| Literature DB >> 36009154 |
Aobo Chen1,2, Chenglong Cao1,2,3, Bangxin Liu2, Shuochen Wang1,2, Shukai Wu1,2, Guozheng Xu1,2, Jian Song1,2.
Abstract
The cognitive impairment of pituitary adenomas (PAs) has received increasing attention. Hyperprolactinemia and tumor mass effect are the potential causes. The aim of this study was to identify possible cognitive impairment and to further explore the correlation between these indices and prolactin (PRL) levels, based on the control of tumor size. Twenty-seven patients with prolactinomas (patient group) and twenty-six matched health control group (HC group) were enrolled in this study. All participants performed the flanker task while we continuously recorded electroencephalography data. On the behavioral performance level, patients showed a significantly slower reaction time (RT) in both flanker types. Concerning the event-related potentials level, patients elicited reduced P2 and enhanced N2 amplitudes compared with the HC group, suggesting an impairment of attentional processing (P2) and conflict monitoring (N2). Moreover, the patient group also induced lower P3 amplitudes relative to the HC group in both types, indicating that there were deficits in attentional resource allocation ability. We also found a significant correlation between the P3 amplitudes and incongruent condition RTs, as well as the subsequent PRL levels in the patient group. In conclusion, this is an innovative study that reveals the impaired cognition abilities in prolactinomas, and also proposes the possible cognitive toxicity of oversecreted PRL levels, which provides evidence for further research on the cognitive decline in PAs.Entities:
Keywords: attention; cognition; event-related potentials; interference control; prolactinoma
Year: 2022 PMID: 36009154 PMCID: PMC9406026 DOI: 10.3390/brainsci12081091
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Brain Sci ISSN: 2076-3425
Figure 1The modified Eriksen flanker task paradigm.
Summary of the participants’ characteristics.
| HCs Group | Patients Group |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| N | 26 | 27 | / |
| Females/Males | 16/10 | 14/13 | 0.477 a |
| Age (years) (M ± SD) | 33.36 ± 11.97 | 36.08 ± 11.21 | 0.535 b |
| Education (years) (M ± SD) | 12.80 ± 2.32 | 11.21 ± 3.37 | 0.740 b |
| Serum PRL (ng/mL) (M ± SD) | / | 107.41 ± 68.70 | / |
a Chi-square test. b Two-tailed independent-samples t-test. PRL: prolactin.
Figure 2Grand-averaged ERP of the P2 waveforms and topographic voltage maps, comparison of the FPz, Fz, and Cz sites by group. HC group: red lines; patient group: blue lines; congruent trials: solid lines; incongruent trials: dashed lines.
Figure 3Grand-averaged ERP of the N2 and P3 waveforms and a topographic voltage map comparison of the Fz, FCz, Cz, CPz sites by group. (A): Averaged N2 waveform comparison of the Fz, FCz, and Cz sites (light gray background). Averaged P3 waveform comparison of the Fz, FCz, Cz, and CPz sites (dark gray background). HC group: red lines; patient group: blue lines; congruent trials: solid lines; incongruent trials: dashed lines. (B): N2 topographies between groups and types. (C): P3 topographies between groups and types.
Summary of differences in behavioral and ERP amplitudes between the two groups.
| Dependent Variables | Hyperprolactinemia-Related Decrease | No Difference | Hyperprolactinemia-Related Increase |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| Reaction Time | √ | ||
| Accuracy | √ | ||
|
| |||
| P2 Amplitude | √ | ||
| N2 Amplitude | √ | ||
| P3 Amplitude | √ | ||
Figure 4Correlations between the RT and P3 amplitudes and the PRL level of patient group. RT: reaction time; PRL: prolactin.