Chambless, Lola B.

Background: Gender-based reimbursement disparities in orthopedic surgery remain poorly understood, particularly when accounting for practice composition and setting. The purpose of this study was to compare and evaluate gender-based differences in Medicare reimbursement and practice patterns among female and male orthopedic surgeons. Methods: A cross sectional analysis of public Medicare data from 2013 to 2021 was performed. Outcomes included annual Medicare payments, submitted charges, total services, service categories, and beneficiaries treated by orthopedic surgeons who bill Medicare. Univariate and multivariable analyses quantified differences in payment, practice volume and composition, geographic adjustment, and Current Procedural Terminology (CPT)-matched reimbursements. Results: A total of 29,357 orthopedic surgeons (27,442 men and 1,919 women) billed Medicare fee-for-service during the study period. Female surgeons, on average, submitted 48.3% fewer total charges and received 44.1% lower annual Medicare payments per surgeon compared with male surgeons. These differences persisted after multivariable regression adjusted for practice metrics and excluded top and bottom earners. Female surgeons also billed fewer services, treated fewer beneficiaries, and submitted fewer unique CPT codes. However, payment disparities persisted even after matching surgeons by volume of services, beneficiaries, and years in practice. Male surgeons performed higher volumes of all 10 highest-paying orthopedic CPT codes. In CPT matched analyses, female surgeons received lower reimbursement per service than male surgeons performing identical procedures. Conclusion: These findings suggest that the observed gender-based disparities in orthopedic surgery Medicare reimbursement cannot be explained by differences in volume, procedural mix, or geographic practice cost. Instead, they likely reflect a combination of structural and behavioral mechanisms described in prior literature that may influence how access to clinical opportunities, referrals, and reimbursement practices unfold in surgical practices. Variations in coding practices may represent an important focus for future investigation and targeted educational initiatives. Level of Evidence: Level III , Retrospective Cohort Study. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The Congress of Neurological Surgeons (CNS) Leadership Institute developed the first structured leadership program designed specifically for neurosurgeons. Led by the experts in neurosurgery, health care administration, and business, the program provides formal leadership training and mentorship aimed at advancing neurosurgeons' professional development at local, regional, national, and international levels. METHODS: The CNS Leadership Institute offers 2 curricula tailored for junior and senior faculty. Training begins with assigned readings, webinars, and online lectures that establish essential leadership principles. Core learning occurs during 2 in-person courses featuring interactive lectures, feedback sessions, and a longitudinal leadership project guided by national mentors. Program outcomes were assessed through a 40-question survey of alumni evaluating training effectiveness, skill application, and career advancement. RESULTS: Since 2016, 195 neurosurgeons have completed the CNS Leadership Institute. Among the 77 survey respondents, 70.1% reported significant professional advancement (new leadership role or job transition), and 64.8% directly attributed their advancement in skills and insights acquired through the program. Overall program effectiveness was rated 4.4 of 5, and the mean likelihood-to-recommend was 8.95 (95% CI: 8.70-9.20), yielding a Net Promoter Score of +63 (95% CI: +49 to +77). Alumni have assumed prominent roles including 16 Residency Program Directors, 3 Department Chairs, 1 Vice Dean, 4 Service Line Leaders, 13 CNS Executive Committee members, and over 100 committee or editorial board appointments critical to the specialty. CONCLUSION: The CNS Leadership Institute equips neurosurgeons with structured leadership training, mentorship, and practical tools to enhance their effectiveness as leaders. Survey results confirm that the program has a measurable impact on participants' career trajectories and professional growth. This initiative provides a reproducible model for cultivating the next generation of neurosurgical leaders and advancing the specialty's capacity for strategic, transformational leadership.

Abstract Background DNA methylation profiling can be used to robustly predict postsurgical outcomes and response to radiotherapy (RT) for meningioma patients. To allow for seamless integration of these complementary models into clinical practice, a practical framework is needed. Methods We leveraged a cohort of nearly 2000 surgically-treated meningiomas with DNA methylation profiling and clinical outcomes data. Existing methylation-based prediction models were dichotomized to yield four risk groups: low and high recurrent risk, each with RT sensitive and resistant subgroups. Risk groups were correlated with progression-free survival in the context of existing biomarkers including extent of resection and WHO grade. Results We first demonstrated that all risk groups benefit from gross total resection. All “high-risk, RT sensitive” tumors (n = 306, 15.7%) also benefited from adjuvant RT: after GTR, median PFS increased from 4.68 (4.13-9.48) years to not reached (P = .003); after subtotal resection (STR), from 2.12 (1.59-3.02) to 4.09 (3.41-not reached) years (P = .004). “Low-risk, RT sensitive cases” (n = 1207, 61.8%) also benefited from RT after STR (median PFS 7.39 (6.66-12.8) vs. 16.53 (10.35-not reached) years, P = .03), suggesting that RT be considered in these patients. Neither “low-risk RT resistant” (n = 84, 4.3%) nor “high-risk RT resistant” (n = 356, 18.2%) cases benefited from RT, and the latter group was associated with universally poor outcomes. Conclusions We identify methylation-defined risk groups of meningioma for which additional benefit is gained from adjuvant RT, leading to a clinical decision-making framework for straightforward integration of molecular models into clinical practice.

Abstract INTRODUCTION While TERT promoter mutation (TPM) has been established as a marker of clinically aggressive meningiomas, this alteration is rare and found in less than 5% of all cases. However, a larger subset of meningiomas may exhibit aberrant TERT expression in the absence of TPMs. This study investigated the effect of TERT gene expression on clinical outcome in meningioma patients. METHODS Clinical and molecular data were retrospectively collected on 1241 meningiomas, split into a Toronto discovery cohort and a multi-institutional validation cohort. Sanger sequencing and bulk RNA sequencing were used to determine TPM status and TERT gene expression. The effect of TERT expression on progression-free survival (PFS) was assessed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analysis. RESULTS While meningiomas with TPM showed expectedly higher TERT gene expression compared to wildtype (TP-WT) cases (p<0.0001), TERT expression was still detected in 28.7% (157/547) of TP-WT meningiomas. Meningiomas with TERT expression showed significantly worse PFS compared to meningiomas without any TERT expression. In fact, WHO grade 1 meningiomas with TERT expression had PFS outcomes resembling WHO grade 2 meningiomas lacking TERT expression (p=0.59). In turn, WHO grade 2 meningiomas with TERT expression had clinical outcomes similar to WHO grade 3 meningiomas without TERT expression (p=0.42). Furthermore, the proportion of meningiomas expressing TERT as well as overall TERT expression levels increased with increasing WHO grade. Multivariable analysis showed that TERT expression was significantly associated with worse PFS even when controlling for other known predictors of clinical outcome including TPM, CDKN2A/B loss, 1p/22q status and WHO grade (HR 1.85 [95% CI 1.33-2.57], p=0.00024). CONCLUSION TERT expression is a novel independent biomarker of outcome for meningiomas identifiable in up to one-third of cases that may be utilized to reclassify tumours to a higher WHO grade.

Abstract Background Adolescent and young adult (AYA) patients remain underrepresented in neuro-oncology research. Despite being the second most common primary brain tumor in this population, meningiomas have not been studied using age-specific molecular analyses. DNA methylation-based classification and prognostic tools have transformed meningioma care. This study aimed to evaluate the performance of these tools across age groups. Methods We analyzed 1,568 meningiomas with DNA methylation and clinical data, including 18 pediatric patients (<15 years), 195 AYA patients (15-39 years), and 1,355 adult patients (>39 years). Pediatric and AYA (P/AYA) tumors were combined and compared with adult tumors. The performance of established molecular classifiers and recurrence predictors, as well as differences in chromosomal copy number alterations were compared across age groups. Results While histologic grading was comparable between cohorts, P/AYA tumors displayed significantly fewer aggressive molecular groups and lower frequencies of chromosomal arm losses, including 1p, 6q, and 14q. The adult-trained recurrence predictor failed in the P/AYA population (AUC 0.57), despite similar score distributions. Retraining the model on an age-specific cohort using an identical analytic framework improved performance (AUC 0.79) and enabled effective stratification of progression-free survival (P = 0.00054). Importantly, 1p loss retained prognostic significance within the P/AYA group, supporting its clinical utility. Conclusions Molecular tools developed in adult-dominant cohorts do not generalize to younger patients due to both biological divergence and exclusion from model development. These findings underscore the need for age-specific molecular frameworks and highlight the imperative of including P/AYA populations in precision neuro-oncology research to ensure lifespan-equitable care.

OBJECTIVE Residency interviews are integral to the recruitment process yet imperfect. Through surveys of neurosurgery residency applicants, the authors describe interview content and the perceived utility and stress of topics from the applicant’s perspective. METHODS All 2018–2019 neurosurgery resident applicants applying to three particular programs were surveyed. Across 10 interview topics, survey questions assessed topic frequency and the applicant’s opinion of the utility and stress of each topic (Likert scale 1–5). Analyses included descriptive statistics, Spearman’s rank correlation, and logistic regression. RESULTS One hundred thirty-three of 265 surveyed US residency applicants (50%) responded. Extracurricular activities, research, future career, non-medicine interests, and small talk were discussed in all interviews. The least frequent topics included neurosurgical knowledge assessment (79%) and manual dexterity tests (45%). The most useful topics according to respondents were future career objectives (4.78 ± 0.49) and prior research (4.76 ± 0.50); the least useful were neurosurgical knowledge assessment (2.67 ± 1.09) and manual dexterity tests (2.95 ± 1.05). The most stressful topics were neurosurgical knowledge assessment (3.66 ± 1.23) and ethical/behavioral scenarios (2.94 ± 1.28). The utility and stress of manual dexterity tests and neurosurgical knowledge assessments were inversely correlated (r = −0.40, p < 0.01; r = −0.36, p < 0.01), whereas no such correlation existed for ethical/behavioral questions (r = −0.12, p = 0.18), indicating that ethical/behavioral questions may have been stressful but were potentially useful topics. Respondents who attended ≥ 15 interviews were more likely to be asked about the three most stressful topics (each p < 0.05). Respondents with children were less likely to be asked about ethical/behavioral scenarios (OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.03–0.52, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS Applicants found several of the most frequently discussed topics to be less useful, indicating a potential disconnect between applicant opinion and the faculty’s preferred questions. Ethical/behavioral scenarios were rated as stressful but still useful, representing a potentially worthwhile type of question. These data provide several avenues for potential standardization and improvement of the interview process.