PURPOSE: The aim of the present study was to determine the prevalence of cognitive impairment (CI) in a group of testicular (TC) survivors by comparing their neuropsychological test scores with normative data and to assess their performance in specific cognitive domains. METHODS: Seventy-two TC survivors were evaluated 2 to 7 years post-treatment with a neuropsychological test battery that assessed multiple cognitive domains-attention and working memory, processing speed, verbal fluency, learning and memory, and executive functioning. Test scores were compared with normative data, and CI status was calculated for each participant. RESULTS: In group-level analyses, survivors exhibited significantly impaired scores on a majority (9/12) of the neuropsychological outcomes (p < 0.01). In individual-level analyses, 62.5 % of the survivors were classified as having CI, significantly exceeding the expected normative frequency of 25 % (binomial test: p < 0.001). In particular, CI was observed in multiple outcomes related to verbal learning and memory (29 to 33 % of participants), visual learning and memory (14-28 %), processing speed (8-24 %), executive functioning (17 %), and attention and working memory (4-15 %). No association was found between treatment modality (surgery ± chemotherapy) and CI. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of CI in TC survivors was unexpectedly high, with survivors performing significantly worse than expected on a majority of the neuropsychological outcomes. While the findings are preliminary in nature, they still have important implications for the diagnosis and treatment of CI in TC survivors.
PURPOSE: The aim of the present study was to determine the prevalence of cognitive impairment (CI) in a group of testicular (TC) survivors by comparing their neuropsychological test scores with normative data and to assess their performance in specific cognitive domains. METHODS: Seventy-two TC survivors were evaluated 2 to 7 years post-treatment with a neuropsychological test battery that assessed multiple cognitive domains-attention and working memory, processing speed, verbal fluency, learning and memory, and executive functioning. Test scores were compared with normative data, and CI status was calculated for each participant. RESULTS: In group-level analyses, survivors exhibited significantly impaired scores on a majority (9/12) of the neuropsychological outcomes (p < 0.01). In individual-level analyses, 62.5 % of the survivors were classified as having CI, significantly exceeding the expected normative frequency of 25 % (binomial test: p < 0.001). In particular, CI was observed in multiple outcomes related to verbal learning and memory (29 to 33 % of participants), visual learning and memory (14-28 %), processing speed (8-24 %), executive functioning (17 %), and attention and working memory (4-15 %). No association was found between treatment modality (surgery ± chemotherapy) and CI. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of CI in TC survivors was unexpectedly high, with survivors performing significantly worse than expected on a majority of the neuropsychological outcomes. While the findings are preliminary in nature, they still have important implications for the diagnosis and treatment of CI in TC survivors.
Authors: Lisa M Wu; Jane Austin; Jada G Hamilton; Heiddis Valdimarsdottir; Luis Isola; Scott Rowley; Rachel Warbet; Gary Winkel; William H Redd; Christine Rini Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2011-07-08 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Jeffrey S Wefel; Damon J Vidrine; Salma K Marani; Richard J Swartz; Tracy L Veramonti; Christina A Meyers; Harald J Hoekstra; Josette E H M Hoekstra-Weebers; Ellen R Gritz Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2013-12-16 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Amanda D Hutchinson; Jessica R Hosking; Ganessan Kichenadasse; Julie K Mattiske; Carlene Wilson Journal: Cancer Treat Rev Date: 2012-06-02 Impact factor: 12.111
Authors: Anders Degn Pedersen; Philip Rossen; Mimi Yung Mehlsen; Christina Gundgaard Pedersen; Robert Zachariae; Hans von der Maase Journal: J Int Neuropsychol Soc Date: 2009-02-10 Impact factor: 2.892
Authors: Tim A Ahles; Andrew J Saykin; Brenna C McDonald; Yuelin Li; Charlotte T Furstenberg; Brett S Hanscom; Tamsin J Mulrooney; Gary N Schwartz; Peter A Kaufman Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-09-13 Impact factor: 44.544
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: Jennifer A Soon; Angelyn Anton; Javier Torres; Ruth Lawrence; Phillip Parente; Joseph McKendrick; Ian D Davis; Carmel Pezaro Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2018-10-22 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Sabine Deprez; Shelli R Kesler; Andrew J Saykin; Daniel H S Silverman; Michiel B de Ruiter; Brenna C McDonald Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2018-03-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Ana Dias-Carvalho; Mariana Ferreira; Rita Ferreira; Maria de Lourdes Bastos; Susana Isabel Sá; João Paulo Capela; Félix Carvalho; Vera Marisa Costa Journal: Arch Toxicol Date: 2021-11-02 Impact factor: 5.153
Authors: Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Brent J Small; Gheorghe Luta; Arti Hurria; Heather Jim; Brenna C McDonald; Deena Graham; Xingtao Zhou; Jonathan Clapp; Wanting Zhai; Elizabeth Breen; Judith E Carroll; Neelima Denduluri; Asma Dilawari; Martine Extermann; Claudine Isaacs; Paul B Jacobsen; Lindsay C Kobayashi; Kelly Holohan Nudelman; James Root; Robert A Stern; Danielle Tometich; Raymond Turner; John W VanMeter; Andrew J Saykin; Tim Ahles Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-10-03 Impact factor: 44.544