Search

ObjectiveCognitive impairment in primary and metastatic brain cancers has been well-documented. However, there is a lack of research comparing the cognitive profiles of people with non-central nervous system (CNS) metastatic cancer versus metastatic brain cancer.MethodsThis cross-sectional study consisted of 40 non-CNS metastasis, 61 brain metastasis, and 37 healthy control (HC) participants completing the same neuropsychological test battery.ResultsBoth clinical groups had reduced processing speed, verbal learning/memory, and executive functioning. Non-CNS metastasis participants performed below HC participants on processing speed and executive functioning, while brain metastasis participants demonstrated lower performance across all neuropsychological tests. Semantic verbal fluency differentiated the two clinical groups (non-CNS metastasis>brain metastasis). Twenty-five percent of non-CNS metastasis participants and 57% of brain metastasis participants had ≥3 impaired scores (i.e., ≤5th%ile).ConclusionOne-quarter of non-CNS metastasis participants were cognitively impaired on at least three neuropsychological tests, and over half of brain metastasis participants demonstrated the same level of cognitive impairment. The elevated rate of cognitive dysfunction in the non-CNS metastasis participants is possibly attributable to systemic illness and treatment effects, while the cognitive deficits among brain metastasis participants may be associated with the more significant neurologic disease burden posed by brain metastases in conjunction with treatment effects.

Background To evaluate the ability of individuals with metastatic cancer to provide informed consent to research participation, we used a structured vignette-based interview to measure 4 consenting standards across 3 participant groups. Methods Participants included 61 individuals diagnosed with brain metastasis, 41 individuals diagnosed with non-CNS metastasis, and 17 cognitively intact healthy controls. All groups were evaluated using the Capacity to Consent to Research Instrument (CCRI), a performance-based measure of research consent capacity. The ability to provide informed consent to participate in research was evaluated across 4 consent standards: expressing choice, appreciation, reasoning, and understanding. Capacity performance ratings (intact, mild/moderate impairment, severe impairment) were identified based on control group performance. Results Results revealed that the brain metastasis group performed significantly lower than healthy controls on the consent standard of understanding, while both metastatic cancer groups performed below controls on the consent standard of reasoning. Both metastatic cancer groups performed similar to controls on the standards of appreciation and expressing choice. Approximately 60% of the brain metastasis group, 54% of the non-CNS metastasis group, and 18% of healthy controls showed impaired research consent capacity. Conclusions Our findings, using a performance-based assessment, are consistent with other research indicating that the research consent process may be overly cumbersome and confusing. This, in turn, may lead to research consent impairment not only in patient groups but also in some healthy adults with intact cognitive ability.

Objective To evaluate the ability of persons with metastatic cancer to self‐assess their medical decision‐making capacity (MDC). To investigate this, we compared an objective measure of MDC with self‐ratings and evaluated predictors of agreement. Methods Data were obtained from a cross‐sectional study of metastatic cancer patients at a large academic medical center. Across all standards of MDC, sensitivity, specificity, and reliability using Gwet's AC1 statistic were calculated using the objective measure as the gold standard. Logistic regression was used to evaluate predictors of agreement between the measures across all MDC standards. Results In those with brain metastases, high sensitivity (greater than 0.7), but low specificity was observed for all standards. Poor reliability was observed across all standards. Higher age resulted in higher odds of disagreement for Standard 3 (appreciation) (OR: 1.07, 95% CI: 1.00, 1.15) and Standard 4 (reasoning) (OR: 1.05, 95% CI: 1.00, 1.10). For Standard 3, chemotherapy use and brain metastases compared to other metastases resulted in higher odds of disagreement (Chemotherapy: OR: 5.62, 95% CI: 1.37, 23.09, Brain Metastases: OR: 5.93, 95% CI: 1.28, 27.55). For Standard 5 (understanding), no predictors were associated with disagreement. Conclusions For less cognitively complex standards (e.g., appreciation), self‐report may be more valid and reliable than more cognitively complex standards (e.g., reasoning or understanding). However, overall, MDC self‐report in the current sample is suboptimal. Thus, the need for detailed assessment of MDC, especially when patients are older or used chemotherapy, is indicated. Other studies should be conducted to assess MDC agreement longitudinally.

Background Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is an effective treatment for motor disturbance in people with primary dystonia (PWD). Numerous factors are considered by an interdisciplinary consensus conference before deciding candidacy for DBS surgery (e.g., demographic, medical, cognitive, and behavioral factors). However, little is known about which of these factors are associated with PWD DBS surgery consensus conference decisions. Objective Our goal was to examine whether pre-operative demographic, medical, and cognitive/behavioral variables are associated DBS consensus conference decisions in patients with dystonia. Methods Thirty-two PWD completed comprehensive presurgery workup included neurological and neuropsychological exams, and neuroimaging in consideration for DBS surgery. An interdisciplinary conference committee either recommended or did not recommend DBS surgery based upon these data. Demographic and medical data (e.g., dystonia disease characteristics, medical comorbidities, medications) were also collected. We also examined impact from cardiovascular disease factors, using a Revised Cardiac Risk Index. PWD were grouped based on DBS conference decision (eligible: n = 21, ineligible: n = 11) and compared across demographic, medical, and cognitive/behavioral variables. Results Across clinical variables, PWD who were deemed ineligible for DBS surgery had a higher Revised Cardiac Risk Index. PWD who were classified as ineligible displayed lower global cognitive functioning, working memory, phonemic fluency, memory retrieval, and cognitive flexibility. Conclusions Consensus decision making regarding DBS surgery eligibility involves a multifactorial process. We found that deficits in executive functioning were associated with the DBS consensus committee decision. We also observed elevated cardiac risk among these individuals, likely reflecting the relation between vascular health and cognition. Implications, and clinical and scientific applications of these findings are discussed.

Objective Impairment in the ability to provide informed consent is common in persons with brain metastasis. However, little is known about what factors contribute to this impairment in the patient group. Our objective is to determine if the associations between demographic, cognitive, and clinical variables correlate with the ability to provide informed consent in persons with brain metastasis. Methods We administered a comprehensive neuropsychological battery to a group of 61 persons with brain metastasis. Demographic and clinical information was also collected. All diagnoses were made by board-certified oncologists and were verified histologically. Statistical analyses included Pearson's product-moment correlations, point biserial correlations, and linear regression. Results Results indicated that combinations of education, verbal memory, executive function, whole brain radiation therapy, and chemotherapy affected various aspects of the ability to provide informed consent. Subsequent regression models demonstrated that these variables contributed a significant amount of shared variance to the ability to provide informed consent. Conclusion We found that the ability of persons with brain metastasis to provide informed consent is a cognitively complex ability that is also affected by education and treatment variables. This information can help clinical researchers in identifying persons with brain metastasis at risk of an impaired ability to provide informed consent and aid in the consenting process.

PURPOSE Neurocognitive functioning (NCF), mood disturbances, physical functioning, and social support all share a relationship with health-related quality of life (HRQOL). However, a characterization of these relationships in persons with brain metastases (BM) has yet to be identified. METHODS Ninety-three newly diagnosed persons with BM were administered a cognitive battery to assess neurocognitive functioning, mood disturbances, physical functioning, and social support. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Treatment (FACT) scale was used to measure HRQOL. RESULTS Mood and physical function correlated with lower HRQOL in every measured domain. Verbal learning and memory correlated with every FACT subscale except emotional quality of life. Social support also correlated with several HRQOL domains. Stepwise linear regressions revealed that mood was the predominate predictor of HRQOL. Social support, physical functioning, verbal learning, and memory also contribute to HRQOL, but to a lesser extent. CONCLUSION HRQOL is a complex construct affected by mood, physical functioning, and learning and memory. Mood is a domain-independent predictor of HRQOL, while non-mood variables predict HRQOL in domain-specific ways. Thus, multifactorial baseline assessments of persons with BM are encouraged to help mitigate the impact that BM has on HRQOL.

Objective Neurocognitive functioning (NCF), mood disturbances, physical functioning, and social support all share a relationship with health-related quality of life (HRQOL). However, investigations into these relationships have not been conducted in persons with brain metastases (BM). Patients and methods Ninety-three newly diagnosed persons with BM were administered various cognitive batteries. Data were collected across a wide range of categories (ie, cognitive, demographic, disease/treatment, mood, social support, physical functioning). The Functional Assessment of Cancer Treatment (FACT) scale was used to measure HRQOL. Results Mood and physical function correlated with lower HRQOL in every measured domain. Verbal learning and memory correlated with every FACT subscale except emotional quality of life. Social support also correlated with several HRQOL domains. Stepwise linear regression revealed that mood predicted general well-being and several FACT subscales, including physical, emotional and cognitive well-being. Social support and physical health were predictive of general well-being. Verbal learning and memory predicted cognitive well-being. Conclusion HRQOL is a complex construct affected by numerous variables. In particular, mood, physical functioning, and learning and memory were important predictors of HRQOL, and clinicians are encouraged to obtain information in these areas during baseline assessments in persons with BM.

OBJECTIVE To investigate medical decision-making capacity (MDC) in patients with advanced stage cancer. METHODS Participants were 113 newly diagnosed adults with brain metastases and 41 adults with metastatic cancer without brain metastases who were recruited from an academic medical center and 40 demographically-matched healthy controls recruited from the community. We evaluated MDC using the Capacity to Consent to Treatment Instrument (CCTI) Vignette B and its four clinically relevant consent standards (expressing a treatment choice, appreciation, reasoning, and understanding). Capacity impairment ratings (no impairment, mild/moderate impairment, and severe impairment) on the consent standards were also assigned to each participant using cutoff scores derived statistically from the performance of the control group. RESULTS Both of the metastatic cancer groups (with and without brain metastasis) performed significantly below controls on consent standards of understanding and reasoning. The brain metastasis group performed below the non-metastatic cancer group on understanding. Capacity compromise was defined as performance ≤1.5 standard deviations (SD) below the control group mean. Using this definition, approximately 65% of the participants with brain metastases and 51% of participants with metastatic cancer without brain metastases were impaired on at least one MDC standard. CONCLUSION Over half of participants with metastatic cancer regardless of whether they have brain disease have reduced capacity to make treatment decisions. The finding of impaired MDC in patients without brain metastases is surprising and suggests this group likely exhibits cognitive deficits that impact their ability to understand and reason about different treatment options. This finding suggests that clinicians need to carefully consider the patient’s ability to engage in treatment decision making when they are discussing treatment options for metastatic cancer. These results also indicate a need for the development and investigation of interventions to support MDC in this patient population.

Objective To determine if cognition can be used to identify persons with cancer at high risk for the impaired ability to understand treatment decisions. Methods The association between understanding treatment decisions and cognition was examined using data from 181 participants across four groups: 67 with brain metastasis, 41 with metastatic cancer that has not spread to the brain, 27 with malignant glioma, and 46 healthy controls. All diagnoses were made by board-certified oncologists and were verified histologically. Results Results indicated that numerous cognitive functions were associated with the ability to understand treatment decisions in persons with cancer. The following proportion of participants demonstrated impaired understanding of treatment decisions in our three patient groups: approximately 51% malignant glioma, approximately 46% brain metastasis, and approximately 24% metastatic cancer. In a combined brain cancer group, we were able to use cognitive performance to predict the impaired ability to understand treatment decisions. Conclusions An impaired ability to understand treatment decisions is prevalent in persons with brain cancer and persons with metastatic cancer. Performance on a brief cognitive battery can be used to help clinicians identify patients at particular risk for impaired medical decision making.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate medical decision-making capacity (MDC) in patients with advanced stage cancer. METHODS: Participants were 113 newly diagnosed adults with brain metastases and 41 adults with metastatic cancer without brain metastases who were recruited from an academic medical center and 40 demographically-matched healthy controls recruited from the community. We evaluated MDC using the Capacity to Consent to Treatment Instrument (CCTI) Vignette B and its four clinically relevant consent standards (expressing a treatment choice, appreciation, reasoning, and understanding). Capacity impairment ratings (no impairment, mild/moderate impairment, and severe impairment) on the consent standards were also assigned to each participant using cutoff scores derived statistically from the performance of the control group. RESULTS: Both of the metastatic cancer groups (with and without brain metastasis) performed significantly below controls on consent standards of understanding and reasoning. The brain metastasis group performed below the non-metastatic cancer group on understanding. Capacity compromise was defined as performance ≤1.5 standard deviations (SD) below the control group mean. Using this definition, approximately 65% of the participants with brain metastases and 51% of participants with metastatic cancer without brain metastases were impaired on at least one MDC standard. CONCLUSION: Over half of participants with metastatic cancer regardless of whether they have brain disease have reduced capacity to make treatment decisions. The finding of impaired MDC in patients without brain metastases is surprising and suggests this group likely exhibits cognitive deficits that impact their ability to understand and reason about different treatment options. The reasons underlying this impairment will be investigated. This highlights the importance of routine clinical assessment of MDC in all patients with metastatic cancer when important treatment decisions are being discussed. These results also indicate a need for the development and investigation of interventions to support or improve MDC in this patient population.