Andrew M Heitzer1, Jason M Ashford1, Brian T Harel2, Adrian Schembri3, Michelle A Swain4, Joanna Wallace5, Kirsten K Ness6, Fang Wang7, Hui Zhang7, Thomas E Merchant8, Giles W Robinson9, Amar Gajjar9, Heather M Conklin10. 1. Department of Psychology, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, 262 Danny Thomas Place, Memphis, TN, 38105-2794, USA. 2. Takeda Pharmaceuticals International Co, Cambridge, MA, USA. 3. Cogstate Limited, New Haven, CT, USA. 4. Paediatric Rehabilitation Service, Lady Cilento Children's Hospital, Bribane, QLD, Australia. 5. Division of Child Neurology, Stanford University/Lucile Packard Children's Hospital, Palo Alto, CA, USA. 6. Department of Epidemiology and Cancer Control, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, TN, USA. 7. Department of Biostatistics, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, TN, USA. 8. Department of Radiation Oncology, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, TN, USA. 9. Department of Oncology, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, TN, USA. 10. Department of Psychology, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, 262 Danny Thomas Place, Memphis, TN, 38105-2794, USA. heather.conklin@stjude.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Advantages to computerized cognitive assessment include increased precision of response time measurement and greater availability of alternate forms. Cogstate is a computerized cognitive battery developed to monitor attention, memory, and processing speed. Although the literature suggests the domains assessed by Cogstate are areas of deficit in children undergoing treatment for medulloblastoma, the validity of Cogstate in this population has not been previously investigated. METHODS: Children participating in an ongoing prospective trial of risk-adapted therapy for newly diagnosed medulloblastoma (n = 73; mean age at baseline = 12.1 years) were administered Cogstate at baseline (after surgery, prior to adjuvant therapy) and 3 months later (6 weeks after completion of radiation therapy). Gold-standard neuropsychological measures of similar functions were administered at baseline. RESULTS: Linear mixed models revealed performance within age expectations at baseline across Cogstate tasks. Following radiation therapy, there was a decline in performance on Cogstate measures of reaction time (Identification and One Back). Females exhibited slower reaction time on One Back and Detection tasks at baseline. Higher-dose radiation therapy and younger age were associated with greater declines in performance. Pearson correlations revealed small-to-moderate correlations between Cogstate reaction time and working memory tasks with well-validated neuropsychological measures. CONCLUSIONS: Cogstate is sensitive to acute cognitive effects experienced by some children with medulloblastoma and demonstrates associations with clinical predictors established in the literature. Correlations with neuropsychological measures of similar constructs offer additional evidence of validity. The findings provide support for the utility of Cogstate in monitoring acute cognitive effects in pediatric cancer.
PURPOSE: Advantages to computerized cognitive assessment include increased precision of response time measurement and greater availability of alternate forms. Cogstate is a computerized cognitive battery developed to monitor attention, memory, and processing speed. Although the literature suggests the domains assessed by Cogstate are areas of deficit in children undergoing treatment for medulloblastoma, the validity of Cogstate in this population has not been previously investigated. METHODS: Children participating in an ongoing prospective trial of risk-adapted therapy for newly diagnosed medulloblastoma (n = 73; mean age at baseline = 12.1 years) were administered Cogstate at baseline (after surgery, prior to adjuvant therapy) and 3 months later (6 weeks after completion of radiation therapy). Gold-standard neuropsychological measures of similar functions were administered at baseline. RESULTS: Linear mixed models revealed performance within age expectations at baseline across Cogstate tasks. Following radiation therapy, there was a decline in performance on Cogstate measures of reaction time (Identification and One Back). Females exhibited slower reaction time on One Back and Detection tasks at baseline. Higher-dose radiation therapy and younger age were associated with greater declines in performance. Pearson correlations revealed small-to-moderate correlations between Cogstate reaction time and working memory tasks with well-validated neuropsychological measures. CONCLUSIONS: Cogstate is sensitive to acute cognitive effects experienced by some children with medulloblastoma and demonstrates associations with clinical predictors established in the literature. Correlations with neuropsychological measures of similar constructs offer additional evidence of validity. The findings provide support for the utility of Cogstate in monitoring acute cognitive effects in pediatric cancer.
Authors: Roger J Packer; Amar Gajjar; Gilbert Vezina; Lucy Rorke-Adams; Peter C Burger; Patricia L Robertson; Lisa Bayer; Deborah LaFond; Bernadine R Donahue; MaryAnne H Marymont; Karin Muraszko; James Langston; Richard Sposto Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-09-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Cara B Reeves; Shawna L Palmer; Wilburn E Reddick; Thomas E Merchant; Gray M Buchanan; Amar Gajjar; Raymond K Mulhern Journal: J Pediatr Psychol Date: 2005-03-23
Authors: M Douglas Ris; Karin Walsh; Dana Wallace; F Daniel Armstrong; Emi Holmes; Amar Gajjar; Tianni Zhou; Roger J Packer Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2013-02-26 Impact factor: 3.167
Authors: Brenda J Spiegler; Eric Bouffet; Mark L Greenberg; James T Rutka; Donald J Mabbott Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-02-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Sarah J Knight; Heather M Conklin; Shawna L Palmer; Jane E Schreiber; Carol L Armstrong; Dana Wallace; Melanie Bonner; Michelle A Swain; Karen D Evankovich; Donald J Mabbott; Robyn Boyle; Qinlei Huang; Hui Zhang; Vicki A Anderson; Amar Gajjar Journal: J Pediatr Psychol Date: 2014-03-12
Authors: Molly E Wickenhauser; Raja B Khan; Darcy Raches; Jason M Ashford; Kathryn M W Russell; Kristin Lyons; Giles W Robinson; Amar Gajjar; Paul Klimo; Heather M Conklin Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2022-04-05 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Alexandra M Gaynor; Anam Ahsan; Duane Jung; Elizabeth Schofield; Yuelin Li; Elizabeth Ryan; Tim A Ahles; James C Root Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2022-08-08 Impact factor: 4.062
Authors: Cassie Kline; Schuyler Stoller; Lennox Byer; David Samuel; Janine M Lupo; Melanie A Morrison; Andreas M Rauschecker; Pierre Nedelec; Walter Faig; Dena B Dubal; Heather J Fullerton; Sabine Mueller Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-06-23 Impact factor: 5.738
Authors: Soumen Khatua; Laurence J N Cooper; David I Sandberg; Leena Ketonen; Jason M Johnson; Michael E Rytting; Diane D Liu; Heather Meador; Prashant Trikha; Robin J Nakkula; Gregory K Behbehani; Dristhi Ragoonanan; Sumit Gupta; Aikaterini Kotrotsou; Tagwa Idris; Elizabeth J Shpall; Katy Rezvani; Rivka Colen; Wafik Zaky; Dean A Lee; Vidya Gopalakrishnan Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2020-08-17 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Andrew M Heitzer; Alexandra M Villagran; Kimberly Raghubar; Austin L Brown; Miranda L Camet; M Douglas Ris; Jenny H Hanning; M Fatih Okcu; Arnold C Paulino; Murali Chintagumpala; Lisa S Kahalley Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2019-11-28 Impact factor: 4.130