| Literature DB >> 27830766 |
Einar-Jón Einarsson1,2, Mitesh Patel3, Hannes Petersen2,4, Thomas Wiebe5, Per-Anders Fransson1, Måns Magnusson1,6, Christian Moëll5.
Abstract
The objective of cancer treatment is to secure survival. However, as chemotherapeutic agents can affect the central and peripheral nervous systems, patients must undergo a process of central compensation. We explored the effectiveness of this compensation process by measuring postural behaviour in adult survivors of childhood cancer treated with chemotherapy (CTS). We recruited sixteen adults treated with chemotherapy in childhood for malignant solid (non-CNS) tumours and 25 healthy age-matched controls. Subjects performed posturography with eyes open and closed during quiet and perturbed standing. Repeated balance perturbations through calf vibrations were used to study postural adaptation. Subjects were stratified into two groups (treatment before or from 12 years of age) to determine age at treatment effects. Both quiet (p = 0.040) and perturbed standing (p ≤ 0.009) were significantly poorer in CTS compared to controls, particularly with eyes open and among those treated younger. Moreover, CTS had reduced levels of adaptation compared to controls, both with eyes closed and open. Hence, adults treated with chemotherapy for childhood cancer may suffer late effects of poorer postural control manifested as reduced contribution of vision and as reduced adaptation skills. These findings advocate development of chemotherapeutic agents that cause fewer long-term side effects when used for treating children.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27830766 PMCID: PMC5103202 DOI: 10.1038/srep36784
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Effects of chemotherapy and vision on the stability during quiet stance.
| Quiet stance stability | Chemotherapy | Vision | Chemotherapy x Vision |
|---|---|---|---|
| CTS vs healthy controls | |||
| Total | 0.128 [2.4] | 0.832 [0.0] | |
| <0.1 Hz | 0.243 [1.4] | 0.712 [0.1] | |
| >0.1 Hz | 0.278 [1.2] | 0.396 [0.7] | |
| CTS_Young vs healthy controls | |||
| Total | 0.571 [0.3] | ||
| <0.1 Hz | 0.139 [2.3] | 0.113 [2.6] | 0.519 [0.4] |
| >0.1 Hz | 0.063 [3.7] | 0.837 [0.0] | |
| CTS_Old vs healthy controls | |||
| Total | 0.965 [0.0] | 0.716 [0.1] | |
| <0.1 Hz | 0.886 [0.0] | 0.073 [3.5] | 0.879 [0.0] |
| >0.1 Hz | 0.571 [0.3] | 0.067 [3.6] | |
| CTS_Young vs CTS_Old | |||
| Total | 0.127 [2.6] | 0.426 [0.7] | |
| <0.1 Hz | 0.385 [0.8] | 0.227 [1.6] | 0.563 [0.4] |
| >0.1 Hz | 0.135 [2.5] | ||
Repeated measures GLM ANOVA analysis of how the quiet stance stability were affected by main factors “Chemotherapy” and “Vision” alone and by the main factor interaction denoted as “Chemotherapy x Vision”. The notation “<0.001” means that the p-value is smaller than 0.001. F-values are presented in the squared parenthesis.
*In the CTS_Young vs CTS_Old GLM Anova evaluation the main factor “chemotherapy” represents the effect of receiving chemotherapy below 12 years of age (CTS_Young) vs from 12 years of age and older (CTS_Old).
Figure 1Total, low frequency and high frequency spectral energy used towards the supporting surface during the 5 sequential time periods during posturography.
The figure present normalised; (a) total, (b) low frequency and (c) high frequency torque variance values, representing kinds of spectral energy, used during posturography while standing with Eyes Closed and Eyes Open (mean and SEM). Values and statistical findings to the level of trends (p < 0.1) are presented for healthy controls (n = 25), for all chemotherapy treated subjects CTS (n = 16), and for the subgroups CTS treated with chemotherapy below 12 years of age CTS_Young (n = 10) and CTS treated from 12 years of age and older CTS_Old (n = 6).
Effects of chemotherapy, vision and vibration period on the stability during balance perturbations.
| Perturbation stability | Chemo | Vision | Period | Chemo x Vision | Chemo x Period | Vision x Period | Chemo x Vision x Period |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CTS vs healthy controls | |||||||
| Total | 0.652 [0.2] | 0.095 [2.9] | 0.251 [1.4] | 0.452 [0.6] | |||
| <0.1 Hz | 0.865 [0.0] | 0.112 [2.6] | 0.334 [1.0] | 0.570 [0.3] | |||
| >0.1 Hz | 0.421 [0.7] | 0.076 [3.3] | |||||
| CTS_Young vs healthy controls | |||||||
| Total | 0.483 [0.5] | 0.124 [2.5] | 0.098 [2.9] | 0.171 [2.0] | |||
| <0.1 Hz | 0.335 [1.0] | 0.535 [0.4] | 0.227 [1.5] | 0.172 [2.0] | 0.360 [0.9] | ||
| >0.1 Hz | 0.610 [0.3] | ||||||
| CTS_Old vs healthy controls | |||||||
| Total | 0.500 [0.5] | 0.911 [0.0] | 0.297 [1.1] | 0.805 [0.1] | 0.610 [0.3] | ||
| <0.1 Hz | 0.597 [0.3] | 0.278 [1.2] | 0.162 [2.1] | 0.691 [0.2] | 0.555 [0.4] | ||
| >0.1 Hz | 0.430 [0.6] | 0.465 [0.5] | 0.071 [3.5] | 0.262 [1.3] | 0.516 [0.4] | ||
| CTS_Young vs CTS_Old | |||||||
| Total | 0.103 [3.1] | 0.469 [0.6] | 0.579 [0.3] | 0.301 [1.2] | 0.144 [2.4] | ||
| <0.1 Hz | 0.181 [2.0] | 0.082 [3.5] | 0.497 [0.5] | 0.524 [0.4] | 0.226 [1.6] | ||
| >0.1 Hz | 0.177 [2.0] | 0.679 [0.2] | 0.708 [0.1] | 0.057 [4.3] | |||
Repeated measures GLM ANOVA analysis of how the perturbed stance stability were affected by main factors “Chemotherapy” (denoted Chemo in the table) “Vision” and “Period” alone and by their main factor interactions
*In the CTS_Young vs CTS_Old GLM Anova evaluation the main factor “chemotherapy” represents the effect of receiving chemotherapy below 12 years of age (CTS_Young) vs from 12 years of age and older (CTS_Old).
Stability changes between vibration period 1 and vibration period 4 when standing with Eyes Closed and Eyes Open.
| Stability changes | Vibration period 1 vs period 4 | |
|---|---|---|
| Eyes Closed | Eyes Open | |
| Healthy controls | ||
| Total | ||
| <0.1 Hz | ||
| >0.1 Hz | ||
| CTS | ||
| Total | ||
| <0.1 Hz | ||
| >0.1 Hz | 0.058 [ | |
| CTS_Young | ||
| Total | 0.160 [ | |
| <0.1 Hz | 0.232 [ | |
| >0.1 Hz | 0.432 [ | 0.084 [ |
| CTS_Old | ||
| Total | 0.156 [ | |
| <0.1 Hz | 0.438 [ | |
| >0.1 Hz | 0.063 [ | |
*Stability changes as reflected by increased/decreased use of energy in percent are presented within the squared parenthesis.
Subject characteristics, diagnosis and chemotherapy details.
| Subject | Diagnosis | Gender | Age at treatment (years) | Age when assessed (years) | Brock’s hearing loss graders | Chemotherapy treatment agents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Sacrococcygeal teratoma | Female | 0.1 | 23.4 | 0 | Ble, Cis, Eto |
| 2 | Hepatoblastoma | Female | 2.5 | 15.9 | — | Adr, Cis |
| 3 | Embryonal teratoma | Female | 2.5 | 17.7 | 2 | Ble, Cis, Eto |
| 4 | Ewing sarcoma | Male | 2.9 | 16.4 | — | Act, Adr, Eto, Ifo, Vin |
| 5 | Ewing sarcoma | Female | 8.6 | 30.0 | — | Act, Adr, Ble, Cyc, Met, Vin |
| 6 | Neuroblastoma | Male | 8.9 | 21.4 | 3 | Car, Cis, Cyc, Eto, Mel, Vin |
| 7 | Immature teratoma | Female | 9.1 | 18.5 | 0 | Ble, Cis, Eto |
| 8 | Ewing sarcoma | Male | 9.6 | 30.3 | — | Act, Adr, Ble, Cyc, Met, Vin |
| 9 | Immature teratoma | Female | 10.3 | 35.8 | — | Act, Adr, Cyc, Vin |
| 10 | Ewing sarcoma | Male | 10.7 | 33.1 | 3 | Act, Adr, Ble, Cis, Cyc, Met, Vin |
| 11 | Osteosarcoma | Female | 14.3 | 33.9 | 1 | Act, Adr, Ble, Cis, Cyc, Met |
| 12 | Ewing sarcoma | Male | 15.5 | 35.4 | — | Act, Adr, Ble, Cyc, Met, Vin |
| 13 | Ewing sarcoma | Male | 15.7 | 24.0 | 0 | Adr, Cis, Ifo, Vin |
| 14 | Immature teratoma | Male | 16.5 | 27.8 | 0 | Ble, Cis, Eto |
| 15 | Ewing sarcoma | Male | 16.8 | 23.7 | 0 | Act, Adr, Cis, Cyc, Eto, Ifo, Vin |
| 16 | Osteosarcoma | Male | 16.9 | 30.9 | 0 | Adr, Cis, Met |
*Act: Actinomycin-D; Adr: Adriamycin; Ble: Bleomycin; Car: Carboplatin; Cis: Cisplatin; Cyc: Cyclophosphamide; Eto: Etoposide; Ifo: Ifosfamide; Mel: Melphalan; Met: Methotrexate; Vin: Vincristine.
**Brock’s hearing loss grades:
0: <40 dB at all frequencies.
1: ≥40 dB at 8 kHz only, and <40 dB at all other frequencies.
2: ≥40 dB at 4 kHz and above, and <40 dB at all other frequencies.
3: ≥40 dB at 2 kHz and above, and <40 dB at all other frequencies.
4: ≥40 dB at 1 kHz and above, and <40 dB at all other frequencies.
Figure 2Schematic illustration of the posturography setup.
The posturography software produces (1) a pseudorandom binary sequence (PRBS), which is (2) converted to vibration pulses. Vibration pulses applied towards (3) the calf muscles cause balance perturbations. The energy used (4) towards the support surface, reflecting the effort to maintain stability, is recorded by a force platform and quantified by the posturography software (5).