4.6 Article

Cognitive impairment in testicular cancer survivors 2 to 7 years after treatment

期刊

SUPPORTIVE CARE IN CANCER
卷 23, 期 10, 页码 2973-2979

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-015-2663-3

关键词

Testicular cancer; Cognitive impairment; Cognition function; Quality of life; Neuropsychological testing

资金

  1. Danish Cancer Society
  2. Savaerksejer Jeppe Juhls og Hustru Ovita Juhls Mindelegat

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of the present study was to determine the prevalence of cognitive impairment (CI) in a group of testicular (TC) survivors by comparing their neuropsychological test scores with normative data and to assess their performance in specific cognitive domains. Seventy-two TC survivors were evaluated 2 to 7 years post-treatment with a neuropsychological test battery that assessed multiple cognitive domains-attention and working memory, processing speed, verbal fluency, learning and memory, and executive functioning. Test scores were compared with normative data, and CI status was calculated for each participant. In group-level analyses, survivors exhibited significantly impaired scores on a majority (9/12) of the neuropsychological outcomes (p < 0.01). In individual-level analyses, 62.5 % of the survivors were classified as having CI, significantly exceeding the expected normative frequency of 25 % (binomial test: p < 0.001). In particular, CI was observed in multiple outcomes related to verbal learning and memory (29 to 33 % of participants), visual learning and memory (14-28 %), processing speed (8-24 %), executive functioning (17 %), and attention and working memory (4-15 %). No association was found between treatment modality (surgery +/- chemotherapy) and CI. The prevalence of CI in TC survivors was unexpectedly high, with survivors performing significantly worse than expected on a majority of the neuropsychological outcomes. While the findings are preliminary in nature, they still have important implications for the diagnosis and treatment of CI in TC survivors.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据