Cognitive, Behavior and Academic Problems in Adolescent Survivors of Childhood Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL): A Report from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Introduction: Over the past 30 years, survival rates for childhood ALL have improved and neurotoxicity has been reduced by largely replacing cranial radiation therapy (CRT) with additional systemic and intrathecal therapy. However, survivors treated without CRT may still be at risk for long-term neurocognitive deficits and reduced quality of life. Neurobehavioral problems during adolescence are particularly problematic as increased environmental demands for self-direction and higher order cognition are expected. As existing studies of cognition and behavior in adolescent survivors are limited by small samples, single-site data collection, and short follow-up intervals, we examined the prevalence of and risk factors for cognitive, behavior, and academic problems in adolescent survivors of childhood ALL using the Childhood Cancer Survivors Study (CCSS) cohort. Methods: Caregiver report data were analyzed for 1426 5+ year survivors of childhood ALL who were diagnosed between 1970 and 1999 and between 12 to 17 years of age at follow-up, and 609 sibling controls. Cognitive and behavior problems were measured with the Behavior Problem Inventory (BPI). Academic problems were defined as special education placement (yes/no). Chi-Square tests were used to compare the frequency of elevated BPI scores (≥90th percentile) and special education placement in survivors versus siblings. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine the association between CRT and chemotherapy doses (Table 1) and cognitive, behavior, and academic problems, adjusting for sex and age at diagnosis (<5 years, ≥5 years). In a subset of 736 survivors for whom longitudinal data were available, associations were examined between cognitive/behavior problems and special education placement during adolescence and self-reported educational attainment as adults (mean [range] age = 28.0 [25.0-37.3]). Results: Compared to siblings, survivors were more likely to have elevated symptoms of anxiety-depression, inattention-hyperactivity, headstrong behavior, and social withdrawal, as well as higher rates of special education placement (Table 2). Relative to no CRT, treatment that included CRT at a dose of <20 Gy increased the risk for anxiety-depression (OR=1.69, [95%CI, 1.25-2.30]), inattention-hyperactivity (OR=1.25, [1.16, 2.00]), and social withdrawal (OR=1.98, [1.51, 2.61]). Moreover, risk of special education placement was increased for survivors treated with <20 Gy CRT (OR=1.89, [1.47, 2.45]) and ≥20 Gy (OR=2.45, [1.93-3.91]). Among survivors treated without CRT, cumulative doses of intrathecal or intravenous methotrexate (MTX) were not associated with risk for cognitive, behavior, or learning problems. Survivors with cognitive or behavior problems, and those who participate in special education during adolescence were less likely to graduate from college as adults (Table 2*). Conclusion: Adolescent survivors of childhood ALL, especially those treated with CRT, are at significantly increased risk for cognitive, behavior, and academic problems that adversely impact adult outcomes. Participation in special education did not remediate this risk, as survivors receiving services were less likely to graduate college as adults. Interventions designed to improve adolescent neurobehavioral functioning should be prioritized. Table 1. % Mean ± SD Age at diagnosis < 5 years 79 3.74±1.82 ≥ 5 years 21 Sex - Male 54 Seizures or strokes after diagnosis - Yes 7 CRT None 50 <20 Gy 31 ≥ 20 Gy 12 IT MTX <230 mg 44 ≥ 230 mg 56 IV MTX None 55 <4.3 g/m2 21 ≥ 4.3 g/m2 24 Cytarabine None 29 Yes 71 Anthracyclines None 48 < 300 mg/m2 39 ≥ 300 mg/m2 13 Alkylating agents None 41 Yes 59 5716.26 ± 5424.92 Dexamethasone None 26 Yes 74 Table 2. Survivors College Graduation* Siblings p OR 95% CI Cognitive and behavior problems Antisocial 14% 11% 0.0800 2.28 1.34, 3.90 Anxiety-Depression 17% 11% 0.0003 1.55 1.02, 2.35 Headstrong 22% 14% 0.0002 1.52 1.03, 2.23 Inattention - Hyperactivity 24% 14% <0.0001 3.04 2.04, 4.54 Social Withdrawal 25% 12% <0.0001 1.31 0.92, 1.88 Academic Problems Special Education - Yes 34% 14% <0.0001 4.29 2.95, 6.22 Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».