Christie Yao1,2, Lori J Bernstein3,4, Jill B Rich5. 1. Department of Psychology, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada. cyao@stjoes.ca. 2. Clinical Neuropsychology Service, St. Josephs Healthcare, 100 West 5th Street, Room G191, Hamilton, ON, L8N 3K7, Canada. cyao@stjoes.ca. 3. Department of Supportive Care, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada. 4. Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 5. Department of Psychology, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Women with breast cancer have reported adverse cognitive effects following chemotherapy. Evidence is mixed on whether executive functioning is particularly impaired in women treated with chemotherapy, in part due to the wide range of tasks used to measure executive processes. We performed a systematic review of the published literature to evaluate whether some subcomponents of executive functioning are more vulnerable to impairment than others among breast cancer survivors who had been treated with chemotherapy. METHODS: Studies published as of April 2017 were identified using three electronic databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Web of Science) and a manual search of relevant reference lists. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using a checklist of predefined criteria. RESULTS: Of 1280 identified articles, a total of 41 were included for review. Study findings were categorized into three primary subdomains of executive functioning: inhibition, shifting, and updating. Although there was heterogeneity in the neuropsychological measures used to assess executive functioning, tests could be grouped into the subcomponents they assessed. Inhibition appears relatively spared from the effects of chemotherapy, whereas impairments in shifting and updating are more commonly found following chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Examination of subcomponents of executive functioning is recommended to better characterize the nature of executive dysfunction in women treated with chemotherapy. Future studies should include executive functioning tasks of varying complexity, use of multiple tasks to increase reliability, and alternative indices to capture performance, such as within-person variability.
PURPOSE:Women with breast cancer have reported adverse cognitive effects following chemotherapy. Evidence is mixed on whether executive functioning is particularly impaired in women treated with chemotherapy, in part due to the wide range of tasks used to measure executive processes. We performed a systematic review of the published literature to evaluate whether some subcomponents of executive functioning are more vulnerable to impairment than others among breast cancer survivors who had been treated with chemotherapy. METHODS: Studies published as of April 2017 were identified using three electronic databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Web of Science) and a manual search of relevant reference lists. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using a checklist of predefined criteria. RESULTS: Of 1280 identified articles, a total of 41 were included for review. Study findings were categorized into three primary subdomains of executive functioning: inhibition, shifting, and updating. Although there was heterogeneity in the neuropsychological measures used to assess executive functioning, tests could be grouped into the subcomponents they assessed. Inhibition appears relatively spared from the effects of chemotherapy, whereas impairments in shifting and updating are more commonly found following chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Examination of subcomponents of executive functioning is recommended to better characterize the nature of executive dysfunction in women treated with chemotherapy. Future studies should include executive functioning tasks of varying complexity, use of multiple tasks to increase reliability, and alternative indices to capture performance, such as within-person variability.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; Chemobrain; Cognition; Executive functioning; Frontal lobes; Inhibition; Systematic review; Working memory
Authors: Yin Ting Cheung; Tara M Brinkman; Chenghong Li; Yasmin Mzayek; Deokumar Srivastava; Kirsten K Ness; Sunita K Patel; Rebecca M Howell; Kevin C Oeffinger; Leslie L Robison; Gregory T Armstrong; Kevin R Krull Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2018-04-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: David P Jarmolowicz; Rachel Gehringer; Shea M Lemley; Michael J Sofis; Sam Kaplan; Michael A Johnson Journal: Behav Brain Res Date: 2019-01-07 Impact factor: 3.332
Authors: Joanna J Arch; Sarah R Genung; Michelle C Ferris; Alex Kirk; Elizabeth T Slivjak; Joel N Fishbein; Rebecca L Schneider; Annette L Stanton Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2020-01-10 Impact factor: 3.603
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: Inger Utne; Borghild Løyland; Ellen Karine Grov; Hege Lund Rasmussen; Ann Helen Torstveit; Bruce A Cooper; Judy Mastick; Melissa Mazor; Melisa Wong; Steven M Paul; Yvette P Conley; Thierry Jahan; Christine Ritchie; Jon D Levine; Christine Miaskowski Journal: Eur J Oncol Nurs Date: 2018-08-22 Impact factor: 2.398
Authors: Nadia Miladi; Richi Dossa; Maman Joyce Dogba; Marie Immacula Fabienne Cléophat-Jolicoeur; Bruno Gagnon Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2019-06-28 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Armando M Marrufo; Stephen O Mathew; Pankaj Chaudhary; Joseph D Malaer; Jamboor K Vishwanatha; Porunelloor A Mathew Journal: Am J Cancer Res Date: 2018-06-01 Impact factor: 6.166
Authors: Arielle Radin; Patricia A Ganz; Kathleen Van Dyk; Annette L Stanton; Julienne E Bower Journal: Psychosom Med Date: 2021-04-01 Impact factor: 4.312