| Literature DB >> 35274189 |
Ferenc Magyari1,2, István Virga3,4, Zsófia Simon3,4, Zsófia Miltényi3,4, Anna Illés5, Karolina Kósa6, Tibor Ivánka7, Roland Berecz7, Anikó Égerházi7, Árpád Illés3,4.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Nowadays, more than 80% of newly diagnosed classical Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) patients can be cured and become long-term survivors due to risk and response-adapted treatment strategies. A well-known side effect is cognitive dysfunction that appears in HL patients after chemotherapy. In the present study, we aimed to measure cognitive dysfunction in our HL patients in this study and to find potential correlations between patient-related factors, the signs and symptoms of their diseases, or therapeutic factors.Entities:
Keywords: Cognitive impairment; Computerized neuropsychological test battery (CANTAB); Employment status; Health-related quality of life; Hodgkin lymphoma
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35274189 PMCID: PMC9046282 DOI: 10.1007/s00520-022-06918-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Support Care Cancer ISSN: 0941-4355 Impact factor: 3.359
Baseline characteristics of HL survivors. ECOG PS Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status, CR complete remission, PR partial remission, SD stable disease, ABVD adriamycin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine
| All patients ( | |
|---|---|
| Mean age at survey (years) | 45.73±14.37 |
| Mean age at diagnosis (years) | 32.45±12.89 |
| Time elapsed (years) | 13.29±9.93 |
| Observation period (years) | |
| 0–4 | 28 (24%) |
| 5–9 | 25 (21%) |
| 10–14 | 18 (15%) |
| >14 | 47 (40%) |
| Male | 54 (46%) |
| Female | 64 (54%) |
| Residence | |
| Village | 26 (22%) |
| City | 92 (78%) |
| Education level | |
| High school or below | 79 (67%) |
| College or above | 38 (33%) |
| Active employment status | 69 (67%) |
| Inactive employment status | 34 (33%) |
| HL stage | |
| I | 5 (4%) |
| II | 56 (47%) |
| III | 42 (36%) |
| IV | 15 (13%) |
| Bulk disease | 21 (35%) |
| Without bulk | 39 (65%) |
| B symptom | 22 (37%) |
| No B symptom | 38 (63%) |
| ECOG | |
| 0 | 23 (22%) |
| 1 | 31 (30%) |
| 2 | 20 (20%) |
| 3 | 21 (21%) |
| 4 | 7 (7%) |
| Comorbidity | 65 (55%) |
| No comorbidity | 53 (45%) |
| Treatment | |
| ABVD | 74 (64%) |
| Other | 43 (36%) |
| Irradiation | 93 (79%) |
| No irradiation | 25 (21%) |
| Primary treatment response | |
| CR | 112 (95%) |
| PR | 4 |
| SD | 2 |
| Treatment-related side effect | |
| Yes | 65 (55%) |
| No | 53 (45%) |
| Relapse | 20 (17%) |
| No relapse | 98 (83%) |
Fig. 1Difference between HL survivors (n=118) and the control CANTAB volunteers. DMS, simultaneous and delayed matching; PAL, paired association learning; SRM, spatial recognition memory; IED, intra/extra dimensional shift; PRM, pattern recognition memory; RTI, reaction time; RVP, rapid visual information processing; SOC, stocking of Cambridge; SSP, spatial span; SWM, spatial working memory
Fig. 2Impaired cognitive function (n=62) based on the visual memory, attention, and working memory/planning group
Predictive factors for visual memory, attention, and working memory/planning
| Impaired function | Normal function | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Age at CANTAB | 0.002 | ||
| >=40 | 21 (81%) | 43 (47%) | |
| <40 | 5 (19%) | 49 (53%) | |
| Age at HL dg. | 0.001 | ||
| >=30 | 20 (77%) | 37 (40%) | |
| <30 | 6 (23%) | 55 (60%) | |
| Disability pension | 10 (40%) | 16 (18%) | 0.017 |
| Other patients | 15 (60%) | 75 (82%) | |
| Employment status | 0.034 | ||
| Inactive | 11 (52%) | 23 (28%) | |
| Active | 10 (48%) | 59 (72%) | |
| Employment status | 0.049 | ||
| Inactive | 16 (46%) | 18 (26%) | |
| Active | 19 (54%) | 50 (74%) | |
| Age at CANTAB | 0.045 | ||
| >=40 | 21 (70%) | 43 (49%) | |
| <40 | 9 (30%) | 45 (51%) | |
| Age at HL dg. | 0.001 | ||
| >=30 | 22 (73%) | 35 (40%) | |
| <30 | 8 (27%) | 53 (60%) | |
| Disability pension | 11 (38%) | 15 (17%) | 0.021 |
| Other patients | 18 (62%) | 72 (83%) | |
| Employment status | 0.015 | ||
| Inactive | 14 (52%) | 20 (26%) | |
| Active | 13 (48%) | 56 (74%) | |
Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals of cognitive domains
| ODDS | 95% CI | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Age at CANTAB >=40 vs <40 | 4.786 | 1.662–13.784 | 0.004 |
| Age at HL dg. >=30 vs. <30 | 4.955 | 1.817–13.509 | 0.002 |
| Disability pension vs. other patients | 3.125 | 1.190–8.204 | 0.021 |
Employment status Inactive vs. active | 2.822 | 1.056–7.638 | 0.039 |
Employment status In active vs. active | 2.339 | 1.004–5.505 | 0.050 |
| Age at CANTAB >=40 vs. <40 | 2.442 | 1.007–5.921 | 0.048 |
| Age at HL dg. >=30 vs. <30 | 4.164 | 1.668–10.396 | 0.002 |
| Disability pension vs. other patients | 2.933 | 1.153–7.463 | 0.024 |
Employment status Inactive vs. active | 3.015 | 1.212–7.501 | 0.018 |
Significant correlations between cognitive subtest results and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) questionnaires. Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient was used to establish statistical significance
DMS simultaneous and delayed matching, PAL paired association learning, SRM spatial recognition memory, IED intra/extra dimensional shift, PRM pattern recognition memory, RTI reaction time, RVP rapid visual information processing, SOC stocking of Cambridge, SSP spatial span, SWM spatial working memory, HADS Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, GHQ General Health Questionnaire, PSS Perceived Stress Scale, SOC Sense of Coherence Scale, DAS Dysfunctional Attitude Scale. Blue colour indicates as a negative; orange colour indicates a positive correlation