Neuropsychological assessment in non-central nervous system cancer patients: a systematic review of cognitive screening and assessment within oncology practice.
Benedetta Capetti, Lorenzo Conti, Maria Vittoria Ferrari, Veronica Coppini, Giulia Ferraris, Chiara Marzorati, Dario Monzani, Roberto Grasso, Gabriella Pravettoni
{"title":"Neuropsychological assessment in non-central nervous system cancer patients: a systematic review of cognitive screening and assessment within oncology practice.","authors":"Benedetta Capetti, Lorenzo Conti, Maria Vittoria Ferrari, Veronica Coppini, Giulia Ferraris, Chiara Marzorati, Dario Monzani, Roberto Grasso, Gabriella Pravettoni","doi":"10.1080/17437199.2025.2536071","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Early cancer detection and innovative treatments have prolonged the lifespan of cancer patients, leading to long-term consequences, including cancer-related cognitive impairment (CRCI). In 2011, the International Cancer and Cognition Task Force (ICCTF) established guidelines for neuropsychological assessment, however many neuropsychological tests lack validity for oncological patients. This systematic review aims to identify and summarise the most commonly used neuropsychological tests for cognitive screening and assessment in non-CNS cancer patients within research contexts. A search of electronic databases (PUBMED, EMBASE, and SCOPUS) included 1) research articles using 2) neuropsychological tests 3) on non-CNS cancer patients, 4) aged between 18 and 80 years old, 5) published in the English 6) from January 2011 to October 2023. Quality assessment was assessed following the MMAT Guidelines. Eligibility criteria were met by 178 studies which adopted 151 different neuropsychological tests. The most widely used screening test was the Mini-Mental State Examination (N=41). Among the main cognitive domains analyzed, the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised (N=61) was the most commonly used to assess memory. The Controlled Oral Word Association Test (N=24) was primarily utilised for language assessment and the Trail Making Test-part A (TMT-A) (N=37) was the most frequently used to assess the attention domain. Moreover, executive functions were predominantly evaluated using the TMT-B (N=45). Among the included studies, only 42 adhered to the ICCTF guidelines. Despite the available guidelines, the wide variability of the utilised tests undermines the generalisability of results. These findings underscore the necessity of developing and implementing assessment and screening tools that are specifically tailored to cancer patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":48034,"journal":{"name":"Health Psychology Review","volume":" ","pages":"1-65"},"PeriodicalIF":9.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2025.2536071","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Early cancer detection and innovative treatments have prolonged the lifespan of cancer patients, leading to long-term consequences, including cancer-related cognitive impairment (CRCI). In 2011, the International Cancer and Cognition Task Force (ICCTF) established guidelines for neuropsychological assessment, however many neuropsychological tests lack validity for oncological patients. This systematic review aims to identify and summarise the most commonly used neuropsychological tests for cognitive screening and assessment in non-CNS cancer patients within research contexts. A search of electronic databases (PUBMED, EMBASE, and SCOPUS) included 1) research articles using 2) neuropsychological tests 3) on non-CNS cancer patients, 4) aged between 18 and 80 years old, 5) published in the English 6) from January 2011 to October 2023. Quality assessment was assessed following the MMAT Guidelines. Eligibility criteria were met by 178 studies which adopted 151 different neuropsychological tests. The most widely used screening test was the Mini-Mental State Examination (N=41). Among the main cognitive domains analyzed, the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test-Revised (N=61) was the most commonly used to assess memory. The Controlled Oral Word Association Test (N=24) was primarily utilised for language assessment and the Trail Making Test-part A (TMT-A) (N=37) was the most frequently used to assess the attention domain. Moreover, executive functions were predominantly evaluated using the TMT-B (N=45). Among the included studies, only 42 adhered to the ICCTF guidelines. Despite the available guidelines, the wide variability of the utilised tests undermines the generalisability of results. These findings underscore the necessity of developing and implementing assessment and screening tools that are specifically tailored to cancer patients.
早期癌症检测和创新治疗延长了癌症患者的寿命,导致了包括癌症相关认知障碍(CRCI)在内的长期后果。2011年,国际癌症和认知工作组(ICCTF)制定了神经心理学评估指南,然而许多神经心理学测试对肿瘤患者缺乏有效性。本系统综述旨在识别和总结研究背景下最常用的非中枢神经系统癌症患者认知筛查和评估的神经心理学测试。检索电子数据库(PUBMED, EMBASE和SCOPUS),包括:1)使用神经心理测试的研究文章;3)对非中枢神经系统癌症患者的研究文章;4)年龄在18至80岁之间的研究文章;5)2011年1月至2023年10月发表的研究文章。质量评估按照MMAT指南进行评估。通过采用151种不同的神经心理学测试的178项研究符合资格标准。最广泛使用的筛查试验是简易精神状态检查(N=41)。在分析的主要认知领域中,霍普金斯语言学习测试修订版(N=61)是最常用的记忆评估工具。对照口语单词联想测试(N=24)主要用于语言评估,而Trail Making Test-part A (TMT-A) (N=37)最常用于评估注意领域。此外,主要使用TMT-B评估执行功能(N=45)。在纳入的研究中,只有42项遵守了公约准则。尽管有可用的指导方针,但所使用的测试的广泛可变性破坏了结果的普遍性。这些发现强调了开发和实施专门针对癌症患者的评估和筛查工具的必要性。
期刊介绍:
The publication of Health Psychology Review (HPR) marks a significant milestone in the field of health psychology, as it is the first review journal dedicated to this important and rapidly growing discipline. Edited by a highly respected team, HPR provides a critical platform for the review, development of theories, and conceptual advancements in health psychology. This prestigious international forum not only contributes to the progress of health psychology but also fosters its connection with the broader field of psychology and other related academic and professional domains. With its vital insights, HPR is a must-read for those involved in the study, teaching, and practice of health psychology, behavioral medicine, and related areas.