Dorothy Krolak1,2, Barbara Collins3,4, Lorelle Weiss1,2, Cheryl Harris1,2, Richard Van der Jagt1,2,5. 1. The Ottawa Hospital-Civic Campus, 1053 Carling Ave, Room CPC271, Ottawa, ON, K1Y 4E9, Canada. 2. The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 3. The Ottawa Hospital-Civic Campus, 1053 Carling Ave, Room CPC271, Ottawa, ON, K1Y 4E9, Canada. bcollins@ottawahospital.on.ca. 4. The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada. bcollins@ottawahospital.on.ca. 5. University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to estimate the prevalence of cognitive disturbance in lymphoma survivors and to explore relationships between cognitive function and other psychosocial factors. METHODS: A package of standardized questionnaires was sent to 622 lymphoma patients treated at the Ottawa Hospital in the preceding 5 years. Patients with central nervous system involvement were excluded. The questionnaires addressed cognitive function, pain, insomnia, fatigue, and mood. Of the patients in the sampling frame, 54 % responded to the survey and 42 % met inclusion/exclusion criteria. Sixteen percent (99/622) agreed to undergo computerized neuropsychological testing with CNS vital signs (CNSVS). Scores on the objective and subjective cognitive measures were compared to those of a healthy female control group from a previous study. RESULTS: The lymphoma group scored significantly lower than the controls on a cognitive rating scale (p = .018) and on CNSVS (p = .035). The difference on the CNSVS was primarily due to poorer attention and executive function scores in the lymphoma patients. The patients also had a higher frequency of impairment on both the objective (p = .009) and subjective (p < .001) cognitive measures. Among the lymphoma survivors, fatigue and anxiety were related to subjective cognitive disturbance (p < .001 for both), whereas pain was the only psychosocial measure associated with objective cognitive performance (p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that cognitive disturbance may be a significant survivorship issue for lymphoma patients and should be more thoroughly investigated in this population.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to estimate the prevalence of cognitive disturbance in lymphoma survivors and to explore relationships between cognitive function and other psychosocial factors. METHODS: A package of standardized questionnaires was sent to 622 lymphomapatients treated at the Ottawa Hospital in the preceding 5 years. Patients with central nervous system involvement were excluded. The questionnaires addressed cognitive function, pain, insomnia, fatigue, and mood. Of the patients in the sampling frame, 54 % responded to the survey and 42 % met inclusion/exclusion criteria. Sixteen percent (99/622) agreed to undergo computerized neuropsychological testing with CNS vital signs (CNSVS). Scores on the objective and subjective cognitive measures were compared to those of a healthy female control group from a previous study. RESULTS: The lymphoma group scored significantly lower than the controls on a cognitive rating scale (p = .018) and on CNSVS (p = .035). The difference on the CNSVS was primarily due to poorer attention and executive function scores in the lymphomapatients. The patients also had a higher frequency of impairment on both the objective (p = .009) and subjective (p < .001) cognitive measures. Among the lymphoma survivors, fatigue and anxiety were related to subjective cognitive disturbance (p < .001 for both), whereas pain was the only psychosocial measure associated with objective cognitive performance (p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that cognitive disturbance may be a significant survivorship issue for lymphomapatients and should be more thoroughly investigated in this population.
Authors: Tim A Ahles; Andrew J Saykin; Charlotte T Furstenberg; Bernard Cole; Leila A Mott; Karen Skalla; Marie B Whedon; Sarah Bivens; Tara Mitchell; E Robert Greenberg; Peter M Silberfarb Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-01-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Helena Harder; Arthur R Van Gool; Hugo J Duivenvoorden; Jan J Cornelissen; Wil M H Eijkenboom; Renée M Y Barge; Martin J van den Bent Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2007-08-23 Impact factor: 9.162
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: Shan S Wong; L Douglas Case; Nancy E Avis; Tiffany L Cummings; Christina K Cramer; Stephen R Rapp Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2019-08-30 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Mackenzie E Fowler; Nicole C Wright; Kristen Triebel; Gabrielle B Rocque; Marguerite R Irvin; Richard E Kennedy Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2022 Impact factor: 4.160
Authors: A Daniele; A Guarini; S De Summa; M Dellino; G Lerario; S Ciavarella; P Ditonno; A V Paradiso; R Divella; P Casamassima; E Savino; M D Carbonara; C Minoia Journal: J Pers Med Date: 2021-03-17