Jamie S Myers1, Melike Kahya2, Melissa Mitchell3, Junqiang Dai4, Jianghua He4, Sanghee Moon2, Kevin Hamilton2, Mary Valla5, Anne O'Dea6, Jennifer Klemp7, Monica Kurylo8, Abiodun Akinwuntan2, Hannes Devos2. 1. Office of Grants and Research, University of Kansas School of Nursing, MS 4043, 3901 Rainbow Blvd, Kansas City, KS, 66160, USA. jmyers@kumc.edu. 2. Department of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation Science, University of Kansas School of Health Professions, 3901 Rainbow Blvd, Kansas City, KS, 66160, USA. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Kansas Medical Center, 3901 Rainbow Blvd, Kansas City, KS, 66160, USA. 4. Department of Biostatistics, University of Kansas Medical Center, 3901 Rainbow Blvd, Kansas City, KS, 66160, USA. 5. North Kansas City Hospital, 2750 Clay Edwards Drive, North Kansas City, MO, 64116, USA. 6. Department of Medical Oncology, University of Kansas Medical Center, 3901 Rainbow Blvd, Kansas City, KS, 66160, USA. 7. University of Kansas Cancer Center, 2650 Shawnee Mission Pkwy, Westwood, KS, 66205, USA. 8. Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, University of Kansas Medical Center, 3901 Rainbow Blvd, Kansas City, KS, 66160, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this cross-sectional comparative pilot study was to evaluate cognitive effort, indexed by pupillary response (PR), for breast cancer survivors (BCS) with complaints of cognitive dysfunction following chemotherapy. STUDY AIMS: Compare the cognitive effort employed by BCS to healthy controls (HC) during neuropsychological tests (NPT) for memory, sustained attention, verbal fluency, visuospatial ability, processing speed and executive function; and Investigate the relationship between PR-indexed cognitive effort and participants' self-report of cognitive function. METHODS: Self-report of cognitive function was collected from 23 BCS and 23 HC. PR was measured during NPT. Independent two-sample t tests or Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to compare group scores. Between-group effect size (Cohen's d) was calculated for each outcome. Correlation between mean self-report scores and PR values, as well as 95% confidence intervals, was calculated. RESULTS: No group differences were demonstrated for NPT performance. BCS reported more issues with cognitive function than HC (p < .0001). A group effect for BCS was seen with PR-indexed cognitive effort for components of most NPT (p < .05). PR was correlated with most self-report measures of cognitive function (r = 0.33-0.45). CONCLUSIONS: PR sensitivity to cognitive effort across a variety of NPT and correlation with self-report of cognitive function was demonstrated. The portability, affordability, and "real-time" aspects of PR are attractive for potential use in the clinic setting to assess cognitive function. A larger study is needed to confirm these results. Prospective investigation of PR in BCS is needed to demonstrate sensitivity to cognitive function changes over time.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this cross-sectional comparative pilot study was to evaluate cognitive effort, indexed by pupillary response (PR), for breast cancer survivors (BCS) with complaints of cognitive dysfunction following chemotherapy. STUDY AIMS: Compare the cognitive effort employed by BCS to healthy controls (HC) during neuropsychological tests (NPT) for memory, sustained attention, verbal fluency, visuospatial ability, processing speed and executive function; and Investigate the relationship between PR-indexed cognitive effort and participants' self-report of cognitive function. METHODS: Self-report of cognitive function was collected from 23 BCS and 23 HC. PR was measured during NPT. Independent two-sample t tests or Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to compare group scores. Between-group effect size (Cohen's d) was calculated for each outcome. Correlation between mean self-report scores and PR values, as well as 95% confidence intervals, was calculated. RESULTS: No group differences were demonstrated for NPT performance. BCS reported more issues with cognitive function than HC (p < .0001). A group effect for BCS was seen with PR-indexed cognitive effort for components of most NPT (p < .05). PR was correlated with most self-report measures of cognitive function (r = 0.33-0.45). CONCLUSIONS: PR sensitivity to cognitive effort across a variety of NPT and correlation with self-report of cognitive function was demonstrated. The portability, affordability, and "real-time" aspects of PR are attractive for potential use in the clinic setting to assess cognitive function. A larger study is needed to confirm these results. Prospective investigation of PR in BCS is needed to demonstrate sensitivity to cognitive function changes over time.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; Cognitive dysfunction; Cognitive neuroscience; Pupillary response
Authors: A J Saykin; H A Wishart; L A Rabin; R B Santulli; L A Flashman; J D West; T L McHugh; A C Mamourian Journal: Neurology Date: 2006-09-12 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Kerstin Hermelink; Helmut Küchenhoff; Michael Untch; Ingo Bauerfeind; Michael Patrick Lux; Markus Bühner; Juliane Manitz; Veronika Fensterer; Karin Münzel Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Sanghee Moon; Melike Kahya; Kelly E Lyons; Rajesh Pahwa; Abiodun E Akinwuntan; Hannes Devos Journal: Int J Neurosci Date: 2020-04-07 Impact factor: 2.292