Expertise in surgical neuro-oncology. Results of a survey by the EANS neuro-oncology section

Abstract

Introduction: Technical advances and the increasing role of interdisciplinary decision-making may warrant formal definitions of expertise in surgical neuro-oncology. Research question: The EANS Neuro-oncology Section felt that a survey detailing the European neurosurgical perspective on the concept of expertise in surgical neuro-oncology might be helpful. Material and methods: The EANS Neuro-oncology Section panel developed an online survey asking questions regarding criteria for expertise in neuro-oncological surgery and sent it to all individual EANS members. Results: Our questionnaire was completed by 251 respondents (consultants: 80.1%) from 42 countries. 67.7% would accept a lifetime caseload of >200 cases and 86.7% an annual caseload of >50 as evidence of neuro-oncological surgical expertise. A majority felt that surgeons who do not treat children (56.2%), do not have experience with spinal fusion (78.1%) or peripheral nerve tumors (71.7%) may still be considered experts. Majorities believed that expertise requires the use of skull-base approaches (85.8%), intraoperative monitoring (83.4%), awake craniotomies (77.3%), and neuro-endoscopy (75.5%) as well as continuing education of at least 1/year (100.0%), a research background (80.0%) and teaching activities (78.7%), and formal interdisciplinary collaborations (e.g., tumor board: 93.0%). Academic vs. non-academic affiliation, career position, years of neurosurgical experience, country of practice, and primary clinical interest had a minor influence on the respondents’ opinions. Discussion and conclusion: Opinions among neurosurgeons regarding the characteristics and features of expertise in neuro-oncology vary surprisingly little. Large majorities favoring certain thresholds and qualitative criteria suggest a consensus definition might be possible.