Journal of Neuro-Oncology

, Volume 127, Issue 3, pp 559–567 | Cite as

Cognitive screening in patients with intracranial tumors: validation of the BCSE

  • Juliane Becker
  • Elisabeth Steinmann
  • Maria Könemann
  • Sonja Gabske
  • Hubertus Maximilian Mehdorn
  • Michael Synowitz
  • Gesa Hartwigsen
  • Simone Goebel
Clinical Study


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.


Screening 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.

Ethical approval

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

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Supplementary material

11060_2016_2064_MOESM1_ESM.docx (36 kb)
Online Resource 1: Additional material section methods. Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 36 kb)
11060_2016_2064_MOESM2_ESM.docx (58 kb)
Online Resource 2: Additional material section results. Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 57 kb)
11060_2016_2064_MOESM3_ESM.docx (52 kb)
Online Resource 3: Additional material section discussion. Supplementary material 3 (DOCX 52 kb)


  1. 1.
    Talacchi A, Santini B, Savazzi S et al (2011) Cognitive effects of tumour and surgical treatment in glioma patients. J Neurooncol 103(3):541–549. doi: 10.1007/s11060-010-0417-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Murray KJ, Scott C, Zachariah B et al (2000) Importance of the Mini-Mental Status Examination in the treatment of patients with brain metastases: a report from the radiation therapy oncology group protocol 91-04. J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 48:59–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Meyers CA, Hess KR, Yung WKA et al (2000) Cognitive function as a predictor of survival in patients with recurrent malignant glioma. J Clin Oncol 18:646–650PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Klein M, Heimans JJ, Aaronson NK et al (2002) Effect of radiotherapy and other treatment-related factors on mid-term to long-term cognitive sequelae in low-grade gliomas: a comparative study. Lancet 360(9343):1361–1368. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)11398-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Santini B, Talacchi A, Squintani G et al (2012) Cognitive outcome after awake surgery for tumors in language areas. J Neurooncol 108(2):319–326. doi: 10.1007/s11060-012-0817-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Olson RA, Chhanabhai T, McKenzie M (2008) Feasibility study of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) in patients with brain metastases. Support Care Cancer 16(11):1273–1278. doi: 10.1007/s00520-008-0431-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Satoer D, Vork J, Visch-Brink E et al (2012) Cognitive functioning early after surgery of gliomas in eloquent areas. J Neurosurg 117:831–838CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Taphoorn MJB, Klein M (2004) Cognitive deficits in adult patients with brain tumours. Lancet Neurol 3(3):159–168. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(04)00680-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Meyers CA, Rock EP, Fine HA (2012) Refining endpoints in brain tumor clinical trials. J Neurooncol 108(2):227–230. doi: 10.1007/s11060-012-0813-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zucchella C, Bartolo M, Di Lorenzo C et al (2013) Cognitive impairment in primary brain tumors outpatients: a prospective cross-sectional survey. J Neurooncol 112(3):455–460. doi: 10.1007/s11060-013-1076-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bunevicius A, Tamasauskas S, Deltuva V et al (2014) Predictors of health-related quality of life in neurosurgical brain tumor patients: focus on patient-centered perspective. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 156(2):367–374. doi: 10.1007/s00701-013-1930-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Meyers CA, Brown PD (2006) Role and relevance of neurocognitive assessment in clinical trials of patients with CNS tumors. J Clin Oncol 24(8):1305–1309. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.04.6086 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Papagno C, Casarotti A, Comi A et al (2012) Measuring clinical outcomes in neuro-oncology. A battery to evaluate low-grade gliomas (LGG). J Neurooncol 108(2):269–275. doi: 10.1007/s11060-012-0824-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR (1975) “Mini-Mental State”A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinican. J Psychiatr Res 12(3):189–198. doi: 10.1016/0022-3956(75)90026-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Patel RR, Mehta MP (2007) Targeted therapy for brain metastases: improving the therapeutic ratio. Clin Cancer Res 13(6):1675–1683. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-06-2489 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Meyers CA, Wefel JS (2003) The use of the Mini-Mental State Examination to assess cognitive functioning in cancer trials: no ifs, ands, buts, or sensivity. J Clin Oncol 21(19):3557–3558CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Vardy J, Wong K, Yi Q et al (2006) Assessing cognitive function in cancer patients. Support Care Cancer 14(11):1111–1118. doi: 10.1007/s00520-006-0037-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Olson RA, Iverson GL, Carolan H et al (2011) Prospective comparison of two cognitive screening tests: diagnostic accuracy and correlation with community integration and quality of life. J Neurooncol 105:337–344CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nasreddine ZS, Phillips NA, Bedirian V et al (2005) The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. J Am Geriatr Soc 53(4):695–699CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chan E, Khan S, Oliver R et al (2014) Underestimation of cognitive impairments by the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) in an acute stroke unit population. J Neurol Sci 343(1–2):176–179. doi: 10.1016/j.jns.2014.05.005 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 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. 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. 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. 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
  25. 25.
    Gauthier S, Reisberg B, Zaudig M et al (2006) Mild cognitive impairment. Lancet 367:1262–1270CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Smith T, Gildeh N, Holmes C (2007) The Montreal Cognitive Assessment: validity and utility in a memory clinic setting. Can J Psychiatry 52:329–332PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 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. 28.
    Kessler J, Denzler P, Markowitsch HJ (1990) Der mini-mental-status-test. Beltz, WeinheimGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Brown PD, Buckner JC, O’Fallon JR et al (2003) Effects of radiotherapy on cognitive function in patients with low-grade glioma measured by the folstein mini-mental state examination. J Clin Oncol 21(13):2519–2524. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2003.04.172 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Malloy PF, Cummings JL, Coffey CE et al (1997) Cognitive screening instruments in neuropsychiatry: a report of the Committee on Research of the American Neuropsychiatric Association. J Neuropsychiat Clin Neurosci 9(2):189–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Shibamoto Y, Baba F, Oda K et al (2008) Incidence of brain atrophy and decline in Mini-Mental State Examination score after whole-brain radiotherapy in patients with brain metastases: a prospective study. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 72(4):1168–1173CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    NCCN (2003) Distress management Clinical practice guidelines. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw 1(3):344–374Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Baldo JV, Schwartz S, Wilkins D et al (2006) Role of frontal versus temporal cortex in verbal fluency as revealed by voxel-based lesion symptom mapping. J Int Neuropsychol Soc 12(6):896–900. doi: 10.1017/S1355617706061078 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 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. 35.
    Huber W, Poeck K, Weniger D, Willmes K (1983) Aachener Aphasie Test (AAT). Hogrefe, GöttingenGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Aschenbrenner A, Tucha O, Lange K (2000) Regensburger Wortflüssigkeits-Test (RWT), Handanweisung. Hogrefe, GöttingenGoogle Scholar
  37. 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
  38. 38.
    Tombaugh T (2004) Trail making test A and B: normative data stratified by age and education. Arch Clin Neuropsychol 19(2):203–214. doi: 10.1016/S0887-6177(03)00039-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Schaaf A, Kessler J, Grond M, Fink GR (1992) Memo-test manual. Beltz Testgesellschaft, WeinheimGoogle Scholar
  40. 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
  41. 41.
    Goebel S, Fischer R, Ferstl R et al (2009) Normative data and psychometric properties for qualitative and quantitative scoring criteria of the Five-point Test. Clin Neuropsychol 23(4):675–690. doi: 10.1080/13854040802389185 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Warrington EK, James M. (1992) Testbatterie für visuelle Objekt- und Raumwahrnehmung (VOSP). Burry St Edmunds, Thames Valley Test CompanyGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Vardy J, Tannock I (2007) Cognitive function after chemotherapy in adults with solid tumours. Crit Rev Oncol/Hematol 63(3):183–202. doi: 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2007.06.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Correa DD, Shi W, Thaler HT et al (2008) Longitudinal cognitive follow-up in low grade gliomas. J Neurooncol 86(3):321–327. doi: 10.1007/s11060-007-9474-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL (1988) Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics 44(3):837. doi: 10.2307/2531595 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Youden WJ (1950) Index for rating diagnostic tests. Cancer 3(1):32–35CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Leplow B, Friege L (1998) Eine Sozialformel zur Schätzung der prämorbiden Intelligenz. Zeitschrift für Klinische Psychologie 27: 1–8Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Jahn T, Beitlich D, Hepp S et al (2013) Drei Sozialformeln zur Schätzung der (prämorbiden) Intelligenzquotienten nach Wechsler. Zeitschrift für Neuropsychologie 24(1):7–24. doi: 10.1024/1016-264X/a000084 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Juliane Becker
    • 1
  • Elisabeth Steinmann
    • 1
  • Maria Könemann
    • 1
  • Sonja Gabske
    • 1
  • Hubertus Maximilian Mehdorn
    • 1
  • Michael Synowitz
    • 1
  • Gesa Hartwigsen
    • 2
    • 3
  • Simone Goebel
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of NeurosurgeryUniversity Hospital Schleswig–HolsteinKielGermany
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of KielKielGermany
  3. 3.Department of NeuropsychologyMax Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain SciencesLeipzigGermany

Personalised recommendations