ABSTRACT
Up to 80% of women breast cancer survivors (BCS), particularly those treated with chemotherapy, report persistent cognitive impairment. Several meta-analyses and empirical studies assessing cancer and chemotherapy-related cognitive impairment (CRCI) in BCS have reported cognitive deficits across many general domains of cognition. Moreover, discrepancies often arise between objectively measured and self-reported impairment, potentially due, in part, to the use of non-specific neuropsychological assessments. Cognitive impairments faced by BCS may only be experienced by a portion of individuals due to the interaction of several contributing factors (e.g., age, fatigue, stress), although this possibility has not been assessed systematically. This study measured cognitive performance using multiple modalities: 1) self-report measures, 2) traditional neuropsychological assessments, and 3) experimental cognitive paradigms. Using machine learning, we generated models to distinguish BCS from healthy aging individuals without breast cancer, and to assess the relative predictive value of these three assessment modalities. We found that self-report measures of fatigue, distractibility, and stress were able to successfully differentiate BCS from healthy control participants. Further, a model combining these self-report measures with measures from experimental cognitive paradigms and neuropsychological assessments increased predictive accuracy; performance on cognitive paradigms ranked more important for prediction than performance on neuropsychological assessments. Although preliminary, results highlight the predictive utility of combining measures from several modalities and indicate that several distinct factors may contribute to CRCI. As the nature of CRCI is complex, this approach may help identify the best combination of assessments and performance metrics to measure subtle cognitive impairments in women BCS.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This research was supported by a Tier 1 Pilot Award from the Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Chapel Hill.
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:
All procedures for this study were reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
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, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.
