Oncologists' and Physiatrists' Attitudes Regarding Rehabilitation for Patients With Advanced Cancer

Palliative Rehabilitation in Patients with Cancer: Definitions, Structures, Processes and Outcomes

PURPOSEOF REVIEW

This review examines the literature on palliative rehabilitation for patients with advanced cancer, focusing on definitions, structures, processes, and outcomes.

RECENT FINDINGS

Palliative cancer rehabilitation targets comfort and functional improvement for patients with limited rehabilitation potential across various settings. The palliative cancer rehabilitation team, typically led by a physician, coordinates symptom management and referrals to rehabilitation and other allied healthcare professionals as needed. The outcomes of palliative cancer rehabilitation varied widely by goals, settings, and interventions. Studies in hospice settings generally reported improved symptom control; inpatient rehabilitation had mixed functional outcomes; and outpatient palliative rehabilitation may contribute to enhanced functional and symptom outcomes, especially among patients with higher baseline function. Palliative cancer rehabilitation emphasizes a collaborative approach that integrates palliative care with rehabilitation interventions, aiming to enhance quality of life and address diverse patient needs. Further research and standardization are necessary to realize its full potential.

Importance of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation in a Patient With Bilateral Lumbosacral Plexopathy Following the Course of Ladiratuzumab Vedotin for Breast Cancer: A Case Report

A 74-year-old female with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer was admitted to the acute care hospital after several ground-level falls and a two-week history of bilateral lower extremity weakness with foot drop, numbness, and tingling. She was on ladiratuzumab vedotin (SGN-LIV1A) and pembrolizumab for four months prior to cancer treatment. Lumbar and sacral imaging studies did not identify neoplastic invasion into the bone or lumbosacral plexus. Electrodiagnostic findings suggested bilateral lumbosacral plexopathy (L3-S1). In the setting of rapid functional decline, medications were reviewed, and SGN-LIV1A was held. On initial evaluation, she required significant assistance with ambulation, transfers, and activities of daily living (ADLs). She remained off SGN-LIV1A and was discharged to acute inpatient rehabilitation. One month following discharge from acute inpatient rehabilitation, she exhibited improvements in right lower extremity strength and foot drop and progressed to modified-independent with ADLs, ambulating with a walker. In a discussion between cancer rehabilitation and oncology with consideration of the timing of presentation, distribution of symptoms, nerve conduction study and electromyography (NCS/EMG) findings, and improvement after SGN-LIV1A discontinuation, the patient was diagnosed with lumbosacral plexopathy from SGN-LIV1A administration. This is the only reported case of lumbosacral plexopathy secondary to SGN-LIV1A and addresses the importance of early consultation with cancer rehabilitation to address sequelae stemming from cancer therapy.

Implementation of a Cancer Rehabilitation Navigation Program: a qualitative analysis of implementation determinants and strategies

BACKGROUND

Cancer rehabilitation navigation (CRNav) is a care delivery model that expedites identification and management of symptom-related functional morbidity for individuals undergoing cancer treatment. A CRNav program is unique in that it embeds a cancer rehabilitation professional in the cancer center for patient screening and assessment. The implementation of CRNav programs has not been studied and doing so could facilitate greater uptake of these programs.

METHODS

Using implementation science frameworks, we conducted a qualitative, post-implementation analysis of a CRNav program that was implemented in 2019. Semi-structured, 1:1 interviews were guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and a combination of deductive and inductive analyses, using a priori established codes, was used to assess the implementation context, and identify emergent themes of barriers and facilitators to implementation. Participant described implementation strategies were characterized and defined using the Expert Consensus Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) taxonomy.

RESULTS

Eleven stakeholders including physicians, administrators, clinical staff, and patients, involved with program development and the implementation effort, participated in interviews. Predominant barriers to implementation included developing the program infrastructure, and lack of awareness of rehabilitation services among oncology professionals, predominant facilitators of implementation included; physical co-location of the navigator in the cancer center, individual characteristics of the navigator, and unique characteristics of the program. Strategies described that supported implementation included developing stakeholder interrelationships, evaluating and iteratively adapting the program, creating infrastructure, training and education, and supporting clinicians.

CONCLUSION

This analysis uses implementation science to methodically analyze and characterize factors that may contribute to successful implementation of a CRNav program. These findings could be used alongside a prospective context-specific analysis to tailor future implementation efforts.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Implementing a CRNav program expedites a patient's direct contact with a rehabilitation provider complementing the cancer care delivery team, and providing an additive and often missing service.

Post-acute Care Needs and Benefits of Inpatient Rehabilitation Care for the Oncology Patient

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This study aims to assess recent literature published on the post-acute care needs of cancer patients, specifically focusing on the acute inpatient rehabilitation setting.

RECENT FINDINGS

The neurologic cancer population appears to be the most studied oncologic population in acute inpatient rehabilitation studies within the past 5 years. This finding is consistent with prior findings from the past several decades. Recent trends in inpatient cancer rehabilitation note a population with lower admission functional status and shorter lengths of stay compared to prior studies. Despite these findings, the percentage discharged to the community remains high. With new treatments yielding improved survival, cancer patients may live longer and risk accumulating more functional impairments. Physicians involved in their care must understand post-acute care needs and work in a multidisciplinary group to best determine post-acute disposition. This decision remains very individualized and should consider both oncologic and functional needs.

Palliative Rehabilitation in Acute Inpatient Rehabilitation: Prognostic Factors and Functional Outcomes in Patients with Cancer

BACKGROUND

Prognosis has a vital role for patients with cancer undergoing palliative rehabilitation in acute inpatient rehabilitation. This study aimed to identify the proportion of patients who survived <2 months after discharge and the associated prognostic factors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a secondary analysis of a retrospective study of 163 consecutive patients admitted to acute inpatient rehabilitation from September 1, 2017, to February 28, 2018 at a cancer center. Baseline demographics, clinical characteristics, and putative prognostic factors, including Activity Measure for Post-Acute Care (AM-PAC) functional scores, were analyzed.

RESULTS

Of 163 patients, 27 (17%; 95% CI, 11-23) died within 60 days of discharge. These patients were more likely to be male (OR = 2.83; 95% CI, 1.16-6.92; P = .017); have longer hospital stays (OR = 1.02; 95% CI, 1-1.04; P = .015); receive ≥ weekly packed red blood cell (OR = 5.31; 95% CI, 1.86-15.1; P = .003) or platelet (OR = 4.57; 95% CI, 1.44-14.5; P = .014) transfusions; have lower AM-PAC daily activity scores upon discharge (OR = 0.90; 95% CI, 0.83-0.97; P = .006); and have lower AM-PAC basic mobility scores upon admission (OR = 0.91; 95% CI, 0.85-0.98; P = .018) and discharge (OR = 0.88; 95% CI, 0.82-0.94; P = <.001). Multivariate analysis showed that the male sex (OR = 2.71; 95% CI, 1.03-7.15; P = .037) was independently associated with ≤2 months survival, whereas AM-PAC basic mobility score at admission of >33 (OR = 0.24, 95% CI, 0.07-0.79; P = .022) was less likely.

CONCLUSION

Approximately 1 in 6 patients who completed acute inpatient rehabilitation died within 2 months of discharge, had poorer baseline functional status, and were less likely to regain function than those who lived longer.

Physiatrists’ Attitudes and Knowledge About Cancer Rehabilitation

Objective

We aim to assess the awareness and evaluation pattern among physiatrists regarding cancer rehabilitation and associated barriers to access.

Design

The present study is a cross-sectional study in the Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (PMR) Association Annual Meeting in Puerto Rico that used a 10-item questionnaire to summarize physiatrists’ clinical patterns with their persons diagnosed with cancer (PDWCs).

Results

Thirty-eight (66.7%) participants answered they received minimal to no education about cancer rehabilitation benefits. Cancer patients represented 10% or less of the weekly patient load for 47 (82.5%) physiatrists surveyed. The most common type of cancer encountered was breast cancer for the management of adverse effects. Twenty-nine (50.9%) physiatrists answered that a multifactorial barrier was the cause for limited services within this population group. All participants agreed that rehabilitation is at least sometimes beneficial for cancer patients, and 54 (94.7%) believed these services are needed.

Conclusion

Although rehabilitation specialists learn about the benefits of rehabilitation for PDWCs, there continues to be a limited number of PDWCs evaluated, mainly due to poor access, lack of information about cancer rehabilitation, and economic difficulties. Further efforts should be made to emphasize the importance of integrating rehabilitation techniques in the care of PDWCs.

Inpatient rehabilitation therapy among colorectal cancer patients - utilization and association with prognosis: a cohort study

BACKGROUND

Inpatient rehabilitation therapy (IRT) is commonly offered to cancer patients during or after cancer treatment in Germany. However, little is known about utilization and long-term effects of this offer in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients. We aimed to assess IRT utilization, determinants of utilization and the association between IRT and survival in CRC patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

CRC patients diagnosed in 2005-2014 recruited in the population-based DACHS study in South West Germany were included. Determinants of IRT utilization were assessed by multivariable logistic regression. Hazard ratios (HRs) of the association of IRT with overall and disease-specific survival were estimated by adjusted Cox proportional hazards models. Modified landmark approach was applied to avoid immortal time biased results.

RESULTS

Among the included CRC patients (n = 3704), 43.6% underwent IRT. Patients who did not live in a relationship with a partner, worked as employee and who reported higher levels of physical activity were more likely to undergo IRT. Patients were less likely to undergo IRT if they had private health insurance, were diagnosed with cancer stage IV, received no or laparoscopic cancer surgery or were treated in a hospital with medium vs. high surgical volume. The median follow-up time was 4.4 years (post-landmark). Utilization of IRT was associated with better overall (HR 0.81, 95% confidence interval 0.72-0.92) and disease-specific survival (HR 0.72, 95% confidence interval 0.61-0.85).

CONCLUSION

Almost every other CRC patient underwent IRT. Next to clinical characteristics, identified social and lifestyle characteristics seemed to play an essential role in the decision-making. Use of IRT was associated with better overall and disease-specific survival.

Cancer Rehabilitation Providers and Oncology Patient Expectations for Functional Outcomes after Inpatient Rehabilitation

BACKGROUND

Cancer rehabilitation is a valued resource for patients and oncologists. Cancer rehabilitation providers are seeing increasing numbers of referrals for inpatient rehabilitation as the number of cancer survivors grows. However, cancer rehabilitation providers, oncologists, therapists, patients, and caregivers may not always clearly communicate the goals of care, which can lead to different expectations for inpatient rehabilitation.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the difference in expectations of function after an acute inpatient rehabilitation stay between cancer patients and cancer rehabilitation providers and how they align with achieved goals after treatment.

DESIGN

Prospective survey study.

SETTING

Quaternary academic medical center inpatient rehabilitation unit.

PARTICIPANTS

Out of 194 eligible patients, 132 were enrolled and completed admission surveys, and 110 completed the discharge survey. Twelve cancer rehabilitation providers completed the surveys.

INTERVENTIONS

Not applicable.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Barthel Index.

RESULTS

Patients estimated their expected functional status as a median (interquartile range) score of 19 points (18, 20) using the Barthel Index, compared to cancer rehabilitation providers, who estimated a median score of 17 points (15, 19) (P < .001). Actual functional status upon discharge was a median score of 16 points (13, 18) using the Barthel Index, which was three points lower than expected by patients (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Oncology patients and cancer rehabilitation providers significantly overestimate functional goals for acute inpatient rehabilitation. This overestimation was clinically significant for oncology patients and statistically but not clinically significant for cancer rehabilitation providers. Increased communication may allow for a more realistic expectation of functional status upon discharge.

Older patients with active cancer have favorable inpatient rehabilitation outcomes

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the characteristics and rehabilitation outcomes of older patients with active cancer (OPAC) undergoing post-acute inpatient rehabilitation (IR), and to evaluate which clinical factors are associated with poor rehabilitation outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a retrospective study of patients aged ≥65 with active cancer undergoing IR following acute hospitalization at our tertiary hospital centre (N = 330). We collected data on patient, malignancy, and hospitalization characteristics, and IR outcomes including function, mobility, discharge destination, and mortality. Multivariate stepwise logistic regression was used to identify independent associations with the composite outcome of death within three months or discharge to long-term care (LTC).

RESULTS

Patient mean age was 80.1 ± 7.2 years. The most common malignancies were colon (30.9%) and hematologic (16.1%). Most patients were hospitalized urgently (64.8%) and underwent surgery (72.4%). From IR admission to discharge, patients ambulating independently increased from 14.0% to 52.0%. Discharge destination was to the community (80.4%), to LTC (7.6%), and transfer to an acute ward (7.2%), while 4.8% died during IR. One-year survival was 62.1%. The composite outcome was met by 24.8% of patients with multivariate logistic regression revealing independent associations (p < 0.05) with high baseline dependency, metastatic disease, low mobility score on IR admission, complications during acute care, and ≥ 75th percentile values for lactate dehydrogenase and alkaline phosphatase.

CONCLUSION

OPAC have favorable IR outcomes including high rate of community discharge, function and mobility gains, and lower mortality rates when compared with previously studied cancer rehabilitation populations. We identified several clinical markers associated with the composite outcome, which can guide post-acute discharge planning in patients with an unclear prognosis.

Oncologists' Attitude and Knowledge about Cancer Rehabilitation

INTRODUCTION

Cancer survivors may experience multiple comorbidities related to the disease itself and adverse effects from treatment. Rehabilitation specialists could provide treatment options; however, oncologic rehabilitation services are underutilized.

OBJECTIVE

To assess oncologists' awareness of the benefits of rehabilitation for cancer care patients and to identify barriers to rehabilitation referrals in adult cancer patients in Puerto Rico.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING

Regional Annual Meeting of the Association of Medical Hematology and Oncology of Puerto Rico, 4-7 September 2015.

PARTICIPANTS

Forty-two oncologists.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants completed a 10-item questionnaire focused on demographics, knowledge, and clinical practices over the previous 12 months related to rehabilitation in cancer patients.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Frequency, reasons, and timing for oncologist referral of cancer patients to rehabilitation. Perceived risks and benefits of rehabilitation in cancer patients and their correlation to patient referrals, prognosis, type of cancer, and type of symptoms.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven oncologists (88.1%) received minimal or no education about cancer rehabilitation, its benefits, and indications. This resulted in 31 oncologists (73.8%) referring less than 15% of their patients for rehabilitation, with almost a third of participants referring less than 5%. However, 39 (92.9%) agreed that rehabilitation is always or frequently beneficial for their patients. Fifteen (35.7%) said they did not refer patients if prognosis was less than 6 months, and 16 (38.0%) avoided referring patients with life expectancy of less than 3 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Although medical oncologists have some knowledge that rehabilitation is beneficial for their patients, there is a low referral rate. This could be due to lack of information about cancer rehabilitation and limited access to cancer rehabilitation specialists. Further efforts should be made to improve access to rehabilitation care for cancer patients and survivors.

Cancer Rehabilitation and Palliative Care-Exploring the Synergies

With perpetual research, management refinement, and increasing survivorship, cancer care is steadily evolving into a chronic disease model. Rehabilitation physicians are quite accustomed to managing chronic conditions, yet, cancer rehabilitation remains unexplored. Palliative care physicians, along with rehabilitationists, are true generalists, who focus on the whole patient and their social context, in addition to the diseased organ system. This, together with palliative care's expertise in managing the panoply of troubling symptoms that beset patients with malignancy, makes them natural allies in the comprehensive management of this patient group from the moment of diagnosis. This article will explore the under-recognized and underused parallels and synergies between the two specialties as well as identifying potential challenges and areas for future growth.

Practice Patterns of Physicians Using Adjunct Therapies with Botulinum Toxin Injection for Spasticity: A Canadian Multicenter Cross-Sectional Survey

BACKGROUND

Adjunct therapies are nonpharmacological treatments used with botulinum toxin (BoNT) injection that may improve spasticity outcomes. It has been suggested that physicians consider adjunct therapies as a part of comprehensive spasticity management. It is unclear which adjunct therapies are used by physicians in clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE

To determine physician practice patterns and perceptions of use of adjunct therapies following BoNT injection for limb spasticity.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional national survey of current clinical practice using a 22-item questionnaire developed by the authors.

SETTING

Not applicable.

PARTICIPANTS

Survey respondents were physicians actively administering BoNT injections for limb spasticity management across Canada (N = 48).

INTERVENTIONS

Not applicable.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Types of adjunct therapies used by physicians; physician opinions on barriers to adjunct therapy use, patient preferences, and future research priorities.

RESULTS

Most physicians prescribe home stretching programs, home active exercise programs, and splinting; however, many physicians perceive that these same adjunct therapies are unwanted by patients. A minority of physicians prescribe electrical stimulation (ES), transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), casting, and extracorporeal shockwave therapy; financial limitations and perceived lack of evidence were identified as barriers to their use. Significantly more physicians practicing in academic settings compared with nonacademic, community, and private practice settings used functional ES (59% vs 11%) and TENS (41% vs 0%) as adjunct therapies (P < .05). Research priorities included determining the effectiveness of immediate postinjection application of adjunct therapies (eg, injected muscle activation with ES or stretching) and nutraceuticals.

CONCLUSIONS

Canadian physicians frequently use adjunct therapies in combination with BoNT injection to treat spasticity. Financial and time constraints are identified as barriers to implementation of adjunct therapies that are currently supported by research, and patient preferences may also affect compliance. Future research should focus on adjunct therapies that overcome these barriers.

A Case Report on the Communication between Oncologists and Physiatrists in the Establishment of Functional Prognosis while Undergoing Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-cell Therapy

Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy can have severe toxicities, which include CAR-T-cell-related encephalopathy syndrome (CRES). The patient may present with altered mental status, encephalopathy, seizures, and cerebral edema. Depending on the severity, the recovery process will require rehabilitation.

We present a case and explain how communication between cancer physiatrists, oncologists, and patients can affect the expectations for functional recovery, and the importance of setting goals for recovery in a medically complex population.

We present a patient who underwent aggressive chimeric antigen receptor T cell therapy, causing encephalopathy and complications. He initially required total assistance for mobility and activities of daily living. Physiatry was consulted to assist with the rehabilitation plan of care and disposition. Initially, the oncologist conveyed to the patient he would be walking in two weeks, which was unrealistically optimistic. The patient's physiatrist intervened and discussed these expectations with him, alleviating his emotional distress. His condition improved with inpatient rehabilitation, and he was able to ambulate short distances with modified independence in four weeks.

The involvement of a cancer physiatrist allows for recognition and treatment of complications related to cancer and aggressive therapies, along with an accurate functional prognosis assessment. With improved communication and patient involvement, the patient underwent a successful rehabilitation.

The Who, What, Why, When, Where, and How of Team-Based Interdisciplinary Cancer Rehabilitation

OBJECTIVE

To review the key components necessary for successful application of rehabilitation principles to oncology survivors.

DATA SOURCES

Validated databases, including PubMed, MEDLINE, and Scopus.

CONCLUSION

Rehabilitation is an essential component of cancer care that addresses functional needs for oncology survivors and is best accomplished via an interdisciplinary team. Interdisciplinary care, provided by nursing, physiatry, rehabilitation therapy, and exercise physiology, are critical components for comprehensive intervention. Challenges exist in implementing services, but opportunity also exists within the post-acute care sector.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

Nurses play an important role in the screening, assessment, and treatment of cancer-related functional impairments.

What are the attitudes and beliefs of oncologists regarding potential cancer rehabilitation in a tertiary cancer center?

Cancer Rehabilitation (CR) is an emerging field in Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation. Current literature highlights the effectiveness of cancer rehabilitation in improving functional outcomes, shorter length of hospital stay, and improved quality of life. Despite this, there are very few formalized CR programs across all of North America. We conducted a survey at a tertiary cancer center without a formalized CR program to assess the perceived need of such a program and its potential development. This survey of medical, surgical, radiation and pediatric oncologists demonstrated that 92.3% of 39 respondents felt CR was somewhat to very important, particularly for their patients' issues of fatigue, deconditioning, pain management and disposition planning. These findings highlight the value seen by oncologists in the need for further cancer rehabilitation access and formalized program development in order to meet patient needs for improving functional deficits, activities of daily living and quality of life.

Bridging gaps in everyday life - a free-listing approach to explore the variety of activities performed by physiotherapists in specialized palliative care

BACKGROUND

A growing body of studies indicate benefits of physiotherapy for patients in palliative care, for symptom relief and wellbeing. Though physiotherapists are increasingly acknowledged as important members of palliative care teams, they are still an underutilized source and not fully recognized. The aim of this study was to explore the variety of activities described by physiotherapists in addressing the needs and problems of patients and their families in specialized palliative care settings.

METHODS

Using a free-listing approach, ten physiotherapists working in eight specialized palliative care settings in Sweden described as precisely and in as much detail as possible different activities in which patients and their families were included (directly or indirectly) during 10 days. The statements were entered into NVivo and analysed using qualitative content analysis. Statements containing more than one activity were categorized per activity.

RESULTS

In total, 264 statements, containing 504 varied activities, were coded into seven categories: Counteracting a declining physical function; Informing, guiding and educating; Observing, assessing and evaluating; Attending to signs and symptoms; Listening, talking with and understanding; Caring for basic needs; and Organizing, planning and coordinating. In practice, however, the activities were intrinsically interwoven. The activities showed how physiotherapists aimed, through care for the body, to address patients' physical, psychological, social and existential needs, counteracting the decline in a patient's physical function and wellbeing. The activities also revealed a great variation, in relation not only to what they did, but also to their holistic and inseparable nature with regard to why, how, when, where, with whom and for whom the activities were carried out, which points towards a well-adopted person-centred palliative care approach.

CONCLUSIONS

The study provides hands-on descriptions of how person-centred palliative care is integrated in physiotherapists' everyday activities. Physiotherapists in specialized palliative care help patients and families to bridge the gap between their real and ideal everyday life with the aim to maximize security, autonomy and wellbeing. The concrete examples included can be used in understanding the contribution of physiotherapists to the palliative care team and inform future research interventions and outcomes.

The Intersection of Oncology Prognosis and Cancer Rehabilitation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review examines the delivery of rehabilitation care to cancer patients with relation to disease prognosis. This includes the evaluation when patients are referred for rehabilitation services and the effectiveness of rehabilitation interventions across the cancer continuum.

RECENT FINDINGS

Although prognosticating life expectancy is difficult, referrals for rehabilitation interventions appear to be affected by physician attitudes towards patients with advanced disease, in part because of misconceptions about the nature of rehabilitation for oncology patients. Rehabilitation may also be underutilized in long-term survivors with no evidence of disease. Despite this, our review found that rehabilitation in advanced disease, end-of-life, geriatric cancer patients, and in long-term survivors can be beneficial. There is a relative dearth in studies on rehabilitation interventions specifically at the end-of-life.

SUMMARY

Cancer rehabilitation can be helpful to patients along the spectrum of cancer prognoses. Examining more accurate ways to prognosticate life expectancy, improving communication and education between oncologists and rehabilitation team members, and modifying survivorship plans to include patient education on functional changes over time may improve the delivery of rehabilitation care.

Impairment-driven cancer rehabilitation: an essential component of quality care and survivorship

Adult cancer survivors suffer an extremely diverse and complex set of impairments, affecting virtually every organ system. Both physical and psychological impairments may contribute to a decreased health-related quality of life and should be identified throughout the care continuum. Recent evidence suggests that more cancer survivors have a reduced health-related quality of life as a result of physical impairments than due to psychological ones. Research has also demonstrated that the majority of cancer survivors will have significant impairments and that these often go undetected and/or untreated, and consequently may result in disability. Furthermore, physical disability is a leading cause of distress in this population. The scientific literature has shown that rehabilitation improves pain, function, and quality of life in cancer survivors. In fact, rehabilitation efforts can ameliorate physical (including cognitive) impairments at every stage along the course of treatment. This includes prehabilitation before cancer treatment commences and multimodal interdisciplinary rehabilitation during and after acute cancer treatment. Rehabilitation appears to be cost-effective and may reduce both direct and indirect health care costs, thereby reducing the enormous financial burden of cancer. Therefore, it is critical that survivors are screened for both psychological and physical impairments and then referred appropriately to trained rehabilitation health care professionals. This review suggests an impairment-driven cancer rehabilitation model that includes screening and treating impairments all along the care continuum in order to minimize disability and maximize quality of life.