3 Clinical Utility of Neurocognitive Monitoring During Therapy in Survivors of Childhood Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL)

Abstract

Objective:

Survivors of childhood ALL treated with CNS-directed chemotherapy are at risk for neurocognitive deficits that emerge during treatment and impact functional and quality of life outcomes throughout survivorship. Neurocognitive monitoring is the recommended standard of care for this population; however, information on assessment timing and recommendations for assessment measures are limited. We examined the role of serial neurocognitive monitoring completed during protocol-directed therapy in predicting parent-reported neurocognitive late effects during survivorship.

Participants and Methods:

Parents of 61 survivors of childhood ALL completed a semi-structured survey focused on parent perspective of neurocognitive late effects as part of a quality improvement project. Survivors completed protocol-directed treatment for newly diagnosed ALL on two consecutive clinical trials (St. Jude Total Therapy Study 15, 47.5%; Total Therapy 16, 52.5%). The majority of survivors were White (86.9%), 52.5% were male, and 49% were treated for low risk disease. Mean age at diagnosis was 7.77 years (standard deviation [SD] = 5.31). Mean age at survey completion was 15.25 years (SD = 6.29). Survivors completed neurocognitive monitoring at two prospectively determined time points during and at the end of protocol-directed therapy for childhood ALL.

Results:

During survivorship, parents reported that 73.8% of survivors experienced neurocognitive late effects, with no difference in frequency of endorsement by protocol (p = .349), age at diagnosis (p = .939), patient sex (p = .417), or treatment risk arm (p = .095). In survivors with late effects, 44.3% sought intervention in the form of educational programming (i.e., 504 or Individualized Education Program). Among the group with late effects, compared to those without educational programming, those with educational programming had worse verbal learning (CVLT Trials 1-5 Total, Mean[SD]; T = 56.36 [11.19], 47.00 [10.12], p = .047) and verbal memory (CVLT Short Delay Free Recall, Z = 0.86 [0.67], -0.21 [1.01], p = .007); Long Delay Free Recall, Z = 0.91 [0.92], -0.25 [1.25], p = .020) during therapy. Compared to those without educational programming, survivors with educational programming had lower estimated IQ (SS = 109.25 [13.48], 98.07 [15.74], p = .045) and greater inattention [CPT Beta T = 56.80 [13.95], 75.70 [22.93], p = .017) at the end of therapy.

Conclusions:

Parents report that nearly three quarters of children treated for ALL with chemotherapy only experience neurocognitive late effects during early survivorship, with no difference in frequency by established risk factors. Of those with late effects, nearly half required educational programming implemented after diagnosis, suggesting a significant impact on school performance. Results from neurocognitive monitoring beginning during therapy has utility for predicting educational need in survivors experiencing late effects. Our findings provide direction on the timing and content of neurocognitive monitoring, which is the recommended standard of care for childhood cancer patients treated with CNS-directed therapy.