Abstract 4987: Impact of treatment on cognitive function and quality of life in head and neck cancer patients: A prospective study in Indian population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim and Objectives: To assess cognitive function in patients with head and neck malignancies post-treatment using cognitive ability scales. To evaluate the impact of treatment modalities on cognitive function. To assess the quality of life in head and neck cancer patients post-treatment using validated QoL scales. Study Design: A prospective observational cohort study on patients diagnosed with head and neck malignancies in the North Indian population, post-surgical and oncological treatment. Study Population Inclusion criteria: 1. Age 18-70 years diagnosed with malignancies in the head and neck. 2. Undergone surgery, chemotherapy, or radiotherapy for their malignancy. 3. Follow-up of 6 months post-treatment. Exclusion criteria: 1. Pre-existing neurocognitive disorders. 2. Psychiatric disorders or active neurological diseases. Cognitive Assessment Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) Trail Making Test (TMT) Quality of Life Assessment: European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) Data Collection and Statistical Analysis: A minimum sample size of 150 patients was selected to detect changes in cognition and QoL post-treatment with a 95% confidence level and 80% power. Changes in cognition and QoL was analyzed using paired t-tests and ANOVA. Correlations between cognitive function and QoL was analyzed using Pearson’s correlation coefficients. Results: Cognitive Function Assessment-MoCA scores showed a mean decrease of 3.5 points in areas of memory, attention, and visuospatial functioning. Patients receiving chemoradiation experienced greatest cognitive decline, with reduction of 4.8 as assessed by the TMT. Patients receiving surgery alone showed minimal cognitive decline, with reduction of 1.2 points on MoCA. MMSE scores mirrored these findings, with a decline of 2.5 points in the chemoradiation group and 1 point in the surgery-alone group. Quality of Life (QoL) Global health score decreased by 20%, with most affected domains being emotional functioning (30% decline) and cognition (25% decline). Physical functioning was impaired, with a 15% decline, largely due to the adverse effects of treatment. The EORTC QLQ-H&N35 module revealed that pain & swallowing were prominent concerns. Conclusion: The results of this study indicate that head and neck cancer patients experience significant cognitive decline and QoL deterioration post-treatment, with those receiving chemoradiation being most affected. Persistent cognitive deficits correlate strongly with reduced QoL, emphasizing the importance of integrating cognitive assessments and QoL evaluations into standard care practices. Future research should explore targeted interventions to mitigate these adverse effects and improve the overall survivorship experience. Citation Format: Saravanan Sampoornam Pape, Delfin Lovelina Francis. Impact of treatment on cognitive function and quality of life in head and neck cancer patients: A prospective study in Indian population [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2025; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2025 Apr 25-30; Chicago, IL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2025;85(8_Suppl_1):Abstract nr 4987.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".