PURPOSE: The Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) is the most commonly chosen cognitive screening test (CST) in clinical practice and trials, despite its poor sensitivity, likely because of its prognostic utility. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) is an alternative CST, is more sensitive, and is better correlated with quality of life. METHODS: Sixty-five patients with brain metastases were prospectively accrued and completed both the MMSE and MoCA. We compared the prognostic utility of both CSTs. RESULTS: The mean age of patients was 59.0 years; 42.0% had single brain metastases. Median MMSE and MoCA scores were 28 and 22, respectively. Median overall survival (OS) was worse for individuals with below- versus above-average MMSE scores (10.4 versus 36.3 weeks, p = 0.007). Likewise, below- versus above-average MoCA scores were prognostic (6.3 versus 50.0 weeks, p < 0.001). Median OS for MoCA scores <22, 22-26, and >26 were 6.3, 30.9, and 61.7 weeks, respectively (p < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, below-average MMSE scores were no longer prognostic (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.71 [0.90-3.26]), though below-average MoCA scores were (HR = 5.44 [2.70-10.94]). Furthermore, the MoCA demonstrated superior prognostic utility when comparing multivariable models with continuous CST scores. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that the MoCA is a superior prognostic indicator than the MMSE. Furthermore, given its superior sensitivity and better correlation with quality of life, the MoCA should be preferentially chosen in clinical practice and trials.
PURPOSE: The Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) is the most commonly chosen cognitive screening test (CST) in clinical practice and trials, despite its poor sensitivity, likely because of its prognostic utility. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) is an alternative CST, is more sensitive, and is better correlated with quality of life. METHODS: Sixty-five patients with brain metastases were prospectively accrued and completed both the MMSE and MoCA. We compared the prognostic utility of both CSTs. RESULTS: The mean age of patients was 59.0 years; 42.0% had single brain metastases. Median MMSE and MoCA scores were 28 and 22, respectively. Median overall survival (OS) was worse for individuals with below- versus above-average MMSE scores (10.4 versus 36.3 weeks, p = 0.007). Likewise, below- versus above-average MoCA scores were prognostic (6.3 versus 50.0 weeks, p < 0.001). Median OS for MoCA scores <22, 22-26, and >26 were 6.3, 30.9, and 61.7 weeks, respectively (p < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, below-average MMSE scores were no longer prognostic (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.71 [0.90-3.26]), though below-average MoCA scores were (HR = 5.44 [2.70-10.94]). Furthermore, the MoCA demonstrated superior prognostic utility when comparing multivariable models with continuous CST scores. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that the MoCA is a superior prognostic indicator than the MMSE. Furthermore, given its superior sensitivity and better correlation with quality of life, the MoCA should be preferentially chosen in clinical practice and trials.
Authors: Serge Gauthier; Barry Reisberg; Michael Zaudig; Ronald C Petersen; Karen Ritchie; Karl Broich; Sylvie Belleville; Henry Brodaty; David Bennett; Howard Chertkow; Jeffrey L Cummings; Mony de Leon; Howard Feldman; Mary Ganguli; Harald Hampel; Philip Scheltens; Mary C Tierney; Peter Whitehouse; Bengt Winblad Journal: Lancet Date: 2006-04-15 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Paul W Sperduto; Brian Berkey; Laurie E Gaspar; Minesh Mehta; Walter Curran Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-10-10 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Ziad S Nasreddine; Natalie A Phillips; Valérie Bédirian; Simon Charbonneau; Victor Whitehead; Isabelle Collin; Jeffrey L Cummings; Howard Chertkow Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: A Bezjak; J Adam; R Barton; T Panzarella; N Laperriere; C S Wong; W Mason; C Buckley; W Levin; M McLean; J S Y Wu; M Sia; P Kirkbride Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: W J Curran; C B Scott; J Horton; J S Nelson; A S Weinstein; A J Fischbach; C H Chang; M Rotman; S O Asbell; R E Krisch Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1993-05-05 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Christina A Meyers; Jennifer A Smith; Andrea Bezjak; Minesh P Mehta; James Liebmann; Tim Illidge; Ian Kunkler; Jean-Michel Caudrelier; Peter D Eisenberg; Jacobus Meerwaldt; Ross Siemers; Christian Carrie; Laurie E Gaspar; Walter Curran; See-Chun Phan; Richard A Miller; Markus F Renschler Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-01-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: David W Andrews; Charles B Scott; Paul W Sperduto; Adam E Flanders; Laurie E Gaspar; Michael C Schell; Maria Werner-Wasik; William Demas; Janice Ryu; Jean-Paul Bahary; Luis Souhami; Marvin Rotman; Minesh P Mehta; Walter J Curran Journal: Lancet Date: 2004-05-22 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Mackenzi Pergolotti; Nicolò Matteo Luca Battisti; Lynne Padgett; Alix G Sleight; Maya Abdallah; Robin Newman; Kathleen Van Dyk; Kelley R Covington; Grant R Williams; Frederiek van den Bos; YaoYao Pollock; Elizabeth A Salerno; Allison Magnuson; Isabella F Gattás-Vernaglia; Tim A Ahles Journal: J Geriatr Oncol Date: 2019-10-14 Impact factor: 3.599
Authors: M Dosani; R Yang; M McLay; D Wilson; M Liu; C J Yong-Hing; J Hamm; C R Lund; R Olson; D Schellenberg Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2019-02-01 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Robert A Olson; Grant L Iverson; Hannah Carolan; Maureen Parkinson; Brian L Brooks; Michael McKenzie Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2011-04-26 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Diana N Naehrig; Eng-Siew Koh; Monica Vogiatzis; Waka Yanagisawa; Carol Kwong; Heather L Shepherd; Chris Milross; Haryana M Dhillon Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 4.130