2 results
21 Comparison of the NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery to Established Performance-Based Assessments in a Pediatric Cancer Setting
- Megan C Sy, Kelly M Janke, Zoe Kearns, Mariam Kochashvili
-
- Journal:
- Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society / Volume 29 / Issue s1 / November 2023
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 21 December 2023, pp. 22-23
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Export citation
-
Objective:
This study examines the clinical validity of the NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery measures in patients with oncological diagnoses and tumor predisposition syndromes, including Neurofibromatosis, Type 1 (NF1).
Participants and Methods:Participants included 158 patients (61% male, 67% White) ages 3 to 25 years (M = 8.38, SD = 4.32) who underwent neuropsychological evaluation between 2019 and 2022. Patients with brain tumors (n = 50) and leukemias (n = 49) accounted for 2/3 of the sample. The remainder had solid tumors, lymphomas, or cancer predisposition syndrome. Forty-eight had a diagnosis of NF1. Performance-based measures of attention, executive functioning, and processing speed were administered as part of neuropsychological evaluations. Patients were administered between 1 to 4 NIH Toolbox Cognition measures, including Flanker Inhibitory Control and Attention Test (Flanker), Dimensional Change Card Sort Test (DCCS), Pattern Comparison Processing Speed Test (PCCS), and List Sorting Test. Parent-reported measures of attention and EF were also obtained. Z-scores were used to compare performance across measures that assessed equivalent constructs. The rates of weak performance (>1 SD below the mean) using Toolbox measures were compared to rates of weak performance on traditional neuropsychological measures (e.g., Digit Span), and rates of functional impairment (e.g., parent-reported concerns, ADHD diagnosis).
Results:FSIQ, Coding, and NEPSY Inhibition correlated with all 4 Toolbox measures, while Digit Span correlated with List Sorting, DCCS, and Flanker. DCCS and PCCS correlated with verbal fluency measures. NF1 patients scored lower than non-NF1 patients on Flanker, F(1,126) = 13.01, p<.001 and DCCS, F(1,150) = 6.85, p = .01. Toolbox performance did not differ significantly by age group. Rates of identified weakness were relatively similar on Toolbox measures, some traditional measures, and parent-reported attention problems. In identifying those with and without weakness, the agreement between Flanker and other measures ranged from 52% (Auditory Attention) to 66% (Coding). Agreement between DCCS and traditional measures ranged from 47% (Letter Fluency) to 80% (Switching). For PCCS, concordance ranged from 45% (Semantic Fluency) to 69% (Switching). List Sorting had 80% agreement with Digit Span and Coding.
List Sorting had the highest agreement with parent-reported attention problems (76%), EF problems (72%), and ADHD diagnosis (79%). There was relatively high concurrence between DCCS and ADHD diagnosis (69%) and parent-reported attention problems (60%) and EF problems (65%) and between Flanker and ADHD diagnosis (67%). PCCS had less agreement with functional outcomes, ranging from 49% for EF problems to 58% for attention problems and ADHD diagnosis. In comparison, Digit Span had 64% agreement for EF problems, 70% for attention problems, and 73% for ADHD diagnosis.
Conclusions:The NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery can be used to identify neurocognitive weaknesses in pediatric oncology patients and provide clinically meaningful data. Evaluation of the Toolbox measures’ sensitivity to change over time is warranted, as monitoring the progression of cognitive late effects is particularly salient in cancer survivorship.
48 Longitudinal Language Outcomes in Pediatric Brain Tumor Patients Diagnosed in Early Childhood
- Iris Paltin, Mariam Kochashvili, Megan Sy, Hannah-Lise Schofield, Zoe Kearns, Kelly Janke
-
- Journal:
- Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society / Volume 29 / Issue s1 / November 2023
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 21 December 2023, pp. 654-655
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Export citation
-
Objective:
Pediatric brain tumor (PBT) survivors are at risk for speech (e.g., articulation, prosody, fluency) and language (e.g., vocabulary, grammar, narratives, pragmatics) difficulties (Hodges et al., 2020). It is important to understand what treatment and/or demographic factors are associated with language functioning soon after diagnosis, and what factors are associated with language functioning years after treatment completion. This study characterizes longitudinal language functioning for clinically referred PBT survivors diagnosed in early childhood.
Participants and Methods:Participants were 48 PBT patients (54% supratentorial, 6% disseminated), 21% with NF-1, who were diagnosed by age 6 (M = 43.2 months, SD 24.5) and received tumor-directed intervention including surgery (85%), chemotherapy (69%), and/or radiation therapy (50%). Hearing concerns existed for 29% of the patients. Age at first neuropsychological evaluation was 2-15 years (M=7.6, SD=3.63), age at second neuropsychological evaluation was 5-19 years (M=12.04, SD=3.86), with an average of 4.42 years (SD=2.37) between evaluations. Patients were 63% male, 77% White, 94% non-Hispanic, and fluent English speakers. Verbal IQ, working memory, fluencies, comprehension, memory, and parent-reported functional communication outcomes were assessed as part of comprehensive batteries. Rates of weak performance (1 SD<Mean) were compared to the expected base rate of 16%.
Results:Group means significantly diverged from age-expected performance by the second evaluation in all domains except semantic fluency. Weakness was identified on at least 1 verbal subtest for 79% of the sample at the first evaluation, and for 85% of the sample at the second evaluation. As a group, patients showed a significant increase in the number of weaknesses identified on performance-based measures from the first to second evaluation [t(47) = -3.60, p <.001]. Over half of the sample showed an increase in the rate of verbal weaknesses identified (56.3%). Those with more weaknesses over time had lower IQ at the initial evaluation [t(36) =-2.61, p=.013]. An increase in the number of weaknesses from first to second evaluation was not associated with tumor type/location, treatment modality, or demographic variables.
Conclusions:Brain tumor diagnosis in early childhood during rapid language development is associated with language impairments soon after diagnosis, and years after treatment completion. Causes for continued and increased impairment are multifactorial and risk cannot clearly be identified by demographic and treatment variables alone. Any early language weakness identification should signal need for intervention as the causes for difficulty are complex and these weaknesses are likely to persist and increase over time.