Advertisement

Cognitive functioning of pediatric patients with brain tumor: an investigation of the role of gender

  • Claudia Corti
  • Valentina Manfredi
  • Maura Massimino
  • Alessandra Bardoni
  • Renato Borgatti
  • Geraldina Poggi
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

The female gender has been considered a risk factor for cognitive impairment in pediatric brain tumor survivors. However, it is still unknown which specific cognitive domains are at greater risk of impairment in females. The aim of this study was to explore differences between male and female children in distinct domains of cognitive functioning, in order to deepen knowledge on the topic.

Methods

The cognitive performance of 100 males and 71 females aged 6–16 years was assessed by Wechsler Intelligence Scales for Children-Third Edition (WISC-III). Differences between males and females were tested not only on intellectual quotients, but also on WISC-III subtests, which allow the evaluation of different cognitive domains. Analyses were performed in the whole sample and dividing children based on the supratentorial vs. infratentorial location of the tumor.

Results

Gender was the only predictor of VIQ in the whole group and in children with supratentorial tumor. Female children with supratentorial tumor performed significantly worse than males in four out of six verbal subtests. However, even among children with infratentorial tumor, females performed worse than males on two verbal subtests.

Conclusions

Overall, findings of this study suggest that females may have more difficulties than males at manipulating verbal oral material. A possible explanation of these findings could be that females present a greater vulnerability to white matter damage due to the illness and post-adjuvant therapies, in line with reports of the literature on female children with lymphoblastic leukemia.

Keywords

Neuropsychological functioning Sex Pediatric oncology Rehabilitation 

Notes

Funding information

This work was supported by Scientific Institute, IRCCS E. Medea, Bosisio Parini, Italy, Progetto di Ricerca 5x1000, #111.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

In our Scientific Institute, at the moment of the clinical evaluation of children, parents are proposed to sign an informed consent to allow data treatment for research. Informed consent was obtained from all parents of individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Gragert MN, Ris MD (2011) Neuropsychological late effects and rehabilitation following pediatric brain tumor. J Pediatr Rehabil Med 4:47–58.  https://doi.org/10.3233/PRM-2011-0153 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Maddrey AM, Bergeron JA, Lombardo ER, McDonald NK, Mulne A, Barenberg PD, Bowers DC (2005) Neuropsychological performance and quality of life of 10 year survivors of childhood medulloblastoma. J Neuro-Oncol 72:245–253.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-004-3009-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mulhern RK, Butler RW (2004) Neurocognitive sequelae of childhood cancers and their treatment. Pediatr Rehabil 7:1–14.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13638490310001655528 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lähteenmäki PM, Harila-Saari A, Pukkala E, Kyyronen P, Salmi TT, Sankila R (2007) Scholastic achievements of children with brain tumors at the end of comprehensive education. Neurology 9:296–305.  https://doi.org/10.1212/01.wnl.0000265816.44697.b4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Reddick WE, White HA, Glass JO, Wheeler GC, Thompson SJ, Gajjar A, Leigh L, Mulhern RK (2003) Developmental model relating white matter volume to neurocognitive deficits in pediatric brain tumor survivors. Cancer 97:2512–2519.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.11355 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Upton P, Eiser C (2006) School experiences after treatment for a brain tumor. Child Care Health Dev 32:9–17.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2214.2006.00569.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Barrera M, Atenafu EG, Schulte F, Bartels U, Sung L, Janzen L, Chung J, Cataudella D, Hancock K, Saleh A, Strother D, McConnell D, Downie A, Hukin J, Zelcer S (2017) Determinants of quality of life outcomes for survivors of pediatric brain tumors. Pediatr Blood Cancer 64.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pbc.26481 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Duffner PK (2010) Risk factors for cognitive decline in children treated for brain tumors. Eur J Paediatr Neurol 14:106–115.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpn.2009.10.005 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hardy KK, Bonner MJ, Willard VW, Watral MA, Gururangan S (2008) Hydrocephalus as a possible additional contributor to cognitive outcome in survivors of pediatric medulloblastoma. Psychooncology 17:1157–1161.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.1349 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kieffer-Renaux V, Viguier D, Raquin MA, Laurent-Vannier A, Habrand JL, Dellatolas G, Kalifa C, Hartmann O, Grill J (2005) Therapeutic schedules influence the pattern of intellectual decline after irradiation of posterior fossa tumors. Pediatr Blood Cancer 45:814–819.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pbc.20329 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Poggi G, Liscio M, Galbiati S, Adduci A, Massimino M, Gandola L, Spreafico F, Clerici CA, Fossati-Bellani F, Sommovigo M, Castelli E (2005) Brain tumors in children and adolescents: cognitive and psychological disorders at different ages. Psychooncology 14:386–395.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.855 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stargatt R, Rosenfeld JV, Maixner W, Ashley D (2007) Multiple factors contribute to neuropsychological outcome in children with posterior fossa tumors. Dev Neuropsychol 32:729–748.  https://doi.org/10.1080/87565640701376151 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mulhern RK, Merchant TE, Gajjar A, Reddick WE, Kun LE (2004) Late neurocognitive sequelae in survivors of brain tumors in childhood. Lancet Oncol 5:399–408.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(04)01507-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Palmer SL, Gajjar A, Reddick WE, Glass JO, Kun LE, Wu S, Xiong X, Mulhern RK (2003) Predicting intellectual outcome among children treated with 35–40 Gy craniospinal irradiation for medulloblastoma. Neuropsychology 17:548–555.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0894-4105.17.4.548 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ris MD, Packer R, Goldwein J, Jones-Wallace D, Boyett JM (2001) Intellectual outcome after reduced-dose radiation therapy plus adjuvant chemotherapy for medulloblastoma: a Children’s Cancer Group Study. J Clin Oncol 19:3470–3476.  https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2001.19.15.3470 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nathan PC, Patel SK, Dilley K, Goldsby R, Harvey J, Jacobsen C, Kadan-Lottick N, McKinley K, Millham AK, Moore I, Okcu MF, Woodman CL, Brouwers P, Armstrong FD, Children’s Oncology Group Long-term Follow-up Guidelines Task Force on Neurocognitive/Behavioral Complications After Childhood Cancer (2007) Guidelines for identification of, advocacy for, and intervention in neurocognitive problems in survivors of childhood cancer: a report from the Children’s Oncology Group. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 161:798–806.  https://doi.org/10.1001/archpedi.161.8.798 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Waber DP, Urion DK, Tarbell NJ, Niemeyer C, Gelber R, Sallan SE (1990) Late effects of central nervous system treatment for acute lymphoblastic leukemia in childhood are sex-dependent. Dev Med Child Neurol 32:238–248.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8749.1990.tb16930.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Waber DP, Tarbell NJ, Kahn CM, Gelber RB, Sallan SE (1992) The relationship of sex and treatment modality in neuropsychologic outcome in childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia. J Clin Oncol 10:810–817.  https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.1992.10.5.810 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Willard VW, Hardy KK, Bonner MJ (2009) Gender differences in facial expression recognition in survivors of pediatric brain tumors. Psychooncology 18:893–897.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.1502 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jain N, Brouwers P, Okcu MF, Cirino PT, Krull KR (2009) Sex-specific attention problems in long-term survivors of pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Cancer 115:4238–4245.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.24464 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nicholson C, Alcorn CL (1993) Interpretation of the WISC-III and its subtests. ERIC Clearinghouse, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Stargatt R, Rosenfeld JV, Anderson V, Hassall T, Maixner W, Ashley D (2006) Intelligence and adaptive function in children diagnosed with brain tumor during infancy. J Neuro-Oncol 80:295–303.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-006-9187-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Micklewright JL, King TZ, Morris RD, Morris MK (2007) Attention and memory in children with brain tumors. Child Neuropsychol 13:522–527.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09297040601064487 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Patel SK, Mullins WA, O’Neil SH, Wilson K (2011) Neuropsychological differences between survivors of supratentorial and infratentorial brain tumors. J Intellect Disabil Res 55:30–40.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2788.2010.01344.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wechsler D (1991) Wechsler intelligence scale for children, 3rd edn. Pychological Corporation, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wechsler D (2006) Wechsler intelligence scale for children – III. Italian Translation. Organizzazioni Speciali, FirenzeGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wechsler D (2003) WISC-IV technical and interpretive manual. Psychological Corporation, San AntonioGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wechsler D (2012) Wechsler intelligent scale for children – IV. Italian Translation. Organizzazioni Speciali, FirenzeGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Donders J, Janke K (2008) Criterion validity of the Wechsler intelligence scale for children–fourth edition after pediatric traumatic brain injury. J Int Neuropsychol Soc 14:651–655.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355617708080752 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Oliveras-Rentas RE, Kenworthy L, Roberson RB, Martin A, Wallace GL (2012) WISC-IV profile in high-functioning autism spectrum disorders: impaired processing speed is associated with increased autism communication symptoms and decreased adaptive communication abilities. J Autism Dev Disord 42:655–664.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-011-1289-7 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hollingshead AB (1975). Four Factor Index of Social Status. New Haven, CT: Department of Sociology, Yale University.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rickert CH, Paulus W (2001) Epidemiology of central nervous system tumors in childhood and adolescence based on the new WHO classification. Childs Nerv Syst 17:503–511.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s003810100496 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rosemberg S, Fujiwara D (2005) Epidemiology of pediatric tumors of the nervous system according to the WHO 2000 classification: a report of 1,195 cases from a single institution. Childs Nerv Syst 21:940–944.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00381-005-1181-x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hoff E (2006) How social contexts support and shape language development. Dev Rev 26:55–88.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2005.11.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Iuvone L, Peruzzi L, Colosimo C, Tamburrini G, Caldarelli M, Di Rocco C, Battaglia D, Guzzetta F, Misciagna S, Di Giannatale A, Ruggiero A, Riccardi R (2011) Pretreatment neuropsychological deficits in children with brain tumors. Neuro-Oncology 13:517–524.  https://doi.org/10.1093/neuonc/nor013 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Orsini A, Picone L (2006) WISC III - contributo alla taratura italiana [WISC III – contribution to the Italian version]. Organizzazioni Speciali, FirenzeGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Green DW, Crinion J, Price CJ (2007) Exploring cross-linguistic vocabulary effects on brain structures using voxel-based morphometry. Biling (Camb, Engl) 10:189–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Durkin K, Conti-Ramsden G (2007) Language, social behavior, and the quality of friendships in adolescents with and without a history of specific language impairment. Child Dev 78:1441–1457.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01076.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Fujiki M, Brinton B, Morgan M, Hart CH (1999) Withdrawn and sociable behaviour of children with language impairment. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch 30:183–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Petrides KV, Chamorro-Premuzic T, Frederickson N, Furnham A (2005) Explaining individual differences in scholastic behaviour and achievement. Br J Educ Psychol 75:239–255.  https://doi.org/10.1348/000709904X24735 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Scientific Institute, IRCCS E. Medea, Neuro-oncological and Neuropsychological Rehabilitation UnitBosisio PariniItaly
  2. 2.Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale per lo Studio e la Cura Tumori, Department of Pediatric OncologyMilanItaly
  3. 3.Scientific Institute, IRCCS E. Medea, Neuropsychiatry and Neurorehabilitation UnitBosisio PariniItaly

Personalised recommendations