Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Long-term neurocognitive, psychological, and return to work outcomes in meningioma patients

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Supportive Care in Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

This study aimed to investigate long-term neurocognitive, psychological, and return to work (RTW) outcomes in meningioma patients, and to explore whether neurocognitive and psychological factors influence RTW outcomes in this population.

Methods

In this retrospective study, 61 meningioma patients completed in-depth clinical neuropsychological assessments. Of these participants, 42 were of working-age and had RTW information available following neuropsychological assessment. Seventy-one percent and 80% of patients received radiation and surgery, respectively, with 49% receiving both radiation and surgery. Associations between demographic, medical, neurocognitive, psychological, and RTW data were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression analyses.

Results

In our sample, 68% of patients exhibited global neurocognitive impairment, with the largest effect sizes found on tests of visual memory (d = 0.73), executive function (d = 0.61), and attention (d = 0.54). Twenty-seven percent exhibited moderate to severe levels of depressive symptoms. In addition, 23% and 30% exhibited clinically significant state and trait anxiety, respectively. Forty-eight percent of patients were unable to RTW. Younger age, faster visuomotor processing speed, and, unexpectedly, higher trait anxiety scores were associated with an increased likelihood of returning to work.

Conclusions

Meningioma patients are at risk of experiencing neurocognitive deficits, psychological symptoms, and difficulties returning to work. Our results suggest that neurocognitive and psychological factors contribute to RTW status in meningioma patients. Prospective research studies are necessary to increase our understanding of the complexity of functional disability in this growing population.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Code availability

Not applicable.

Notes

  1. The validity of neuropsychological test results were examined when participants were found to perform above cut-off scores on 2 embedded validity measures: the Reliable Digits Span [18] and the Trail Making Test Part A [19].

  2. Two participants were not administered the BDI-II.

  3. Five participants were not administered the STAI.

References

  1. Walker, Zakaria D, Yuan Y, Yasmin F, Shaw A, Davis F (2021) Brain Tumour Registry of Canada (BRTC): incidence (2013–2017) and mortality (2014–2018) report. Brain Tumour Registry of Canada (BTRC) A Surveillance Research Collaborative

  2. Louis DN, Perry A, Reifenberger G, von Deimling A, Figarella-Branger D, Cavenee WK et al (2016) The 2016 World Health Organization classification of tumors of the central nervous system: a summary. Acta Neuropathol 131:803–820. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00401-016-1545-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Goldbrunner R, Stavrinou P, Jenkinson MD, Sahm F, Mawrin C, Weber DC, et al. (2021) EANO guidelines on the diagnosis and management of meningioma. Neuro Oncol

  4. Corniola MV, Meling TR (2021) Functional outcome and quality of life after meningioma surgery: a systematic review. Acta Neurol Scand 143:467–474. https://doi.org/10.1111/ane.13395

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Meskal I, Gehring K, Rutten GJM, Sitskoorn MM (2016) Cognitive functioning in meningioma patients: a systematic review. J Neurooncol 128:195–205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-016-2115-z

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Rijnen SJ, Meskal I, Bakker M, De Bain W, Rutten GJM, Gehring K, et al. (2019) Cognitive outcomes in meningioma patients undergoing surgery: individual changes over time and predictors of late cognitive functioning. Neuro Oncol

  7. Williams T, Brechin D, Muncer S, Mukerji N, Evans S, Anderson N (2019) Meningioma and mood: exploring the potential for meningioma to affect psychological distress before and after surgical removal. Br J Neurosurg 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1080/02688697.2019.1571163.

  8. Najafabadi AHZ, van der Meer PB, Boele FW, Taphoorn MJB, Klein M, Peerdeman SM et al (2021) Long-term disease burden and survivorship issues after surgery and radiotherapy of intracranial meningioma patients. Neurosurgery 88:155–164. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuros/nyaa351

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Dijkstra M, Van Nieuwenhuizen D, Stalpers LJA, Wumkes M, Waagemans M, Vandertop WP et al (2009) Late neurocognitive sequelae in patients with WHO grade I meningioma. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 80:910–915. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.2007.138925

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Porter KR, McCarthy BJ, Freels S, Kim Y, Davis FG (2010) Prevalence estimates for primary brain tumors in the United States by age, gender, behavior, and histology. Neuro Oncol 6:520–527. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuonc/3.3.152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kalkanis SN, Quinones-Hinojosa A, Buzney E, Ribaudo HJ, Black P (2000) Quality of life following surgery for intracranial meningiomas at Brigham and Women’s Hospital: a study of 164 patients using a modification of the functional assessment of cancer therapy-brain questionnaire. J Neurooncol 48:233–241. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006476604338

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Schepers VPM, Van Der Vossen S, Berkelbach Van Der Sprenkel JW, Visser-Meily JMA, Post MWM (2018) Participation restrictions in patients after surgery for cerebral meningioma. J Rehabil Med 50:879–85. https://doi.org/10.2340/16501977-2382.

  13. Thurin E, Corell A, Gulati S, Smits A, Henriksson R, Bartek J et al (2020) Return to work following meningioma surgery: a Swedish nationwide registry-based matched cohort study. Neuro-Oncology Pract 7:320–328. https://doi.org/10.1093/nop/npz066

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Schiavolin S, Mariniello A, Broggi M, Acerbi F, Schiariti M, Franzini A et al (2021) Characteristics of patients returning to work after brain tumor surgery. Front Hum Neurosci 14:1–8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2020.609080

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Ownsworth T, Hawkes A, Steginga S, Walker D, Shum D (2009) A biopsychosocial perspective on adjustment and quality of life following brain tumor: a systematic evaluation of the literature. Disabil Rehabil 31:1038–1055. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638280802509538

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Mani K, Cater B, Hudlikar A (2017) Cognition and return to work after mild/moderate traumatic brain injury: a systematic review. Work 58:51–62. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-172597

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Najafabadi AHZ, van der Meer PB, Boele FW, Taphoorn MJB, Klein M, Peerdeman SM et al (2021) Determinants and predictors for the long-term disease burden of intracranial meningioma patients. J Neurooncol 151:201–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-020-03650-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Greiffenstein MF, Baker WJ, Gola T (1994) Validation of malingered amnesic measures with a large clinical sample. Psychol Assess 6:218–224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Reitan RM (1958) Validity of the trail making test as an indicator of organic brain damage. Percept Mot Skills 8:271–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Beck A, Steer R, Brown G (1996) Manual for the Beck Depression Inventory-II. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corportation

  21. Spielberger CD, Gosuch RL, Lushene PR, Vagg PR, Jacobs AG (1983) Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (Form Y). Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto

    Google Scholar 

  22. Wefel JS, Vardy J, Ahles T, Schagen SB (2011) International Cognition and Cancer Task Force recommendations to harmonise studies of cognitive function in patients with cancer. Lancet Oncol 12:703–708. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70294-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. Erlbaum, New York

    Google Scholar 

  24. Zakzanis KK (2001) Statistics to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Formulae, illustrative numerical examples, and heuristic interpretation of effect size analyses for neuropsychological researchers. Arch Clin Neuropsychol 16:653–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0887-6177(00)00076-7.

  25. Corp IBM (2019) IBM SPSS Statistics Version 26. IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY

    Google Scholar 

  26. R Core Team (2020) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing

  27. McWhirter L, Ritchie CW, Stone J, Carson A (2020) Performance validity test failure in clinical populations- a systematic review. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 91:945–952. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp-2020-323776

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Zenisek R, Millis SR, Banks SJ, Miller JB (2016) Prevalence of below-criterion Reliable Digit Span scores in a clinical sample of older adults. Arch Clin Neuropsychol 31:426–433. https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acw025

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Jeffay E, Binder LM, Zakzanis KK (2021) Marked intraindividual cognitive variability in a sample of healthy graduate students. Psychol Inj Law. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-021-09417-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Schretlen DJ, Testas SM, Winicki JM, Pearlson GD, Gordon B (2008) Frequency and bases of abnormal performance by healthy adults on neuropsychological testing. J Int Neuropsychol Soc 14:436–445. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355617708080387

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Bonelli RM, Cummings JL (2007) Frontal-subcortical circuitry and behavior. Dialogues Clin Neurosci 9:141–151

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Meskal I, Gehring K, van der Linden SD, Rutten GJM, Sitskoorn MM (2015) Cognitive improvement in meningioma patients after surgery: clinical relevance of computerized testing. J Neurooncol 121:617–625. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-014-1679-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Weyer-Jamora C, Brie MS, Luks TL, Smith EM, Braunstein SE, Villanueva-Meyer JE et al (2021) Cognitive impact of lower-grade gliomas and strategies for rehabilitation. Neuro-Oncology Pract 8:117–128. https://doi.org/10.1093/nop/npaa072

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Richard NM, Bernstein LJ, Mason WP, Laperriere N, Maurice C, Millar BA et al (2019) Cognitive rehabilitation for executive dysfunction in brain tumor patients: a pilot randomized controlled trial. J Neurooncol 142:565–575. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-019-03130-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Goebel S, Von Harscher M, Mehdorn H (2011) Comorbid mental disorders and psychosocial distress in patients with brain tumours and their spouses in the early treatment phase. Support Care Cancer 19:1797–1805. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-010-1021-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Gibson AW, Graber JJ (2021) Distinguishing and treating depression, anxiety, adjustment, and post-traumatic stress disorders in brain tumor patients. Ann Palliat Med 10:875–892. https://doi.org/10.21037/apm-20-509

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Kangas M (2015) Psychotherapy interventions for managing anxiety and depressive symptoms in adult brain tumor patients: a scoping review. Front Oncol 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2015.00116.

  38. Senft C, Behrens M, Lortz I, Wenger K, Filipski K, Seifert V et al (2020) The ability to return to work: a patient-centered outcome parameter following glioma surgery. J Neurooncol 149:403–411. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-020-03609-2

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Moritz-Gasser S, Herbet G, Maldonado IL, Duffau H (2012) Lexical access speed is significantly correlated with the return to professional activities after awake surgery for low-grade gliomas. J Neurooncol 107:633–641. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-011-0789-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Clemens L, Langdon D (2018) How does cognition relate to employment in multiple sclerosis? A systematic review. Mult Scler Relat Disord 26:183–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msard.2018.09.018

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Saunders SL, Nedelec B (2014) What work means to people with work disability: a scoping review. J Occup Rehabil 24:100–110

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Gheaus A, Herzog L (2016) The goods of work (other than money!). J Soc Philos 47:70–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Liaset IF, Kvam L (2018) Experiences of returning to work after brain tumor treatment. Work 60:603–612. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-182768

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Mellifont D, Smith-Merry J, Scanlan JN (2016) Pitching a Yerkes-Dodson curve ball?: a study exploring enhanced workplace performance for individuals with anxiety disorders. J Workplace Behav Health 31:71–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/15555240.2015.1119654

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Ostrom QT, Gittleman H, Truitt G, Boscia A, Kruchko C, Barnholtz-Sloan JS (2018) CBTRUS statistical report: primary brain and other central nervous system tumors diagnosed in the United States in 2011–2015. Neuro Oncol 20:iv1–86. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuonc/noy131.

  46. Rogers L, Gilbert M, Vogelbaum MA (2010) Intracranial meningiomas of atypical (WHO grade II) histology. J Neurooncol 99:393–405. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11060-010-0343-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Nassiri F, Liu J, Patil V, Mamatjan Y, Wang JZ, Hugh-White R, et al. (2021) A clinically applicable integrative molecular classification of meningiomas. Nature 597. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03850-3.

  48. Hutchinson S, Steginga SK, Dunn J (2006) The tiered model of psychosocial intervention in cancer: a community based approach. Psychooncology 15:541–546

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work was supported in part by the Princess Margaret Cancer Foundation, and the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care (OMOHLTC). The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the OMOHLTC.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Graduate Department of Psychological Clinical Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Angela Sekely, Konstantine K. Zakzanis & Kim Edelstein

  2. Department of Supportive Care, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Angela Sekely & Kim Edelstein

  3. Department of Psychology, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Konstantine K. Zakzanis & Donald Mabbott

  4. Department of Psychology, Neurosciences, and Mental Health Program, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Donald Mabbott

  5. Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Derek S. Tsang

  6. Division of Haematology/Oncology, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Derek S. Tsang

  7. Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Surgery, Toronto Western Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Paul Kongkham & Gelareh Zadeh

  8. Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Kim Edelstein

Authors
  1. Angela Sekely
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Konstantine K. Zakzanis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Donald Mabbott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Derek S. Tsang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Paul Kongkham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Gelareh Zadeh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Kim Edelstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

AS, KE, KKZ, and DM designed the study. AS, KE, and KKZ drafted the manuscript. AS performed the analyses. KKZ, DM, DST, PK, GZ, and KE critically revised the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Angela Sekely.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

This retrospective chart review study involving human participants was in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the Declaration of Helsinki. Approval was granted by the Research Ethics Board’s at the University Health Network and the University of Toronto.

Consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 118 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sekely, A., Zakzanis, K.K., Mabbott, D. et al. Long-term neurocognitive, psychological, and return to work outcomes in meningioma patients. Support Care Cancer 30, 3893–3902 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-022-06838-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-022-06838-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation