Cognitive screening in patients with intracranial tumors: validation of the BCSE
This study presents the first validation of the Brief Cognitive Status Exam (BCSE) against two other screening tools for cognitive impairment in patients with intracranial tumors. 58 patients and 22 matched healthy controls completed the BCSE, the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). Patients were additionally tested with a comprehensive neuropsychological battery. Based on this assessment, they were classified as cognitively impaired or unimpaired on five cognitive domains. Analyses revealed a comparable feasibility of the BCSE relative to the MoCA and the MMSE, but a smaller range of assessed functions (e.g., no correlation with the domain visual-spatial functions). The ability to separate patients and healthy controls was extremely poor for BCSE and MMSE (sensitivity of 38.6 % and less), but moderate for MoCA (sensitivity 68.97 %). Detection of cognitive impairment in patients was worst with BCSE (sensitivity 37 %; MoCA 92.9 %, MMSE 44.4 %) as compared to neuropsychological testing. Moreover, prediction of cognitive outcome was also worst for the BCSE (AUC = .713, NPV = 50 %). An optimal cut-off of 50.5 increased the results slightly. In summary, the BCSE showed good feasibility but no sufficient results in separating healthy individuals from patients or detecting cognitive impairment in patients. Consequently, as a screening measure, we would recommend the MoCA instead of the BCSE. However, since even the MoCA failed to detect cognitive impairment, our study supports the view that reliable results could only be obtained with a comprehensive neuropsychological battery.
KeywordsScreening instrument Neuropsychological diagnostic Intracranial tumor
We would like to thank the Familie Mehdorn Stiftung for funding this study. We thank Rajka Matthiesen and Lea Schmitz for the excellent assistance in data acquisition, and Yumiko Nakai for her helpful comments on the manuscript. This manuscript or parts of it have not been published previously and have not been submitted simultaneously for publication in another source.
Juliane Becker and Elisabeth Steinmann were receiving a grant from the Familie Mehdorn Stiftung. None of the other authors received any financial or material support.
Compliance with ethical standards
Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in this study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 21.Petermann F, Lepach AC (eds) (2012) Wechsler Memory Scale- Fourth Edition (WMS-IV). Manual zur Durchführung und Auswertung. Always learning, 4th edn. Pearson, FrankfurtGoogle Scholar
- 22.Bouman Z, Hendriks, Marc PH, Aldenkamp AP et al. (2014) Clinical validation of the WMS-IV-NL brief cognitive status exam (BCSE) in older adults with MCI or dementia. Int Psychogeriatr, 1–9, doi: 10.1017/S1041610214001471
- 23.Olson RA, Iverson GL, Parkinson M, Carolan H, Ellwood A, McKenzie M (2009) Investigation of cognitive screening measures in patients with brain tumors: Diagnostic accuracy and correlation with quality of life.: Meeting Abstract e13000. J Clin Oncol, 27Google Scholar
- 24.Olson RA, Tyldesley S, Carolan H et al (2011) Prospective comparison of the prognostic utility of the Mini Mental State Examination and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment in patients with brain metastases. Support Care Cancer 19(11):1849–1855. doi: 10.1007/s00520-010-1028-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 27.Wong GKC, Lam S, Ngai K et al (2012) Evaluation of cognitive impairment by the Montreal Cognitive Assessment in patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage: prevalence, risk factors and correlations with 3 month outcomes. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 83(11):1112–1117. doi: 10.1136/jnnp-2012-302217 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 28.Kessler J, Denzler P, Markowitsch HJ (1990) Der mini-mental-status-test. Beltz, WeinheimGoogle Scholar
- 32.NCCN (2003) Distress management Clinical practice guidelines. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw 1(3):344–374Google Scholar
- 34.Pihlajamäki M, Tanila H, Hänninen T et al (2000) Verbal fluency activates the left medial temporal lobe: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study. Ann Neurol 47(4):470–476. doi: 10.1002/1531-8249(200004)47:4<470:AID-ANA10>3.0.CO;2-M CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 35.Huber W, Poeck K, Weniger D, Willmes K (1983) Aachener Aphasie Test (AAT). Hogrefe, GöttingenGoogle Scholar
- 36.Aschenbrenner A, Tucha O, Lange K (2000) Regensburger Wortflüssigkeits-Test (RWT), Handanweisung. Hogrefe, GöttingenGoogle Scholar
- 37.von Aster M, Neubauer A, Horn R (2006) Wechsler- Intelligenztest für Erwachsene WIE. Manual. Übersetzung und Adaption der WAIS-III von David Wechsler. Hartcourt Test Services, Frankfurt am MainGoogle Scholar
- 39.Schaaf A, Kessler J, Grond M, Fink GR (1992) Memo-test manual. Beltz Testgesellschaft, WeinheimGoogle Scholar
- 40.Rey A, Osterrieth PA (1998) Rey-Complex Figur Test (CFT). In: Spreen O, Strauss E (eds) A compendium of neuropsychological tests: administration, norms, and commentary, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 341–363Google Scholar
- 42.Warrington EK, James M. (1992) Testbatterie für visuelle Objekt- und Raumwahrnehmung (VOSP). Burry St Edmunds, Thames Valley Test CompanyGoogle Scholar
- 47.Leplow B, Friege L (1998) Eine Sozialformel zur Schätzung der prämorbiden Intelligenz. Zeitschrift für Klinische Psychologie 27: 1–8Google Scholar
- 49.Le Rhun E, Delbeuck X, Devos P et al (2009) Troubles cognitifs dans les gliomes de grade II et III de l’adulte: À propos d’une série de 15 patients (Cognitive disorders and adult grade II and III gliomas: analysis of a series of 15 patients). Neurochirurgie 55(3):303–308. doi: 10.1016/j.neuchi.2008.08.111 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar