Chimeric antigen receptor T cells are used in the treatment of B-cell leukemias. Common chimeric antigen receptor T-cell toxicities can range from mild flu-like symptoms, such as fever and myalgia, to a more striking neuropsychiatric toxicity that can present as discrete neurological symptoms and delirium. We report here two cases of chimeric antigen receptor T-cell neuropsychiatric toxicity, one who presented as a mild delirium and aphasia that resolved without intervention, and one who presented with delirium, seizures, and respiratory insufficiency requiring intensive treatment. The current literature on the treatment and proposed mechanisms of this clinically challenging chimeric antigen receptor T-cell complication is also presented.

This review proposes a new taxonomy of automatic and controlled attention. The taxonomy distinguishes among the role of the attendee (puppet and robot, critic and actor), the attention process (stimulus orienting vs. response control), and the attention operation (activation vs. inhibition vs. adjustment), and identifies cognitive phenotypes by which attention is overtly expressed. We apply the taxonomy to four childhood attention disorders: attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, spina bifida meningomyelocele, traumatic brain injury, and acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Variations in attention are related to specific brain regions that support normal attention processes when intact, and produce disordered attention when impaired. The taxonomy explains group differences in behavioral inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsiveness, as well as medication response. We also discuss issues relevant to theories of the cognitive and neural architecture of attention: functional dissociations within and between automatic and controlled attention; the relative importance of type of brain damage and developmental timing to attention profile; cognitive-energetic models of attention and white matter damage; temporal processing deficits, attention deficits and cerebellar damage; and the issue of cognitive phenotypes as candidate endophenotypes. (JINS, 2008, 14, 673–690.)