SynthesisNeuropsychology review2019
Genetic Modulation of Neurocognitive Development in Cancer Patients throughout the Lifespan: a Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Neuropsychology review, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Systematic Review of Host Genomic Variation and Neuropsychological Outcomes for Pediatric Cancer Survivors.Neuropsychology review · 2023Pooled it
- A systematic review on the use of quantitative imaging to detect cancer therapy adverse effects in normal-appearing brain tissue.Magma (New York, N.Y.) · 2022Pooled it
- Genetic variants, neurocognitive outcomes, and functional neuroimaging in survivors of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The rise in cancer survival rates has raised concerns about the long-term adverse effects of cancer treatment, including neurocognitive impairment. Neurocognitive deficits such as attention and processing speed are frequently observed and can have a profound, lifelong impact in daily life of cancer patients. Interestingly, large interpatient variability exists in cognitive outcomes. Emerging evidence indicates that such differences may be related to genetic variation. The aim of our review was to systematically summarize the current literature on the modulatory effects of germline genetic polymorphisms on cancer treatment-induced cognitive changes and the potential age-dependent impact in cancer survivors. The PubMed/Medline database was screened using an extensive search string focusing on four components: "cancer", "cancer treatment", "neurocognitive outcome" and "germline genetic variation". Seventeen studies meeting predefined eligibility criteria were analyzed, including sixteen candidate gene studies and one genome-wide association study. 38 polymorphisms in 15 genes across proposed pathophysiological pathways, including (1) neural plasticity and repair, (2) neuroinflammation and defenses against oxidative stress, (3) neurotransmission, and (4) folate metabolism pathway, were reported to be significantly associated with treatment-related neurocognitive dysfunction or neuroimaging abnormalities. Still, some study results remained discordant, partly due to the methodological heterogeneity (i.e. in test assessments, age, cancer-type populations). Future large-scale, (epi-)genome studies integrating neurocognitive assessments and advanced neuroimaging techniques, are recommended in order to investigate neurotoxicity throughout the lifespan. Hence, adverse neurodevelopmental problems during childhood and neurodegenerative processes later in life could be minimized based on genetic risk classifications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.