Abstract P1-06-02: Remote functional cognitive rehabilitation in Breast Cancer Patients, a single center retrospective study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background: The number of breast cancer survivors is increasing substantially. About 15-50% of them cope with cognitive and executive functions difficulties that are related to decreased daily participation in meaningful activities and quality of life. Initial results point to the feasibility and efficacy of rehabilitation programs which focus on enhancing self-management abilities and executive functions, aiming to improve breast cancer survivors’ participation in meaningful activities. Nevertheless, programs which are delivered remotely to improve accessibility to care are scarce. We report the results of a remote functional-cognitive occupational therapy rehabilitation in a single center. Methods: Twenty-eight breast cancer patients were treated upon referral from their treating oncologists. Baseline evaluations were conducted in the clinic utilizing Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MOCA) and Trail Making Test (TMT-A and TMT-B). Personal treatment goals (meaningful activities, e.g: "organize a weekly schedule" ) were chosen and rated by each patient for perceived performance and satisfaction on a scale of 1(low) to 10(high) before and after the intervention, with the Canadian Occupational Performance Measurement (COPM). Improvement of two points or more in the COPM is considered as clinical meaningful. The intervention included 8-12 sessions using videoconferencing. The first session aimed at promoting knowledge on the effects of cancer and its treatment on functional cognition and encouraging self-efficacy. The functional cognitive treatment was comprised of bottom-up sessions which utilized digital worksheets and gamified activities to improve cognitive skills, such as memory and executive functions. Additionally, top-down sessions focused on meta-cognitive strategies to enhance self-management for coping with daily life challenges, identified in the COPM. Additionally, self-practice exercises were provided to the patients. Results: Between12/2021 to 01/2024, 28 breast cancer patients underwent the intervention and were included in this analysis. Twenty-six were breast cancer survivors on active follow-up and 2 were metastatic breast cancer patients who were in remission. 19/28 (68%) patients previously underwent chemotherapy treatment and 17/28 (60%) patients were on endocrine treatment. Mean age was 50.4±11.2 (range 34-75). Twenty five patients (90%) completed at least 8 remote sessions. Mean MOCA score at baseline was 27.5±1.9, indicating intact general cognition. Baseline mean TMT scores were 39.5±12.6 seconds for TMT-A (20 (71%) below 50 percentile) and 83.5±39.6 seconds (14 (50%) below 50 percentile) for TMT-B. These results reflect a decrease in visual attention and executive functioning respectively. Mean COPM scores post intervention were significantly higher compared to the scores pre intervention for both perceived performance (pre = 4.2±1.6; post=7.0±1.2; p<.001) and satisfaction (pre = 3.0±1.8; post=6.7±1.8; p<.001). Out of 28 patients 21(75%) reported improvement in at least 2 or more points in performance and satisfaction of 2 activities. Conclusions: Remote functional cognitive rehabilitation is feasible and beneficial in breast cancer patients who report cognitive impairment following medical therapy and should be integrated into the standard care. Our study is limited by its retrospective nature and short term follow up. We are now conducting a prospective randomized controlled trial with extended evaluations and a longer follow up. Citation Format: Einav Nili Gal-Yam, Sharon Harel, Rachel Kizony, Maya Ben-Yakov, Beatrice Shaham, Galia Barkai. Remote functional cognitive rehabilitation in Breast Cancer Patients, a single center retrospective study [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium 2024; 2024 Dec 10-13; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2025;31(12 Suppl):Abstract nr P1-06-02.
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) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
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 ».