Advanced radiation techniques can reduce the severity of neurocognitive sequelae in young brain tumor patients. In the present analysis, we sought to compare neurocognitive outcomes after proton irradiation with patients who underwent photon radiotherapy (RT) and surgery. Neurocognitive outcomes were evaluated in 103 pediatric brain tumor patients (proton RT n = 26, photon RT n = 30, surgery n = 47) before and after treatment. Comparison of neurocognitive outcomes following different treatment modalities were analyzed over four years after treatment completion. Longitudinal analyses included 42 months of follow-up after proton RT and 55 months after photon RT and surgery. Neurocognitive assessment included standardized tests examining seven domains. A comparison of neurocognitive outcomes after RT (proton and photon with >90% additional surgery) and surgery showed no significant differences in any neurocognitive domain. Neurocognitive functioning tests after proton RT failed to identify alterations compared to baseline testing. Long-term follow up over four years after photon RT showed a decrease in non-verbal intelligence (−9.6%; p = 0.01) and visuospatial construction (−14.9%; p = 0.02). After surgery, there was a decline in non-verbal intelligence (−10.7%; p = 0.01) and processing speed (14.9%; p = 0.002). Differences in neurocognitive outcomes between RT and surgical cohorts in direct intermodal comparison at long-term follow-up were not identified in our study, suggesting that modern radiation therapy does not affect cognition as much as in the past. There were no alterations in long-term neurocognitive abilities after proton RT, whereas decline of processing speed, non-verbal intelligence, and visuospatial abilities were observed after both photon RT and surgery. Domains dependent on intact white matter structures appear particularly vulnerable to brain tumor treatment irrespective of treatment approach.
OBJECTIVE: The occurrence of neuropsychological late effects in childhood brain tumor patients is well known in literature and practice, as well as the use of neuropsychological testing and therapy procedures. Despite guidelines, actual care is quite heterogeneous and often does not meet the needs due to lack of resources. Therefore, a standardized tool to improve awareness of and access to neuropsychological assessment, but even more treatment was developed. METHODS: The core of this Quality-Improvement project is a multilevel and interdisciplinary approach characterized by iterative processes (PDSA-cycles): (1) conceptualization by interdisciplinary, multicenter teams of experts, (2) consensus in Delphi surveys by medical, nursing and psychosocial experts (N=45) and final approval by the steering group. (3) Pilot phases (N=44): Manageability and acceptance, emotional well-being and the degree of information were recorded using a process-oriented screening. RESULTS: The expert meetings resulted in two booklets ("Look closely - Psychosocial assessment" & "1,2,3 - All about Neuropsychology"): Each booklet offers creative methods with a high prompting character to motivate the child to participate actively in two face-to-face sessions (psychoeducational, work and exercise and reflection section). They enable patients to make themselves experts on these topics with age-appropriate, interactive methods. The Delphi survey revealed a consensus of 69%-93%. Patients using the Psychosocial-assessment booklet showed generally low negative emotions and stable positive emotions, which significantly increased during the second session (Z = 2.156, p = .031). Moreover, positive emotions increase significantly during the second session (Z = 2.805, p = .005). Self-indicated degree of information increases significantly with both booklets (Psychosocial assessment: Z = 3.133, p = .002; Neuropsychology: Z = 2.751, p = .006). CONCLUSION: The results illustrate a positive emotional approach to neuropsychological assessment and treatment. Likewise, the rapid increase in expert knowledge supports access to this specific topic and can be considered a minimum standard.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.