Sagher, Oren

BACKGROUND: Increasing interest in neurosurgery residency has led to a growing number of unmatched applicants, who often struggle to find appropriate guidance for their next steps. The authors examined trends, opinions, and options available to unmatched neurosurgery residency reapplicants. STUDY DESIGN: Demographic data of US applicants from MD programs obtained from the National Resident Matching Program (2009 to 2024) were analyzed using 1-way ANOVA analysis of time-interval averages. Opinions about reapplicants were assessed via an online survey of national neurosurgery leaders, including residency program directors and chairpersons (N = 356). RESULTS: All application trends showed greater change over time; however, the rate of accepted reapplicants showed no significant change among early (2009 to 2013: 4.8 ± 1.8), mid (2014 to 2018: 7.6 ± 4.8), and recent periods (2019 to 2024: 9.8 ± 2.5; p = 0.068). The survey had a 23.0% response rate (82 of 356). Commonly indicated reasons for failure to match included poor interview skills, weak recommendation letters, and personality issues. Although most survey respondents supported candidates reapplying, dual applications (applying to more than 1 specialty) were not widely encouraged. For those reapplying, pursuing a preliminary general surgery or research fellowship, obtaining new letters of recommendation from new subinternships, and publishing higher-quality research were the most endorsed uses of time before reapplying. However, most programs reported interviewing reapplicants sometimes to rarely and matching a reapplicant rarely to never. CONCLUSIONS: The number of reapplicants successfully matching into neurosurgery has not changed significantly during the past 15 years. Surveys indicate that leaders view reapplicants unfavorably, despite reapplicants’ efforts to improve their applications. These results suggest that neurosurgery mentors may do a disservice to potential reapplicants based on how residency program leadership considers reapplications. Candid guidance is needed for reapplicants in the residency matching process.

Abstract BACKGROUND Extent of resection (EOR) correlates with glioblastoma outcomes. Resectability and EOR depend on anatomical, clinical, and surgeon factors. Resectability likely influences outcome in and of itself, but an accurate measurement of resectability remains elusive. An understanding of resectability and the factors that influence it may provide a means to control a confounder in clinical trials and provide reference for decision making. OBJECTIVE To provide proof of concept of the use of the collective wisdom of experienced brain tumor surgeons in assessing glioblastoma resectability. METHODS We surveyed 13 academic tumor neurosurgeons nationwide to assess the resectability of newly diagnosed glioblastoma. Participants reviewed 20 cases, including digital imaging and communications in medicine-formatted pre- and postoperative magnetic resonance images and clinical vignettes. The selected cases involved a variety of anatomical locations and a range of EOR. Participants were asked about surgical goal, eg, gross total resection, subtotal resection (STR), or biopsy, and rationale for their decision. We calculated a “resectability index” for each lesion by pooling responses from all 13 surgeons. RESULTS Neurosurgeons’ individual surgical goals varied significantly ( P = .015), but the resectability index calculated from the surgeons’ pooled responses was strongly correlated with the percentage of contrast-enhancing residual tumor ( R = 0.817, P < .001). The collective STR goal predicted intraoperative decision of intentional STR documented on operative notes ( P < .01) and nonresectable residual ( P < .01), but not resectable residual. CONCLUSION In this pilot study, we demonstrate the feasibility of measuring the resectability of glioblastoma through crowdsourcing. This tool could be used to quantify resectability, a potential confounder in neuro-oncology clinical trials.