Advertisement

Journal of Neuro-Oncology

, Volume 19, Issue 1, pp 37–49 | Cite as

Recording neurological impairment in clinical trials of glioma

  • Robert Grant
  • James Slattery
  • Anna Gregor
  • Ian R. Whittle
Clinical Study

Summary

The criteria for clinical response to treatment in cerebral glioma remain poorly defined, but could be made more objective if simple measures of neurological impairments were included in the definitions. We assessed the utility of simple fast previously validated tests of limb impairment (Timed nine hole peg test and 10 meter walk), memory (Williams delayed recall test) and language (Boston Aphasia Severity Rating Scale) in fifty patients with primary brain tumours to see if they could act as a surrogate for neurological impairment. The tests were compared with established measures of physical disability (Barthel Disability Index [BDI]) and handicap.

Timed tests of hand function and gait were sensitive to minor impairments and were abnormal in patients with physical disability on BDI. Timed tests correlated well with handicap (rank correlation 0.734). Short term memory was impaired more commonly with tumours involving the left hemisphere (p < 0.01). Dysphasia limited testing of memory in 8%. Depression was associated with problems in limb function (p < 0.01), memory (p < 0.001), language (p < 0.001), BDI (p < 0.001) and handicap (p < 0.001). The number of abnormal fast tests also correlated with the severity of handicap (rank correlation 0.786) indicating that memory impairment and aphasia contribute to handicap and should be assessed. Median time to complete all assessments was 7 minutes 20 seconds.

Utilization of these simple tests will add sensitivity and objectivity to evaluation of neurological response in clinical trials and can be performed quickly by non medical staff.

Key words

glioma trials impairment disability handicap measurement 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    World Health Organisation. The International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities and Handicaps. World Health Organisation 1980; GenevaGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mckeran RO, Thomas DGT: The clinical study of gliomas. In: Thomas DGT, Graham DI (eds) Brain Tumours: Scientific Basis, Clinical Investigation and Current Therapy 1980: 194–230Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bigger T, Szirony K, Rogers L, Magdinec M, Bauer L: Evaluation of Performance Status Measures in Brain Tumor Patients. Neurology 1991; 41 (Suppl 1): p 412Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Vecht CJ, Hovestadt A, Verbeist HBC, van Putten WLJ: Quality of life scales and neurological dysfunction in brain tumor patients. Neurology 1991; 41 (Suppl 1): p 382Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Amato MP, Groppi C, Siracuss GF, Fratiglioni L: Inter and intra-observer reliability in the employment of Kurtzke scoring system in multiple sclerosis. Ital J Neurol Sci 1987; 2 (Suppl 6): 129–131Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Amato MP, Fratiglioni L, Groppi C, Siracuss G, Amaducci L: Inter-rater reliability in assessing functional systems and disability on the Kurtzke scale in multiple sclerosis. Arch Neurol 1988; 45: 746–748Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Willoughby EW, Paty DW: Scales for rating impairment in multiple sclerosis: a critique. Neurology 1988; 38: 1793–1798Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kurtzke JF: Rating neurological impairment in multiple sclerosis: an expanded disability status scale (EDSS). Neurology 1983;33: 1444–1452Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Goldstein LB, Bertels C, Davis JN: Inter-rater reliability of the NIH Stroke Scale. Arch Neurol 1989; 46: 660–662Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zubrod CG, Schneiderman M, Frei Ret al.: Appraisal of methods of study of chemotherapy in cancer in man: Comparative therapeutic trial of nitrogen mustard and triethylene triophosphoramide. J Chronic Dis 1960; 11: 7–33Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Karnofsky D, Burchenal JH: Clinical evaluation of chemotherapeutic agents in cancer. In: Macleod CM (ed) Evaluation of Chemotherapy Agents, 1989. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mahoney FI, Barthel DW: Functional Evaluation: The Barthel Index. Rehabilitation 1965; 14: 61–65Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Walker MD, Green SB, Byar DPet al.: Randomized comparisons of radiotherapy and nitrosoureas for the treatment of malignant glioma after surgery. N Engl J Med 1980; 303: 1323–1329Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cohadon F, Aouad N, Rougier A, Vital C, Rivel J, Dartigues JF: Histologic and non-histologic factors correlated with survival time in supratentorial astrocytic tumors. J Neurooncol 1985; 3: 105–111Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    MacKenzie CR, Charleson ME: Standards for the use of ordinal scales in clinical trials. Brit Med J 1989; 292: 40–43Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Green SB, Byar DP, Walker MDet al.: Comparisons of carmustine, procarbazine and high dose methylprednisolone as additions to surgery and radiotherapy for the treatment of malignant glioma. Cancer Treat Rep 1983; 67: 1–12Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shapiro WR, Green SB, Burger PCet al: Randomized trial of three chemotherapy regimes and two radiotherapy regimes in postoperative treatment of malignant glioma. Brain Tumor Co-operative Group Trial 8001. J Neurosurg 1989; 71: 1–9Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gregor A, Rampling R, Aapro Met al.: Phase 11 Study of Tauromustine in Malignant Glioma. Eur J Cancer 1992; 28 (12): 1959–1962Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Imperato JP, Paleologos NA, Vick NA: Effects of treatment on long term survivors with malignant astrocytomas. Ann Neurol 1990; 28(6): 818–822Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Macdonald DR, Cascino TL, Schold SC Jr, Cairncross JG: Response criteria for phase II studies of supratentorial malignant glioma. J Clin Onc 1990; 8(7): 1277–1280Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rubenstein LV, Calkins DR, Young RTet al.: Improving patient function: a randomized trial of functional disability screening. Ann Intern Med 1989; 111: 836–842Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    McGinnis GE, Seward BA, DeJong G, Osberg JS: Program Evaluation of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Departments Using Self-Report Barthel. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1986; 67: 123–125Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zigmond AS, Snaith RP: The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1983; 67: 361–370Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rankin J: Cerebral vascular accidents in patients over the age of 60: II Prognosis. Scot Med J 1957; 2: 200–215Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bamford JM, Sandercock PAG, Warlow CP, Slattery J: Inter-observer agreement for the assessment of handicap in stroke patients. Stroke 1989; 20: 208Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wade DT: Measurement in Neurological Rehabilitation. Oxford Medical Publications, Oxford University Press. 1992; Chap 15Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Williams M: The measurement of memory in clinical practice. Brit J Clin Psychol 1968; 7: 19–34Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination Booklet: Les and Febiger, 600 South Washington Square, Philadelphia, Pa. 19106, USA. In: Mahoney FI, Barthel DW. Functional Evaluation: The Barthel Index. Rehabilitation 1965; 14: 61–65Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hutchinson TA, Boyd NF, Feinstein AR: Scientific problems in clinical scales as demonstrated by the Karnofsky index of performance status. J Chronic Dis 1979; 32: 661–666Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Yates JW, Chalmers B, McKegney P: Evaluation of patients with advanced cancer using the Karnofsky Performance Scale. Cancer 1980; 45: 2220–2224Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Heller A, Wade DT, Wood VA, Sunderland A, Langten Hewer R, Ward E: Arm function after stroke: measurement and recovery after the first three months. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiat 1987; 50: 714–719Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Parker VM, Wade DT, Langton Hewer R: Loss of arm function after stroke: measurement, frequency and recovery. Int Rehabil Med 1986; 8: 69–73Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sunderland A, Tinson D, Bradley L, Langton Hewer R: Arm function after stroke: An evaluation of grip strength as a measure of recovery and a prognostic indicator. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiat 1989; 52(11): 1267–1272Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kellor M, Frost J, Silberberg N, Iversen I, Cummings R: Hand strength and dexterity. Am J Occ Ther 1971; 25: 77–83Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Mathiowetz V, Weber K, Kashman N, Volland G: Adult norms for the nine hole peg test of finger dexterity. Occ Ther J Res 1985; 5: 24–38Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wade DT, Langton Hewer R: Functional abilities after stroke: measurement, natural history and prognosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiat 1987; 50: 177–182Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Bendall MJ, Bassey EJ, Pearson MB: Factors affecting walking speed in the elderly. Age and Ageing 1989; 18: 327–332Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR: ‘Mini-Mental State’: a practical method of grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res 1975; 12: 189–198Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kokmen E, Smith GE, Petersen RC, Tangalos E, Ivnik RC: The Short Test of Mental Status: Correlations with standardized psychometric testing. 1991; 48: 725–728Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Jacobs JW, Bernhard MR, Delgado A, Strain JJ: Screening for organic mental syndromes in the medically ill. Ann Intern Med 1977; 86: 40–46Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kiernan RJ, Mueller J, Langston JW, Van Dyke C: The Neurobehavioural Cognitive Status Examination: A brief but differentiated approach to cognitive assessment. Ann Intern Med 1987; 107: 481–485Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Schwamm LH, Van Dyke C, Kiernan RJ, Merrin EL, Mueller J: The Neurobehavioural Cognitive Status Examination: Comparison with the Cognitive Capacity Screening Examination and the Mini-Mental State Examination in a neurosurgical population. Ann Intern Med 1987; 107: 486–491Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Nelson A, Fogel BS, Faust D: Bedside cognitive screening instruments. J Nerve Ment Dis 1986; 174: 73–83Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Feher EP, Mahurin RK, Doody RS, Cooke S, Sims J, Pirozzolo FJ: Establishing the limits of the Mini-Mental State: Examination of ‘subtests’. Arch Neurol 1992; 49: 87–92Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert Grant
    • 1
  • James Slattery
    • 1
  • Anna Gregor
    • 2
  • Ian R. Whittle
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Clinical NeurosciencesWestern General HospitalEdinburghScotland, UK
  2. 2.Department of Clinical OncologyWestern General HospitalEdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations