4.5 Article

Neurocognitive functioning and health-related quality of life in patients with radiologically suspected meningiomas

Journal

JOURNAL OF NEURO-ONCOLOGY
Volume 113, Issue 3, Pages 433-440

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11060-013-1132-4

Keywords

Meningiomas; Cognitive disorders; Health-related quality of life; Wait-and-scan

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Few data are available concerning the neurocognitive outcome and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) following neurosurgery in meningioma patients, and even less is known about neurocognitive functioning and HRQOL in untreated patients with stable lesions. The present study aims at quantifying the nature and extent of neurocognitive deficits and HRQOL in suspected WHO grade I meningioma patients who have not received surgery and/or radiotherapy and compare outcome to that of healthy controls. Neurocognitive functioning was assessed by using a standardized test battery in 21 radiologically suspected WHO grade I meningioma patients with a wait-and-scan approach. HRQOL was assessed with the MOS SF-36 questionnaire. These patients were matched for age, sex, and education with 21 healthy controls. Associations between neurocognitive functioning on the one hand and HRQOL and tumor characteristics on the other were determined. Compared to healthy controls, meningioma patients had lower psychomotor speed (p = 0.011) and working memory capacity (p = 0.034) and furthermore attained lower levels of self-perceived general health and vitality. Neurocognitive functioning in untreated patients was not related to tumor volume, edema or tumor lateralization. No correlations were found between psychomotor speed or working memory and HRQOL. Untreated meningioma patients with stable lesions have limitations in neurocognitive functioning and HRQOL. In deciding upon a treatment strategy these reductions in functioning should be taken into consideration and communicated with the patient.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available