Search

Objective: To critically appraise published clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for brain tumours, and to synthesize evidence-based recommendations from a rehabilitation perspective., Methods: A comprehensive literature search included: health science databases, CPG clearinghouse/developer websites, and grey literature up to March 2018. All brain tumour CPGs that reported systematic methods for evidence search, and clearly defined recommendations supporting evidence for rehabilitation interventions were included. Three authors independently selected potential CPGs and assessed their methodological quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation (AGREE-II) Instrument. Recommendations from included CPGs were categorized from a rehabilitation perspective., Results: Of the 11 CPGs identified, only 2, developed by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) and the Australian Cancer Network (ACN), included rehabilitation components for the management of brain tumours. Both CPGs were of moderate quality. The recommendations reported were generic, and only the ACN guidelines provided detailed recommendations for rehabilitation interventions. Both guidelines recommend a comprehensive multi-disciplinary care approach. Detailed comparison, however, was not possible due to inconsistent recommendations, making it difficult to summarize rehabilitative care., Conclusion: Despite rehabilitation being an integral component of the management of brain tumours, only a limited number of CPGs have incorporated recommendations for specific rehabilitation interventions. In order to improve clinical outcomes in this population future CPGs should incorporate rehabilitation interventions.

Background: Brain tumours can cause significant disability, which may be amenable to multidisciplinary rehabilitation. However, the evidence base for this is unclear. This review is an update of a previously published review in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews [2013, Issue 1, Art. No. CD009509] on 'Multidisciplinary rehabilitation after primary brain tumour treatment'., Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of multidisciplinary rehabilitation in people after primary brain tumour treatment, especially the types of approaches that are effective (settings, intensity)., Search Methods: For this update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, the Cochrane Library up to Issue 12 of 12, 2014), MEDLINE (1950 to January week 2, 2015), EMBASE (1980 to January week 2, 2015), PEDro (1985 to January week 2 2015), and LILACS (1982 to January week 2, 2015). We checked the bibliographies of papers we identified and contacted the authors and known experts in the field to seek published and unpublished trials., Selection Criteria: Controlled clinical trials (randomised and non-randomised clinical trials) that compared multidisciplinary rehabilitation in primary brain tumour with either routinely available local services or lower levels of intervention, or studies that compared multidisciplinary rehabilitation in different settings or at different levels of intensity., Data Collection and Analysis: Three review authors independently assessed study quality, extracted data, and performed a 'best evidence ' synthesis based on methodological quality., Main Results: We did not identify any studies for inclusion in the previous version of this review. For this update, the literature search identified one low-quality controlled clinical trial involving 106 participants. The findings from this study suggest 'low-level' evidence to support high-intensity ambulatory (outpatient) multidisciplinary rehabilitation in reducing short- and long-term motor disability (continence, mobility and locomotion, cognition), when compared with standard outpatient care. We found improvement in some domains of disability (continence, communication) and psychosocial gains were maintained at six months follow-up. We found no evidence for improvement in overall participation (quality of life and societal relationship). No adverse events were reported as a result of multidisciplinary rehabilitation. We found no evidence for improvement in quality of life or cost-effectiveness of rehabilitation. It was also not possible to suggest best 'dose' of therapy., Authors' Conclusions: Since the last version of this review, one new study has been identified for inclusion. The best evidence to date comes from this CCT, which provides low quality evidence that higher intensity ambulatory (outpatient) multidisciplinary rehabilitation reduces short- and long-term disability in people with brain tumour compared with standard outpatient care. Our conclusions are tentative at best, given gaps in current research in this area. Although the strength of evidence has increased with the identification of a new controlled clinical trial in this updated review, further research is needed into appropriate and robust study designs; outcome measurement; caregiver needs; evaluation of optimal settings; type, intensity, duration of therapy; and cost-effectiveness of multidisciplinary rehabilitation in the brain tumour population.

Objective: To evaluate effectiveness of a multidisciplinary rehabilitation program for persons following definitive primary brain tumour treatment in a community cohort., Methods: The brain tumour (glioma) survivors (n = 106) were allocated either to the treatment group (n = 53) (intensive ambulatory multidisciplinary rehabilitation), or the waitlist control group (n = 53). The primary outcome - Functional Independence Measure (FIM), measured 'Activity' limitation; secondary measures included Depression, Anxiety Stress Scale, Perceived Impact Problem Profile and Cancer Rehabilitation Evaluation System. Assessments were at baseline, 3 and 6 months after program completion., Results: Participants were predominantly women (56%), with mean age 51 years (standard deviation 13.6) and median time since diagnosis of 2.1 years. Intention-to-treat analysis showed a significant difference between groups at 3-month in favour of multidisciplinary rehabilitation program in FIM motor subscales: 'self-care', 'sphincter', 'locomotion', 'mobility'(p < 0.01 for all); and FIM 'communication' (p < 0.01) and 'psychosocial' subscales (p < 0.05), with small to moderate effect size (r = 0.2-0.4). At 6-month follow-up, significant improvement in the treatment group was maintained only for FIM 'sphincter', 'communication' and 'cognition' subscales (p < 0.01 for all). No difference between groups was noted in other subscales., Conclusions: brain tumour survivors can improve function with multidisciplinary rehabilitation, with some gains maintained up to 6 months. Evidence for specific interventions in the 'blackbox' of rehabilitation is needed.

Objective: To describe patient-reported disability in primary brain tumours using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF); and comparison with categories within the core sets for stroke and traumatic brain injury., Method: A prospective community cross-sectional survey (n = 106) following definitive treatment for primary brain tumours. Problems reported by participants were linked with ICF categories using 'linkage' rules. Participants rated 'activities and participation' and 'environmental factor' components of ICF checklist (using qualifiers); and responses compared with categories within core sets for stroke and traumatic brain injury., Results: Participant mean age 51 years, median time since diagnosis 2 years; over a third had high grade tumours. Participants considered 44 categories in 'activities and participation' and 16 categories (barriers) in 'environmental factors' as relevant (≥ 10% response) using checklist. Reported problems included: Mobility, Domestic life, General tasks/ demands; and Human made changes to environment. Although the linked categories for brain tumour survivors were similar to those in the core sets for stroke and traumatic brain injury, there was more commonality with the traumatic brain injury core set., Conclusion: The existing comprehensive stroke and traumatic brain injury core sets incorporate issues relevant to brain tumour survivors in post-acute settings. Findings from this report will assist in defining a future core set for brain tumour; the possibility however, of using a single core set relevant to most long-term neurological conditions needs to be explored.

To examine factors impacting long-term functional outcomes and psychological sequelae in persons with primary brain tumours (BT) in an Australian community cohort. Participants (n = 106) following definitive treatment for BT in the community were reviewed in rehabilitation clinics to assess impact on participants' current activity and restriction in participation, using validated questionnaires: Functional Independence Measure (FIM), Perceived Impact Problem Profile (PIPP), Depression Anxiety Stress Scale, Cancer Rehabilitation Evaluation System-Short Form and Cancer Survivor Unmet Needs Measure. Mean age of the participants was 51 years (range 21-77 years), majority were female (56 %) with median time since BT diagnosis 2.1 years and a third (39 %) had high grade tumours. Majority showed good functional recovery (median motor FIM score 75). Over half reported pain (56 %), of which 42 % had headaches. Other impairments included: ataxia (44 %), seizures (43 %); paresis (37 %), cognitive dysfunction (36 %) and visual impairment (35 %). About 20 % reported high levels of depression, compared with only 13 % in an Australian normative sample. Two-third (60 %) participants reported highest impact on the PIPP subscales for psychological wellbeing (scores of >3 on 6-point scale) and participation (45 %). Factors significantly associated with poorer current level of functioning and wellbeing included: younger participants (≤40 years), recent diagnoses, aggressive tumour types and presence of pain. No significant differences in scale scores were found across various treatments (surgery, chemotherapy or radiotherapy) on outcomes used. Rehabilitation for BT survivors is challenging and requires long-term management of psychological sequelae impacting activity and participation. More research into participatory limitation is needed to guide treating clinicians.

Background: Brain tumours can cause significant disability, which may be amenable to multidisciplinary rehabilitation. However, the evidence base for this is unclear., Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of multidisciplinary rehabilitation in adults after primary brain tumour treatment, especially the types of approaches that are effective (settings, intensity) and the outcomes that are affected., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Neuromuscular Disease Group Specialized Register (March week 2, 2012), The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2012), MEDLINE (1966 to March week 2, 2012), EMBASE (1980 to March week 2, 2012), PEDro (1982 to March 2012) and LILACS (1982 to March week 2, 2012). We checked the bibliographies of papers identified and contacted the authors and known experts in the field to seek published and unpublished trials., Selection Criteria: Controlled clinical trials (randomised and non-randomised clinical trials) that compared multidisciplinary rehabilitation in primary brain tumour with either routinely available local services or lower levels of intervention, or studies that compared multidisciplinary rehabilitation in different settings or at different levels of intensity., Data Collection and Analysis: Three review authors independently assessed study quality, extracted data and performed a 'best evidence' synthesis based on methodological quality., Main Results: No randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical trials (CCTs) were identified., Authors' Conclusions: No RCTs or CCTs were available for synthesis of 'best evidence' for multidisciplinary rehabilitation after treatment for brain tumour patients. However, this does not suggest the ineffectiveness of multidisciplinary rehabilitation but rather highlights the challenges in trial design and rigour, outcome measurement and complexities of care in this population. For completeness of literature, 12 observational studies (with high risk of bias) involving patients with brain tumours were included. These studies provided 'very low level' evidence suggesting that multidisciplinary rehabilitation (inpatient, home-based) may improve functional outcomes, and ambulatory programmes (outpatient and home-based) may improve vocation and quality of life. These conclusions are tentative at best, given gaps in current research in this area. Further research is needed into appropriate and robust study designs, outcome measurement, caregiver needs, evaluation of optimal settings, type, intensity, duration of therapy, and cost-effectiveness of multidisciplinary rehabilitation in the brain tumour population.