4.1 Article

Processing speed in children treated for brain tumors: effects of radiation therapy and age

Journal

CHILD NEUROPSYCHOLOGY
Volume 25, Issue 2, Pages 217-231

Publisher

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/09297049.2018.1456517

Keywords

neoplasms; child development; pediatric assessment; cancer; brain injury

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The current study examined processing speed in children two years post-treatment for brain tumors (BT) with radiation therapy (RT) compared to those treated with without RT. Participants included 59 children (4-17 years) with BT assessed as part of the Brain Radiation Investigative Study Consortium (BRISC). Processing speed was assessed at two time points: Time1 (3-9 months post-surgery) for 26 children who received whole brain or focal RT (RT group) and 33 treated without RT (no-RT group), and again two years later (Time2) for 42 participants (17 RT, 25 no-RT). Linear mixed effects (LME) regression analyses examined differences in cognitive and motor speed between groups and across visits, with age at Time1 (age1) treated as a moderating variable, and sex and primary tumor size as covariates. No effects for treatment group or visit were found for motor speed (Pegboard) or mean reaction time (Attention Network Task). On the Wechsler Processing Speed Index (PSI), the no-RT group performed better than the RT group, with a group-by-age interaction such that across visits, the difference between the no-RT and RT groups was larger among children who were older at initial treatment (>= 10 years) than among those who were younger (<10 years). Cumulative brain injury earlier in life (tumor, surgery, plus RT) may result in greater impact on more complex tasks of cognitive efficiency. Children receiving RT showed reduced processing speed over time, with a larger group difference among those who were over 10 years at treatment.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available