ABSTRACT
Background Gliomas are typically considered to cause relatively few neurological impairments. However, cognitive difficulties can arise, for example during treatment, with potential detrimental effects on quality of life. Accurate, reproducible, and accessible cognitive assessment is therefore vital in understanding the effects of both tumour and treatments. Our aim is to compare traditional neuropsychological assessment with an app-based cognitive screening tool in patients with glioma before and after surgical resection. Our hypotheses were that cognitive impairments would be apparent, even in a young and high functioning cohort, and that app-based cognitive screening would complement traditional neuropsychological assessment.
Methods Seventeen patients with diffuse gliomas completed a traditional neuropsychological assessment and an app-based touchscreen tablet assessment (OCS-BRIDGE) pre- and post-operatively. The app assessment was also conducted at 3- and 12-month follow-up. Impairment rates, mean performance, and pre- and post-operative changes were compared using standardized Z-scores.
Results Approximately 2-3 hours of traditional assessment indicated an average of 2.88 cognitive impairments per patient, whilst the 30-minute screen indicated 1.18. As might be expected, traditional assessment using multiple items across the difficulty range proved more sensitive than brief screening measures in areas such as memory and attention. However, the capacity of the screening app to capture reaction times enhanced its sensitivity, relative to traditional assessment, in the area of non-verbal function. Where there was overlap between the two assessments, for example digit span tasks, the results were broadly equivalent.
Conclusions Cognitive impairments were common in this sample and app-based screening complemented traditional neuropsychological assessment. Implications for clinical assessment and follow-up are discussed.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
RRG is funded by a Guarantors of Brain PostDoctoral Fellowship award, by a Cancer Research UK Cambridge Centre RG86786 grant (CRUK grant ref: A25117) and by the EMERGIA Junta de Andalucia program. YE is funded by a Royal Society Dorothy Hodgkin Research Fellowship. MA is funded by the Cambridge Trust Yousef Jameel Scholarship. SJP is supported by the National Institute for Health Career Development Fellowship (CDF 2018 11 ST2 003). This report is independent research supported by the National Institute of Research (NIHR Career Development Fellowship, Mr Stephen Price, CDF-2018-11-ST2-003).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This study was approved by the Cambridge Central Research Ethics Committee (protocol number 16/EE/0151).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
In accordance with ethics requirements, data will be made available to collaborating centres upon reasonable request.