L M Ercoli1,2, L Petersen3, A M Hunter1,2, S A Castellon1,2,4, L Kwan2, B A Kahn-Mills3, L M Embree1,4, P A Cernin1, A F Leuchter1,2, P A Ganz2,3,5. 1. UCLA Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 2. UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 3. Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 4. Veteran's Administration Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 5. UCLA Fielding School of Public Health, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We conducted a randomized clinical trial evaluating the efficacy of a cognitive rehabilitation (CR) intervention compared with a wait list (WL) control condition on cognitive complaints, neuropsychological and brain functioning in breast cancer survivors (BCS). METHODS: The small group intervention of five sessions included psychoeducation and cognitive exercises. ELIGIBILITY: Disease-free BCS with cognitive complaints, diagnosed with stage I, II or III breast cancer, completed primary treatment 18 months to 5 years earlier. Neurocognitive test data and cognitive complaints on the Patient's Assessment of Own Functioning Inventory (PAOFI) were assessed at baseline (T1), immediately post-intervention (T2), and 2 months later (T3). A subgroup of participants underwent resting state quantitative electroencephalography (qEEG) at all three assessment time points. RESULTS:Forty-eight participants [mean age (SD) 53.8 (8.2)] completed T1 assessments, and 29 participants had analyzable qEEG data. The CR group improved significantly over time compared with the WL group on PAOFI total and memory scores (both p = .01) and on Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT) total (trials I-V) (p = .02) and RAVLT delayed recall (p = .007) scores. On qEEG, the CR group showed a significant decrease in delta 'slow wave' power (p = .02) and an increase in the frontal distribution of alpha power (p = .04) from T1 to T2. CONCLUSIONS: BCS in the CR group showed immediate and sustained improvements in self-reported cognitive complaints and memory functioning on neurocognitive testing. Results of the qEEG substudy provide some support for neurophysiological changes underlying the intervention.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: We conducted a randomized clinical trial evaluating the efficacy of a cognitive rehabilitation (CR) intervention compared with a wait list (WL) control condition on cognitive complaints, neuropsychological and brain functioning in breast cancer survivors (BCS). METHODS: The small group intervention of five sessions included psychoeducation and cognitive exercises. ELIGIBILITY: Disease-free BCS with cognitive complaints, diagnosed with stage I, II or III breast cancer, completed primary treatment 18 months to 5 years earlier. Neurocognitive test data and cognitive complaints on the Patient's Assessment of Own Functioning Inventory (PAOFI) were assessed at baseline (T1), immediately post-intervention (T2), and 2 months later (T3). A subgroup of participants underwent resting state quantitative electroencephalography (qEEG) at all three assessment time points. RESULTS: Forty-eight participants [mean age (SD) 53.8 (8.2)] completed T1 assessments, and 29 participants had analyzable qEEG data. The CR group improved significantly over time compared with the WL group on PAOFI total and memory scores (both p = .01) and on Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test (RAVLT) total (trials I-V) (p = .02) and RAVLT delayed recall (p = .007) scores. On qEEG, the CR group showed a significant decrease in delta 'slow wave' power (p = .02) and an increase in the frontal distribution of alpha power (p = .04) from T1 to T2. CONCLUSIONS: BCS in the CR group showed immediate and sustained improvements in self-reported cognitive complaints and memory functioning on neurocognitive testing. Results of the qEEG substudy provide some support for neurophysiological changes underlying the intervention.
Authors: Kathleen Van Dyk; Patricia A Ganz; Linda Ercoli; Laura Petersen; Catherine M Crespi Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2016-07-19 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Kevin T Liou; James C Root; Sheila N Garland; Jamie Green; Yuelin Li; Q Susan Li; Philip W Kantoff; Tim A Ahles; Jun J Mao Journal: Cancer Date: 2020-04-22 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: M Lange; F Joly; J Vardy; T Ahles; M Dubois; L Tron; G Winocur; M B De Ruiter; H Castel Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2019-12-01 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Lori J Bernstein; Graham A McCreath; Joyce Nyhof-Young; Dilan Dissanayake; Jill B Rich Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2018-03-10 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Mackenzi Pergolotti; Allison M Deal; Grant R Williams; Ashley L Bryant; Bryce B Reeve; Hyman B Muss Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2015-08-04 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Nabiel Mir; Paul MacLennan; Mustafa Al-Obaidi; Donna Murdaugh; Kelly M Kenzik; Andrew McDonald; Noha Sharafeldin; Crystal Young-Smith; Ravi Paluri; Olumide Gbolahan; Lakshmin Nandagopal; Smita Bhatia; Grant R Williams Journal: J Geriatr Oncol Date: 2020-03-13 Impact factor: 3.599