Lauren E Cox1, Jason M Ashford1, Kellie N Clark1, Karen Martin-Elbahesh1, Kristina K Hardy1, Thomas E Merchant1, Robert J Ogg1, Sima Jeha1, Victoria W Willard1, Lu Huang1, Hui Zhang1, Heather M Conklin1. 1. Department of Psychology , St Jude Children's Research Hospital , Memphis, Tennessee (L.E.C., J.M.A., K.N.C., K.M-E., V.W.W., H.M.C.); Division of Radiation Oncology , St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee (T.E.M.); Division of Translational Imaging Research , St Jude Children's Research Hospital , Memphis, Tennessee (R.J.O.); Department of Oncology , St Jude Children's Research Hospital , Memphis, Tennessee (S.J.); Department of Biostatistics , St Jude Children's Research Hospital , Memphis, Tennessee (L.H., H.Z.); Center for Neuroscience and Behavioral Medicine , Neuropsychology Division, Children's National Medical Center , Washington, DC (K.K.H.); Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Science , George Washington University School of Medicine , Washington, DC (K.K.H).
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Childhood cancer survivors frequently develop working memory (WM) deficits as a result of disease and treatment. Medication-based and therapist-delivered interventions are promising but have limitations. Computerized interventions completed at home may be more appealing for survivors. We evaluated the feasibility and acceptability of a remotely administered, computerized WM intervention (Cogmed) for pediatric cancer survivors using a single-blind, randomized, wait-list control design. METHODS: Of 80 qualifying patients, 12 were excluded or declined to participate. Participants randomized to intervention (n = 34/68) included survivors of childhood brain tumors (32%) or acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL; 68%) between the ages of 8 and 16 years ([Formula: see text] = 12.2) who were at least 1 year post therapy ([Formula: see text] = 5.0). The majority of brain tumor participants were treated with cranial radiation therapy (72.7%), whereas most of the ALL participants were treated with chemotherapy only (87%). Participants completed 25 WM training sessions over 5-9 weeks at home with weekly phone-based coaching. RESULTS:Participants lived in 16 states. Compliance was strong, with 30 of the 34 participants (88%) completing intervention. Almost all participants completed pre- and postintervention neuroimaging exams (91% and 93%, respectively). Families had the necessary skills to utilize the computer program successfully. Caregivers reported they were generally able to find time to complete training (63%), viewed training as beneficial (70%), and would recommend this intervention to others (93%). CONCLUSIONS: Cogmed is a feasible and acceptable intervention for childhood cancer survivors. It is a viable option for survivors who do not live in close proximity to cancer care centers. Efficacy and neural correlates of change are currently being evaluated.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Childhood cancer survivors frequently develop working memory (WM) deficits as a result of disease and treatment. Medication-based and therapist-delivered interventions are promising but have limitations. Computerized interventions completed at home may be more appealing for survivors. We evaluated the feasibility and acceptability of a remotely administered, computerized WM intervention (Cogmed) for pediatric cancer survivors using a single-blind, randomized, wait-list control design. METHODS: Of 80 qualifying patients, 12 were excluded or declined to participate. Participants randomized to intervention (n = 34/68) included survivors of childhood brain tumors (32%) or acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL; 68%) between the ages of 8 and 16 years ([Formula: see text] = 12.2) who were at least 1 year post therapy ([Formula: see text] = 5.0). The majority of brain tumorparticipants were treated with cranial radiation therapy (72.7%), whereas most of the ALL participants were treated with chemotherapy only (87%). Participants completed 25 WM training sessions over 5-9 weeks at home with weekly phone-based coaching. RESULTS:Participants lived in 16 states. Compliance was strong, with 30 of the 34 participants (88%) completing intervention. Almost all participants completed pre- and postintervention neuroimaging exams (91% and 93%, respectively). Families had the necessary skills to utilize the computer program successfully. Caregivers reported they were generally able to find time to complete training (63%), viewed training as beneficial (70%), and would recommend this intervention to others (93%). CONCLUSIONS: Cogmed is a feasible and acceptable intervention for childhood cancer survivors. It is a viable option for survivors who do not live in close proximity to cancer care centers. Efficacy and neural correlates of change are currently being evaluated.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cogmed; childhood cancer; computerized training; intervention; late effects
Authors: Jason Ashford; Corrie Schoffstall; Wilburn E Reddick; Christina Leone; Fred H Laningham; John O Glass; Deqing Pei; Cheng Cheng; Ching-Hon Pui; Heather M Conklin Journal: Cancer Date: 2010-10-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Ronald T Brown; Robert W Amler; Wendy S Freeman; James M Perrin; Martin T Stein; Heidi M Feldman; Karen Pierce; Mark L Wolraich Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Heather M Conklin; Raja B Khan; Wilburn E Reddick; Susan Helton; Ronald Brown; Scott C Howard; Melanie Bonner; Robbin Christensen; Shengjie Wu; Xiaoping Xiong; Raymond K Mulhern Journal: J Pediatr Psychol Date: 2007-06-14
Authors: Robert W Butler; Donna R Copeland; Diane L Fairclough; Raymond K Mulhern; Ernest R Katz; Anne E Kazak; Robert B Noll; Sunita K Patel; Olle Jane Z Sahler Journal: J Consult Clin Psychol Date: 2008-06
Authors: Marthe L A van der Donk; Anne-Claire Hiemstra-Beernink; Ariane C Tjeenk-Kalff; Aryan V van der Leij; Ramón J L Lindauer Journal: BMC Psychiatry Date: 2013-01-11 Impact factor: 3.630
Authors: Heather M Conklin; Jason M Ashford; Kellie N Clark; Karen Martin-Elbahesh; Kristina K Hardy; Thomas E Merchant; Robert J Ogg; Sima Jeha; Lu Huang; Hui Zhang Journal: J Pediatr Psychol Date: 2017-03-01
Authors: Heather M Conklin; Robert J Ogg; Jason M Ashford; Matthew A Scoggins; Ping Zou; Kellie N Clark; Karen Martin-Elbahesh; Kristina K Hardy; Thomas E Merchant; Sima Jeha; Lu Huang; Hui Zhang Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-10-12 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ashley S Fournier-Goodnight; Jason M Ashford; Kellie N Clark; Karen Martin-Elbahesh; Kristina K Hardy; Thomas E Merchant; Sima Jeha; Robert J Ogg; Hui Zhang; Lei Wang; Heather M Conklin Journal: Appl Neuropsychol Child Date: 2017-11-21 Impact factor: 1.493
Authors: Ellen van der Plas; T Leigh Spencer Noakes; Darci T Butcher; Rosanna Weksberg; Laura Galin-Corini; Elizabeth A Wanstall; Patrick Te; Laura Hopf; Sharon Guger; Johann Hitzler; Russell J Schachar; Shinya Ito; Brian J Nieman Journal: Pediatr Res Date: 2020-11-17 Impact factor: 3.953
Authors: Joseph Scafidi; Jonathan Ritter; Brooke M Talbot; Jorge Edwards; Li-Jin Chew; Vittorio Gallo Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2018-03-20 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Yin Ting Cheung; Noah D Sabin; Wilburn E Reddick; Deepa Bhojwani; Wei Liu; Tara M Brinkman; John O Glass; Scott N Hwang; Deokumar Srivastava; Ching-Hon Pui; Leslie L Robison; Melissa M Hudson; Kevin R Krull Journal: Lancet Haematol Date: 2016-09-14 Impact factor: 18.959