while avoiding unnecessary resection in those not likely to receive benefit from this intervention.

Improved Survival with Decreased Wait Time to Surgery in Glioblastoma Patients Presenting with Seizure.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative seizure is reported to confer favorable prognosis in glioblastoma patients, but studies to date have not investigated how broadly applicable seizure is as a prognostic factor. OBJECTIVE: To investigate if prompter surgical intervention affects the relationship between preoperative seizure and prognosis in glioblastoma patients, focusing on the development of tumor growth and/or additional preoperative symptoms after seizure. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 443 patients (mean age = 60.2; 60% male) undergoing first glioblastoma resection at our institution (2005-2011). RESULTS: Preoperative seizure(s) occurred in 28% of patients (n = 124), of which 63 (51%) had only seizure at presentation. Patients experiencing seizure as their only preoperative symptom ("seizure-only"; n = 45) survived over twice as long as patients who presented with seizure and then later developed additional preoperative symptoms (n = 18; "other symptoms postseizure"; 26.8 vs 10.2 months, P < .001) and patients without preoperative seizure ("no seizure"; 26.8 vs 13.1 months, P < .001). Multivariate stepwise analysis revealed preoperative seizures only (hazard ratio 0.54 [0.37-0.75]; P < .001) to be independently associated with increased survival. Longer wait time from presentation (ie, diagnostic magnetic resonance imaging) to surgery was a risk factor for developing additional symptoms. Eleven "other symptoms postseizure" patients (69%) vs 6 of the "seizure-only" patients (15%) had wait times >45 days (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Seizure as the only preoperative symptom independently improved survival, however, when patients developed additional preoperative symptoms, typically due to surgical delay, no prognostic benefit was observed. Prompt diagnosis and neurosurgical intervention is warranted in patients with seizures without other preoperative symptoms to preserve their favorable prognosis.