RSS-Feed abonnieren

DOI: 10.1055/s-0045-1812490
Preliminary Near-Transfer Effects of a Manualized Cognitive Training Toolkit for Pediatric Cancer Survivors: A Nonrandomized Feasibility Trial
Autoren
Funding The study is an ICMR (Indian Council of Medical Research)-funded study.
Abstract
Introduction
Computerized cognitive training has reasonable evidence for ameliorating cognitive deficits in childhood cancer survivors; however, availability, affordability, and nonadaptation are impending factors. Despite therapist-delivered cognitive training has similar effects, there is no indigenous and replicable structured manualized cognitive training for childhood cancer survivors in India.
Objective
The feasibility and indicative impact assessment of a manualized cognitive training toolkit (MCTT) (similar effect size as CogMed working memory training and PSSCogRehb software for children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder) was examined to fabricate to meet the needs of the target group.
Materials and Methods
With a pre–post design, 10 survivors (M = 8, F = 2) between 6 and 11 years (mean age = 8.6 ± 2.7 years) with Social Quotient (SQ) ≥ 85 (mean SQ = 99.8 ± 11.75), and having significant cognitive deficits were recruited. Far-transfer effects were assessed through parents' rated Child Behavior Rating Scale, and near-transfer effects through Cognitive Assessment System-2.
Results
Note that 58.33% had cognitive deficits across planning, attention, and successive and simultaneous processing. MCTT with 18 cognitive tasks (16 difficulty levels) delivered in 8 days (over 2 weeks:16 hours) was feasible. Except attention domain, MCTT had significant near-transfer effects on planning (Z = 2.88, p < 0.01, r = 0.86), simultaneous (Z = 2.55, p < 0.01, r = 0.81), and successive processing (Z = 2.45, p < 0.01, r = 0.77) with large effect size.
Discussion
MCTT was a feasible toolkit; however, refabrication with increased number of attention-focused tasks and difficulty levels was indicated. Expectedly, MCTT did not have positive/negative impacts on behaviors.
Conclusion
MCTT has potentiality for a randomized controlled trial and can be compared to any computerized training for this target group.
Authors' Contributions
S.S.: Conceptualized the study, main lead for MCTT development, supervised the whole research process and data analysis, written the original manuscript, and edited it. R.S.: Contributed in research formulation, development of MCTT, supervising in data collection, data analysis, and editing the final manuscript. M.C.: Contributed is in data collection, data analysis, and writing the initial draft of the manuscript. S.B.: Contributed in data collection, supervision during data collection, and in technical/clinical aspects related to data. R.S.: Contributed in data collection, supervision during data collection, and in technical/clinical aspects related to data. R.S.: Contributed as an advisor for the study, provided supervision during study, data collection, and training process. V.K.: Contributed in data collection, data analysis, and managing barriers during data collection. R.M.: Contributed in data collection, data analysis, and managing barriers during data collection. U.D.: Contributed in data collection, data analysis, and managing barriers during data collection. S.A.: Contributed in data collection, supervision during data collection, and in technical/clinical aspects related to data. V.J.: Contributed in data collection, supervision during data collection, and in technical/clinical aspects related to data. The manuscript has been read and approved by all the authors, that the requirements for authorship have been met and that each author believes that the manuscript represents honest work and that information is not provided in another form.
Patient Consent
Patient consent has been received.
Publikationsverlauf
Artikel online veröffentlicht:
03. November 2025
© 2025. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India
-
References
- 1 Phillips NS, Stratton KL, Williams AM. et al. Late-onset cognitive impairment and modifiable risk factors in adult childhood cancer survivors. JAMA Netw Open 2023; 6 (05) e2316077
- 2 Sahler OJZ, Dolgin MJ, Phipps S. et al. Specificity of problem-solving skills training in mothers of children newly diagnosed with cancer: results of a multisite randomized clinical trial. J Clin Oncol 2013; 31 (10) 1329-1335
- 3 Buizer AI, de Sonneville LMJ, Veerman AJP. Effects of chemotherapy on neurocognitive function in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia: a critical review of the literature. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2009; 52 (04) 447-454
- 4 King TZ, Wang L, Mao H. Disruption of white matter integrity in adult survivors of childhood brain tumors: correlates with long-term intellectual outcomes. PLoS One 2015; 10 (07) e0131744
- 5 Reddick WE, White HA, Glass JO. et al. Developmental model relating white matter volume to neurocognitive deficits in pediatric brain tumor survivors. Cancer 2003; 97 (10) 2512-2519
- 6 Saykin AJ, Ahles TA, McDonald BC. Mechanisms of chemotherapy-induced cognitive disorders: neuropsychological, pathophysiological, and neuroimaging perspectives. Semin Clin Neuropsychiatry 2003; 8 (04) 201-216
- 7 Conklin HM, Krull KR, Reddick WE, Pei D, Cheng C, Pui CH. Cognitive outcomes following contemporary treatment without cranial irradiation for childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia. J Natl Cancer Inst 2012; 104 (18) 1386-1395
- 8 King TZ, Ailion AS, Fox ME, Hufstetler SM. Neurodevelopmental model of long-term outcomes of adult survivors of childhood brain tumors. Child Neuropsychol 2019; 25 (01) 1-21
- 9 King S, Green HJ. Psychological intervention for improving cognitive function in cancer survivors: a literature review and randomized controlled trial. Front Oncol 2015; 5: 72
- 10 Phillips SM, Padgett LS, Leisenring WM. et al. Survivors of childhood cancer in the United States: prevalence and burden of morbidity. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2015; 24 (04) 653-663
- 11 Kuśmierek M, Jasionowska J, Maruszewska P. et al. The impact of cancer treatment on cognitive efficiency: chemobrain–does it exist?. Eur J Psychiatry 2020; 34 (01) 20-26
- 12 Castellino SM, Ullrich NJ, Whelen MJ, Lange BJ. Developing interventions for cancer-related cognitive dysfunction in childhood cancer survivors. J Natl Cancer Inst 2014; 106 (08) dju186
- 13 Schuerch K, Salzmann S, Steiner L. et al. Development of working memory, processing speed, and psychosocial functions in patients with pediatric cancer. Pediatr Res 2024
- 14 Duaa AH, Alissa M, Jennifer D, Nicole P, Sadhna S. Long term effects of therapy among childhood cancer survivors treated in the last two decades. Pediatric Hematology Oncology Journal 2019; 4 (01) 12-16
- 15 Nathan PC, Patel SK, Dilley K. et al; Children's Oncology Group Long-term Follow-up Guidelines Task Force on Neurocognitive/Behavioral Complications After Childhood Cancer. 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 2007; 161 (08) 798-806
- 16 Conklin HM, Ashford JM, Clark KN. et al. Long-term efficacy of computerized cognitive training among survivors of childhood cancer: a single-blind randomized controlled trial. J Pediatr Psychol 2017; 42 (02) 220-231
- 17 Butler RW, Copeland DR, Fairclough DL. et al. A multicenter, randomized clinical trial of a cognitive remediation program for childhood survivors of a pediatric malignancy. J Consult Clin Psychol 2008; 76 (03) 367-378
- 18 Butler RW, Mulhern RK. Neurocognitive interventions for children and adolescents surviving cancer. J Pediatr Psychol 2005; 30 (01) 65-78
- 19 Moore IM, Hockenberry MJ, Anhalt C, McCarthy K, Krull KR. Mathematics intervention for prevention of neurocognitive deficits in childhood leukemia. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2012; 59 (02) 278-284
- 20 Patel SK, Katz ER, Richardson R, Rimmer M, Kilian S. Cognitive and problem solving training in children with cancer: a pilot project. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 2009; 31 (09) 670-677
- 21 Krull KR, Hardy KK, Kahalley LS, Schuitema I, Kesler SR. Neurocognitive outcomes and interventions in long-term survivors of childhood cancer. J Clin Oncol 2018; 36 (21) 2181-2189
- 22 Hardy KK, Willard VW, Bonner MJ. Computerized cognitive training in survivors of childhood cancer: a pilot study. J Pediatr Oncol Nurs 2011; 28 (01) 27-33
- 23 Hardy KK, Willard VW, Allen TM, Bonner MJ. Working memory training in survivors of pediatric cancer: a randomized pilot study. Psychooncology 2013; 22 (08) 1856-1865
- 24 Conklin HM, Ogg RJ, Ashford JM. et al. Computerized cognitive training for amelioration of cognitive late effects among childhood cancer survivors: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol 2015; 33 (33) 3894-3902
- 25 Kesler SR, Lacayo NJ, Jo B. A pilot study of an online cognitive rehabilitation program for executive function skills in children with cancer-related brain injury. Brain Inj 2011; 25 (01) 101-112
- 26 He F, Huang H, Ye L, Wen X, Cheng ASK. Meta-analysis of neurocognitive rehabilitation for cognitive dysfunction among pediatric cancer survivors. J Cancer Res Ther 2022; 18 (07) 2058-2065
- 27 Satapathy S, Sharma R, Mourya R, Kaur J, Sagar R. A Randomised feasibility trial, fidelity, and indicative effects of a manualized cognitive training toolkit (MCTT) on neurocognitive functioning of children aged 6–11 years with ADHD. Indian J Clin Psychol 2023; 50 (03) 30-42
- 28 Satapathy S, Maurya, Sharma R, Sagar R, Barre VP. Far transfer effects of manualized and computerized cognitive interventions on parents' rated behavioral problems of children aged 6–11 years with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: a parallel group randomized controlled trial. J Mental Health Human Behav 2025; 10: 4103
- 29 Doll EA. A genetic scale of social maturity. Am J Orthopsychiatry 1935; 5: 180-188
- 30 Sparrow SS, Cicchetti DV, Balla DA. Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales: Second Edition (Vineland II), Survey Interview Form/Caregiver Rating Form. Livonia, MN: Pearson Assessments; 2005
- 31 Naglieri JA, Das JP. Cognitive Assessment System. Itasca, IL: Riverside; 1997
- 32 Achenbach TM. Manual for Child Behavior Checklist/4–18. Profile. Burlington: University of Vermont Department of Psychiatry; 1991
- 33 Orsmond GI, Cohn ES. The distinctive features of a feasibility study: objectives and guiding questions. OTJR (Thorofare, NJ) 2015; 35 (03) 169-177
- 34 Veloso A, Vicente SG, Filipe MG. Effectiveness of cognitive training for school-aged children and adolescents with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a systematic review. Front Psychol 2020; 10: 2983
- 35 Diamond A. Executive functions. Annu Rev Psychol 2013; 64: 135-168
- 36 Cortese S, Ferrin M, Brandeis D. et al; European ADHD Guidelines Group (EAGG). Cognitive training for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: meta-analysis of clinical and neuropsychological outcomes from randomized controlled trials. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2015; 54 (03) 164-174
- 37 Kerns KA, Thomson J. Implementation of a compensatory memory system in a school age child with severe memory impairment. Pediatr Rehabil 1998; 2 (02) 77-87
- 38 van't Hooft I, Norberg AL. SMART cognitive training combined with a parental coaching programme for three children treated for medulloblastoma. NeuroRehabilitation 2010; 26 (02) 105-113
- 39 Cox LE, Ashford JM, Clark KN. et al. Feasibility and acceptability of a remotely administered computerized intervention to address cognitive late effects among childhood cancer survivors. Neurooncol Pract 2015; 2 (02) 78-87
- 40 Butler RW, Copeland DR. Attentional processes and their remediation in children treated for cancer: a literature review and the development of a therapeutic approach. J Int Neuropsychol Soc 2002; 8 (01) 115-124
- 41 King EC, Doherty M, Corcos D, Stoykov ME. Examining recruitment feasibility and related outcomes in adults post-stroke. Pilot Feasibility Stud 2020; 6: 160
- 42 Burns CD, Cortell R, Wagner BM. Treatment compliance in adolescents after attempted suicide: a 2-year follow-up study. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2008; 47 (08) 948-957
- 43 Trapani JA, Murdaugh DL. Processing efficiency in pediatric cancer survivors: a review and operationalization for outcomes research and clinical utility. Brain Behav 2022; 12 (12) e2809
- 44 Skea ZC, Newlands R, Gillies K. Exploring non-retention in clinical trials: a meta-ethnographic synthesis of studies reporting participant reasons for drop out. BMJ Open 2019; 9 (06) e021959
- 45 Denhoff ER, Milliren CE, de Ferranti SD, Steltz SK, Osganian SK. Factors associated with clinical research recruitment in a pediatric academic medical center–a web-based survey. PLoS One 2015; 10 (10) e0140768
- 46 Gontkovsky ST, McDonald NB, Clark PG, Ruwe WD. Current directions in computer-assisted cognitive rehabilitation. NeuroRehabilitation 2002; 17 (03) 195-199
- 47 Rastogi S, Sharma R, Kaur S. Cognitive studies for cancer survivors in India: Is this the right time or should we cross the bridge only when we come to it?. Indian J Med Paediatr Oncol 2018; 39 (03) 245-251
