Neurosurgery Research and Education Foundation funding conversion to National Institutes of Health funding.

OBJECTIVE: The Neurosurgery Research and Education Foundation (NREF) provides research support for in-training and early career neurosurgeon-scientists. To define the impact of this funding, the authors assessed the success of NREF awardees in obtaining subsequent National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding. METHODS: NREF in-training (Research Fellowship [RF] for residents) and early career awards/awardees (Van Wagenen Fellowship [VW] and Young Clinician Investigator [YCI] award for neurosurgery faculty) were analyzed. NIH funding was defined by individual awardees using the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting tool (1985-2014). RESULTS: Between 1985 and 2014, 207 unique awardees were supported by 218 NREF awards ($9.84 million [M] in funding), including 117 RF ($6.02 M), 32 VW ($1.68 M), and 69 YCI ($2.65 M) awards. Subspecialty funding included neuro-oncology (79 awards; 36% of RF, VW, and YCI awards), functional (53 awards; 24%), vascular (37 awards; 17%), spine (22 awards; 10%), pediatrics (18 awards; 8%), trauma/critical care (5 awards; 2%), and peripheral nerve (4 awards; 2%). These awardees went on to receive $353.90 M in NIH funding that resulted in an overall NREF/NIH funding ratio of 36.0:1 (in dollars). YCI awardees most frequently obtained later NIH funding (65%; $287.27 M), followed by VW (56%; $41.10 M) and RF (31%; $106.59 M) awardees. YCI awardees had the highest NREF/NIH funding ratio (108.6:1), followed by VW (24.4:1) and RF (17.7:1) awardees. Subspecialty awardees who went on to obtain NIH funding included vascular (19 awardees; 51% of vascular NREF awards), neuro-oncology (40 awardees; 51%), pediatrics (9 awardees; 50%), functional (25 awardees; 47%), peripheral nerve (1 awardees; 25%), trauma/critical care (2 awardees; 20%), and spine (2 awardees; 9%) awardees. Subspecialty NREF/NIH funding ratios were 56.2:1 for vascular, 53.0:1 for neuro-oncology, 47.6:1 for pediatrics, 34.1:1 for functional, 22.2:1 for trauma/critical care, 9.5:1 for peripheral nerve, and 0.4:1 for spine. Individuals with 2 NREF awards achieved a higher NREF/NIH funding ratio (83.3:1) compared to those with 1 award (29.1:1). CONCLUSIONS: In-training and early career NREF grant awardees are an excellent investment, as a significant portion of these awardees go on to obtain NIH funding. Moreover, there is a potent multiplicative impact of NREF funding converted to NIH funding that is related to award type and subspecialty.

Clinical and economic outcomes of low-field intraoperative MRI-guided tumor resection neurosurgery.

PURPOSE: To compare low-field (0.15 T) intraoperative magnetic resonance imaging (iMRI)-guided tumor resection with both conventional magnetic resonance imaging (cMRI)-guided tumor resection and high-field (1.5 T) iMRI-guided resection from the clinical and economic point of view. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively compared 65 iMRI patients with 65 cMRI patients in terms of hospital length of stay, repeat resection rate, repeat resection interval, complication rate, cost to the patient, cost to the hospital, and cost effectiveness. In addition, we compared our low-field results with previously published high-field results. RESULTS: The complication rate was lower for iMRI vs. cMRI in patients presenting for their initial tumor resection (45 vs. 57 complications, P = 0.048). The iMRI repeat resection interval was longer for this cohort (20.1 vs. 6.7 months, P = 0.020). iMRI was more cost-effective than cMRI for patients who had repeat resections ($10,690/RFY vs. $76,874/RFY, P < 0.001). We found no other clinical or economic differences between iMRI- and cMRI-guided tumor resection surgeries. Overall, we did not find the advantages to low-field iMRI that have been reported for high-field iMRI. CONCLUSION: There is no adequate justification for the widespread installation of low-field iMRI in its current development state.

A retrospective cohort-matched comparison of conscious sedation versus general anesthesia for supratentorial glioma resection. Clinical article.

OBJECT: Glioma resection under conscious ("awake") sedation (CS) is used for eloquent areas of the brain to minimize postoperative neurological deficits. The objective of this study was to compare the duration of hospital stay, overall hospital cost, perioperative morbidity, and postoperative patient functional status in patients whose gliomas were resected using CS versus general endotracheal anesthesia (GEA). METHODS: Twenty-two cases in 20 patients who underwent surgery for cerebral gliomas under CS and a matched cohort of 22 cases in 19 patients who underwent surgery under GEA over a 3-year period were retrospectively evaluated. Criteria for inclusion in the study were as follows: 1) a single cerebral lesion; 2) gross-total resection as evidenced by postoperative Gd-enhanced MR imaging within 48 hours of surgery; 3) a WHO Grade II, III, or IV glioma; 4) a supratentorial lesion location; 5) a Karnofsky Performance Scale score ≥ 70; 6) an operation performed by the same neurosurgeon; and 7) an elective procedure. RESULTS: The average hospital stay was significantly different between the 2 groups: 3.5 days for patients who underwent CS and 4.6 days for those who underwent GEA. This result translated into a significant decrease in the average inpatient cost after intensive care unit (ICU) care for the CS group compared with the GEA group. Other variables were not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing glioma resection using CS techniques have a significantly shorter hospital stay with reduced inpatient hospital expenses after postoperative ICU care.

Gene therapy for glioblastoma.

Established treatments such as surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy have only minimally altered the median survival time of patients with glioblastoma multiforme, the most common malignant brain tumor. These failures reflect the highly invasive nature of the disease, as well as the fact that few cells are actively dividing at any given time. As a result, therapies need to act in areas of the brain that are spatially separated from the site of tumor origin and over extended periods of time temporally separated from their introduction. Over the past decade, laboratory studies and early clinical trials have raised the hope that these therapeutic requirements may be fulfilled by gene therapy in which nonreplicating transgene-bearing viruses, oncolytic viruses, or migratory stem cells are used to deliver tumoricidal transgenes. The authors review the principles behind these approaches and their initial results.