Ashlee R Loughan1, Sarah E Braun2, Autumn Lanoye3. 1. Department of Neurology, Division of Neuro-oncology, Virginia Commonwealth University and Massey Cancer Center, McGlothlin Medical Education Center, Richmond. 2. Department of Psychology, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond. 3. Department of Health Behavior and Policy, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Neurocognitive assessments have become integral to comprehensive neuro-oncology care. Existing screening tools may be insensitive to cognitive changes caused by medical treatments. Research supports the clinical value and psychometric properties of the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS) in various medical populations; however, there is minimal evidence for its use in neuro-oncology. The purpose of the current study was to further explore the cognitive profile of patients with primary brain tumor (PBT) using the RBANS and to assess rates of below-expectation performance compared to normative data and estimated intellectual functioning. METHODS: Data were collected on 82 PBT patients (54% male; age range, 19-81 years). All patients were administered the RBANS-Update and the Advanced Clinical Solutions-Test of Premorbid Functioning (TOPF) according to standardized instructions. Cognitive strengths and weaknesses were identified for PBT patients. Descriptive analyses, t tests, and chi-squared tests were utilized to identify and compare cognitive profiles. RESULTS: Overall, cognitive performance was low average for PBT patients. When compared to standardization data, PBT patients performed significantly worse across all 5 RBANS indexes, with Attention and Memory showing the largest discrepancies. Estimated intelligence analyses reflected greater deficits in cognitive functioning than when compared to a normal distribution. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary research demonstrates the RBANS is an efficient screening tool to assess cognitive deficits in PBT patients. Data also support the importance of comparison to self, rather than normative distribution in ensuring proper identification and classification of patients.
BACKGROUND: Neurocognitive assessments have become integral to comprehensive neuro-oncology care. Existing screening tools may be insensitive to cognitive changes caused by medical treatments. Research supports the clinical value and psychometric properties of the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS) in various medical populations; however, there is minimal evidence for its use in neuro-oncology. The purpose of the current study was to further explore the cognitive profile of patients with primary brain tumor (PBT) using the RBANS and to assess rates of below-expectation performance compared to normative data and estimated intellectual functioning. METHODS: Data were collected on 82 PBT patients (54% male; age range, 19-81 years). All patients were administered the RBANS-Update and the Advanced Clinical Solutions-Test of Premorbid Functioning (TOPF) according to standardized instructions. Cognitive strengths and weaknesses were identified for PBT patients. Descriptive analyses, t tests, and chi-squared tests were utilized to identify and compare cognitive profiles. RESULTS: Overall, cognitive performance was low average for PBT patients. When compared to standardization data, PBT patients performed significantly worse across all 5 RBANS indexes, with Attention and Memory showing the largest discrepancies. Estimated intelligence analyses reflected greater deficits in cognitive functioning than when compared to a normal distribution. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary research demonstrates the RBANS is an efficient screening tool to assess cognitive deficits in PBT patients. Data also support the importance of comparison to self, rather than normative distribution in ensuring proper identification and classification of patients.
Entities:
Keywords:
RBANS; cognitive functioning; neuropsychological functioning; primary brain tumor patients; quality of life
Authors: T J Postma; M Klein; C C P Verstappen; J E C Bromberg; M Swennen; J A Langendijk; M J B Taphoorn; P Scheltens; B J Slotman; H M van der Ploeg; N K Aaronson; J J Heimans Journal: Neurology Date: 2002-07-09 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: David K Wellisch; Thomas A Kaleita; Donald Freeman; Timothy Cloughesy; Jeffrey Goldman Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2002 May-Jun Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Laura P Sands; Kristine Yaffe; Kenneth Covinsky; Mary-Margaret Chren; Steven Counsell; Robert Palmer; Richard Fortinsky; C Seth Landefeld Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Jennifer K Matsui; Haley K Perlow; Cyril Baiyee; Alex R Ritter; Mark V Mishra; Joseph A Bovi; Vinai Gondi; Paul D Brown; Ashlee R Loughan; Heather E Leeper; Erica Dawson; Joshua D Palmer Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-09-01 Impact factor: 6.575