Driving and patients with brain tumours: a postal survey of neurosurgeons, neurologists and radiation oncologists

A systematic review of the impact of brain tumours on risk of motor vehicle crashes

PURPOSE

Brain tumours are associated with neurocognitive impairments that are important for safe driving. Driving is vital to maintaining patient autonomy, despite this there is limited research on driving capacity amongst patients with brain tumours. The purpose of this review is to examine MVC risk in patients with brain tumours to inform development of clearer driving guidelines.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed using Medline and EMBASE. Observational studies were included. The outcome of interest was MVC or measured risk of MVC in patients with benign or malignant brain tumours. Descriptive analysis and synthesis without meta-analysis were used to summarise findings. A narrative review of driving guidelines from Australia, United Kingdom and Canada was completed.

RESULTS

Three studies were included in this review. One cohort study, one cross-sectional study and one case-control study were included (19,135 participants) across United States and Finland. One study evaluated the incidence of MVC in brain tumour patients, revealing no difference in MVC rates. Two studies measured MVC risk using driving simulation and cognitive testing. Patients found at higher risk of MVC had greater degrees of memory and visual attention impairments. However, predictive patient and tumour characteristics of MVC risk were heterogeneous across studies. Overall, driving guidelines had clear recommendations on selected conditions like seizures but were vague surrounding neurocognitive deficits.

CONCLUSION

Limited data exists regarding driving behaviour and MVC incidence in brain tumour patients. Existing guidelines inadequately address neurocognitive complexities in this group. Future studies evaluating real-world data is required to inform development of more applicable driving guidelines.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO 2023 CRD42023434608.

Controlled register‐based study of road traffic accidents in 12,651 Finnish cancer patients during 2013–2019

BACKGROUND

Little controlled evidence exists on road traffic accident (RTA) risk among patients diagnosed with cancer, while clinicians are often requested to comment their ability to drive. The aim of this study was to evaluate RTA risk in a population-based cohort of cancer patients living in Southwest Finland.

PATIENTS

All adult patients diagnosed with cancer in 2013-2019 were included. Acute appendectomy/cholecystectomy and actinic keratosis patients without cancer were selected from the same region as the control cohort. Participants were cross-referenced to a national driving licence database, yielding 12,651 cancer and 6334 control patients with a valid licence. Due to marked differences in their clinical presentation, the cancer cohort was divided into nine cancers of interest (breast, prostate, colorectal, lung, melanoma, head & neck, primary brain tumours, gynaecological and haematological malignancies). The nationwide law-regulated motor liability insurance registry was searched for all RTAs leading to injury with claims paid to not- or at-fault participants. At-fault drivers were verified based on sex and birth year.

RESULTS

During a median follow-up of 34 months, 167 persons were at-fault drivers in RTAs leading to injury. Among the nine cancers of interest, RTA risk did not differ from the control cohort. Among cancer patients, multivariable regression suggested male sex and opioid use, but not advanced cancer stage or given systemic therapy, as the most influential risk factors for RTA.

CONCLUSIONS

Cancer diagnosis itself was not associated with increased RTA risk, but other associated symptoms, medications, comorbidities or specific cancer subgroups may.

Driver safety in patients with primary brain tumors

Background

Operating a motor vehicle involves multiple cognitive and sensorimotor faculties. Neurological conditions pose driving risk, but this has not been examined in patients with primary brain tumors.

Methods

Sixty-four patients with primary brain tumors (32 left hemisphere; 69% glioblastoma) completed the Cognitive Behavioral Driver’s Inventory (CBDI). A subset also completed broader cognitive testing. Patient characteristics, CBDI measures, and broader neuropsychological test scores were compared between Passing and Nonpassing groups. Follow-up logistic regression analyses identified patient characteristics and CBDI measures predictive of Pass/Nonpass outcome. Point-biserial correlations determined associations between neuropsychological tests and CBDI outcome.

Results

Sixty-nine percent of patients were classified as passing the CBDI. Nonpassing patients were older and more likely to have WHO grade IV and temporal lobe tumors. Age was the most salient predictor of CBDI performance. CBDI measures of speeded visual search and set-shifting, speeded response inhibition, vigilance and freedom from distractibility, and basic visual scanning speed were predictive of Pass/Nonpass outcome. Neuropsychological tests of memory in particular, but also speeded visual scanning and discrimination, executive function, basic visual attention, visuoconstruction, and manual dexterity (dominant hand), were associated with CBDI outcome.

Conclusions

A sizeable proportion of patients with primary brain tumors appear at risk of driving difficulty, particularly those with higher-grade tumors and of older age. Memory, visual attention, and executive difficulties appear to contribute most to driving safety risk as determined by the CBDI. These results highlight the importance of driving safety screening in this population.

Driving habits and behaviors of patients with brain tumors: a self-report, cognitive and driving simulation study

The purpose of the study is to determine driving habits and behaviors of patients with brain tumors in order to better inform discussions around driving safety in this population. Eight-four patients with brain tumors participated in a survey on their driving behaviors since their diagnosis. Thirteen of these patients and thirteen sex- and age-matched healthy controls participated in cognitive testing and several driving simulation scenarios in order to objectively assess driving performance. Survey responses demonstrated that patients with brain tumors engage in a variety of driving scenarios with little subjectve difficulty. On the driving simulation tasks, patients and healthy controls performed similarly except that patients had more speed exceedances (U = 41, p < 0.05) and a greater variability in speed (U = 57, p < 0.05). Performance on the selective attention component of the UFOV was significantly associated with greater total errors in the Bus Following task for patients with brain tumors compared to healthy controls (rs = 0.722, p < 0.05, CI [0.080, 0.957]). Better comprehensive driving assessments are needed to identify patients with driving behaviors that put themselves and others at risk on the road.

Assessing fitness to drive in brain tumour patients: a grey matter of law, ethics, and medicine

BACKGROUND

Neurocognitive deficits from brain tumours may impair the ability to safely operate a motor vehicle. Although certain jurisdictions in Canada legally require that physicians report patients who are unfit to drive, criteria for determining fitness are not clearly defined for brain tumours.

METHODS

Patients receiving brain radiotherapy at our institution from January to June 2009 were identified using the Oncology Patient Information System. In addition to descriptive statistics, details of driving assessment were reviewed retrospectively. The Fisher exact test was used to determine factors predictive of reporting a patient to the Ontario Ministry of Transportation (mto) as unfit to drive. A logistic regression model was constructed to further determine factors predictive of reporting.

RESULTS

Of the 158 patients available for analysis, 48 (30%) were reported to the mto, and 64 (41%) were advised to stop driving. With respect to the 53 patients with seizures, a report was submitted to the mto for 30 (57%), and a documented discussion about the implications of driving was held with 35 (66%). On univariate analysis, younger age, a central nervous system primary, higher brain radiotherapy dose, unifocal disease, and the presence of seizures were predictive of physician reporting (p < 0.05). On logistic regression modelling, the presence of seizures (odds ratio: 3.9) and a higher radiotherapy dose (odds ratio: 1.3) remained predictive of reporting.

INTERPRETATION

Physicians frequently do not discuss the implications of driving with brain tumour patients or are not properly documenting such advice (or both). Clear and concise reporting guidelines need to be drafted given the legal, medical, and ethical concerns surrounding this public health issue.

Multidisciplinary assessment of fitness to drive in brain tumour patients in southwestern Ontario: a grey matter

BACKGROUND

Neurocognitive impairments from brain tumours may interfere with the ability to drive safely. In 9 of 13 Canadian provinces and territories, physicians have a legal obligation to report patients who may be medically unfit to drive. To complicate matters, brain tumour patients are managed by a multidisciplinary team; the physician most responsible to make the report of unfitness is often not apparent. The objective of the present study was to determine the attitudes and reporting practices of physicians caring for these patients.

METHODS

A 17-question survey distributed to physicians managing brain tumour patients elicited Respondent demographicsKnowledge about legislative requirementsExperience of reportingBarriers and attitudes to reporting Fisher exact tests were performed to assess differences in responses between family physicians (fps) and specialists.

RESULTS

Of 467 physicians sent surveys, 194 responded (42%), among whom 81 (42%) were specialists and 113 (58%) were fps. Compared with the specialists, the fps were significantly less comfortable with reporting, less likely to consider reporting, less likely to have patients inquire about driving, and less likely to discuss driving implications. A lack of tools, concern for the patient-physician relationship, and a desire to preserve patient quality of life were the most commonly cited barriers in determining medical fitness of patients to drive.

CONCLUSIONS

Legal requirements to report medically unfit drivers put physicians in the difficult position of balancing patient autonomy and public safety. More comprehensive and definitive guidelines would be helpful in assisting physicians with this public health issue.

Fitness to drive in patients with brain tumours: the influence of mandatory reporting legislation on radiation oncologists in Canada

BACKGROUND

Certain jurisdictions in Canada legally require that physicians report unfit drivers. Physician attitudes and patterns of practice have yet to be evaluated in Canada for patients with brain tumours.

METHODS

We conducted a survey of 97 radiation oncologists, eliciting demographics, knowledge of reporting laws, and attitudes on reporting guidelines for unfit drivers. Eight scenarios with varying disability levels were presented to determine the likelihood of a patient being reported as unfit to drive. Statistical comparisons were made using the Fisher exact test.

RESULTS

Of physicians approached, 99% responded, and 97 physicians participated. Most respondents (87%) felt that laws in their province governing the reporting of medically unfit drivers were unclear. Of the responding physicians, 23 (24%) were unable to correctly identify whether their province had mandatory reporting legislation. Physicians from provinces without mandatory reporting legislation were significantly less likely to consider reporting patients to provincial authorities (p = 0.001), and for all clinical scenarios, the likelihood of reporting significantly depended on the physician's provincial legal obligations.

CONCLUSIONS

The presence of provincial legislation is of primary importance in determining whether physicians will report brain tumour patients to drivers' licensing authorities. In Canada, clear guidelines have to be developed to help in the assessment of whether brain tumour patients should drive.