Synopsis Spinal tumors are classically grouped into three categories, extradural tumors, intradural extramedullary tumors and intradural intramedullary tumors. Spinal tumors may cause spinal cord compression and vascular compromise resulting in pain or neurological compromise. They may also alter the architecture of the spinal column, resulting in spinal instability. Oncologic management of spinal tumors varies according to the stability of the spine, neurological status and presence of pain. Treatment options include surgical intervention, radiation therapy, chemotherapy and hormonal manipulation. When combined with this management, rehabilitation can serve to relieve symptoms, improve quality of life, enhance functional independence, and prevent further complications in patients with malignant spinal cord compression

Spinal tumors pose significant treatment challenges for the physicians treating them. Understanding the location of the tumor within the intramedullary, intradural extramedullary, or extradural (epidural) space is not only critical in determining a differential diagnosis but may also provide important information about current and future neurologic deficits. Despite significant advances in the treatment of spinal tumors over the past few decades, these patients may still experience significant symptoms related to the tumor or its treatment, such as pain, weakness, impaired sensation, and bowel and bladder dysfunction. Treatment of spinal tumors should involve a multidisciplinary team of neuro-oncologists, spine surgeons, medical and radiation oncologists, physiatrists, and pain specialists to provide comprehensive oncologic management, while optimizing the patient’s functional status and quality of life.

No abstract

Background Cancer rehabilitation is an integral part of the continuum of care for survivors. Due to the increasing number of survivors, physiatrists commonly see cancer patients in their general practices. Essential to guiding the field is to understand the current training and practice patterns of cancer rehabilitation physicians. Objectives To assess current trends in training and practice for cancer rehabilitation physicians, including the level of burnout among providers in this field. Design Cross‐sectional descriptive survey study. Setting Online survey. Participants American physicians who are affiliated with the Cancer Rehabilitation Physician Consortium (CRPC) of the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (AAPM&R). The CRPC is a group of cancer rehabilitation providers (both fellowship‐trained and not fellowship‐trained) with the mission of furthering cancer rehabilitation medicine through education, research, and networking. Methods All CRPC physicians were invited to complete a voluntary and anonymous 43‐question online survey. The survey was conceived by a group of eight experts interested in providing additional information to the current literature regarding the training and practice in the cancer rehabilitation field. Main Outcome Measurements Training, practice, opioid prescribing, and professional support. Results Thirty‐seven of 50 physicians participated (response rate = 74%). Respondents were from various states, the three most common being New York (16%, n = 6), Texas (16%, n = 6), and Massachusetts (11%, n = 4). About 57% (n = 21) of the respondents were employed in an academic medical center and 73% (n = 27) reported their primary departmental affiliation was Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (PM&R). Approximately 78% (n = 29) credited mentorship early in training for their interest in the field. More than half (54%, n = 20) either strongly agreed or agreed that cancer rehabilitation fellowship training is necessary for graduating physiatrists who plan to treat oncology patients/survivors. National PM&R meetings were the primary source of continuing education for 86% (n = 31). Sixty‐five percent (n = 24), strongly agreed or agreed that cancer rehabilitation physiatrists should know how to prescribe opioids, and 35% (n = 13) reported prescribing them when appropriate. About 54% (n = 20) rated their level of burnout as low or very low, and more than half (51%, n = 19) believed their burnout level was lower than physiatrists treating other rehabilitation populations. Conclusions Cancer rehabilitation is a growing subspecialty in PM&R, and most physiatrists in general practice will treat many survivors—often for neurologic or musculoskeletal impairments related to cancer or its treatment. Cancer rehabilitation physicians perceive that they have relatively low levels of burnout, and early mentorship and fellowship training is beneficial. Professional conferences and mentorship are a primary source for continuing education. Level of Evidence IV.