Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T22:47:08.813Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Systemically Treated Breast Cancer Patients and Controls: An Evaluation of the Presence of Noncredible Performance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2014

Jeffrey S. Wefel ,
Rozemarijn L. Kornet  and
Sanne B. Schagen
Jeffrey S. Wefel
Affiliation:
Department of Neuro-Oncology, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
Rozemarijn L. Kornet
Affiliation:
Departement of Psychology, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Sanne B. Schagen*
Affiliation:
Division of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
*
Correspondence and reprint requests to: Sanne B. Schagen, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Division of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX Amsterdam, the Netherlands. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study sought to define the frequency of noncredible performance in breast cancer patients before, during and after completion of systemic treatment, as well as predictors of noncredible performance. We examined six datasets investigating the cognitive effects of chemotherapy and/or endocrine therapy. Embedded performance validity test (PVT) measures were identified and used to evaluate the datasets. One dataset included a standalone PVT. Possible noncredible performance was operationally defined as performance below criterion on three or more PVT indices. This was undertaken as cancer patients have been observed clinically to fail PVTs both in the context of external gain and independent of such motivators. A total of 534 breast cancer patients and 214 healthy controls were included in the analysis. Percentages of patients performing below cutoff on one or more PVT varied from 0% to 21.2%. Only 1 patient met the criterion of noncredible performance. Calculation of post-test probabilities indicated a more than 90% chance to detect noncredible performance. There is no evidence to suggest noncredible performance in breast cancer patients and healthy controls who choose to participate in research studies examining cognitive function. Thus, the observational data showing that non-central nervous system (CNS) cancer and therapies not targeting the CNS can have untoward effects on cognitive function are unlikely to be due to noncredible performance. (JINS, 2014, 19, 1–13)

Type
Symposia
Information
Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society , Volume 20 , Issue 4 , April 2014 , pp. 357 - 369
Copyright
Copyright © The International Neuropsychological Society 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aaronson, N.K., Ahmedzi, S., Bergman, B., Bullinger, M., Cull, A. (1993). The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-30; A quality of life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 85, 365–376.Google Scholar
Ahles, T.A., Root, J.C., Ryan, E.L. (2012). Cancer- and cancer treatment-associated cognitive change: An update on the state of the science. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 30(30), 3675–3686.Google Scholar
Arentsen, T.J., Boone, K.B., Lo, T.Y., Goldberg, H.E., Cottingham, M.E., Victor, T.L., Zeller, M.A. (2013). Effectiveness of the Comalli Stroop Test as a measure of negative response bias. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 27(6), 1060–1076.Google Scholar
Barry, D., Bates, M.E., Labouvie, E. (2008). FAS and CFL forms of verbal fluency differ in difficulty: A meta-analytic study. Applied Neuropsychology, 15(2), 97–106.Google Scholar
Beck, A.T. (1990). Beck Anxiety Inventory. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Beck, A.T. (1996). Beck Depression Inventory-II. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Benton, A.L., Hamsher, K., Sivan, A.B. (1994). Multilingual Aphasia Examination (3rd ed.). Iowa City, IA: AJA Associates.Google Scholar
Boone, K.B. (2009). The need for continuous and comprehensive sampling of effort/response bias during neuropsychological examinations. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 23, 729–741.Google Scholar
Boone, K.B., Lu, P., Wen, J. (2005). Comparison of various RAVLT scores in the detection of noncredible memory performance. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 20, 301–319.Google Scholar
Bouma, A., Mulder, J., Lindeboom, J., Schmand, B. (2012). Handleiding neuropsychologische diagnostiek. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Pearson Assessment and Information.Google Scholar
Busse, M., Whiteside, D. (2012). Detecting suboptimal cognitive effort: Classification accuracy of the Connor's Continuous Performance Test-II, Brief Test of Attention, and Trail Making Test. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 26(4), 675–687.Google Scholar
Curtis, K.L., Thompson, L.K., Greve, K.W., Bianchini, K.J. (2008). Verbal fluency indicators of malingering in traumatic brain injury. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 22(5), 930–945.Google Scholar
Dandachi-Fitzgerald, B. (2013). Symptom validity tests in neuropsychology: No excuse for not using them. Paper presented at the ESN/GNP Meeting, Berlin, Germany, 2013. Abstract 197.Google Scholar
Delis, D.C., Kramer, J.H., Kaplan, E., Ober, B.A. (1987). The California Verbal Learning Test. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Green, P. (2003). Green's Word Memory Test for Microsoft Windows. Edmonton, Alberta: Green's Publishing Inc.Google Scholar
Greene, R.L. (1991). The MMPI-2/MMPI: An interpretive manual. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
Hammes, J.G. (1978). De Stroop kleur-woord test. Handleiding, tweede gewijzigde druk. Lisse, the Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
Heilbronner, R.L., Sweet, J.J., Morgan, J.E., Larrabee, G.J., Millis, S.R., & Conference Participants. (2009). American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology consensus conference statement on the neuropsychological assessment of effort, response bias, and malingering. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 23, 1093–1129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hesbacher, P.T., Rickels, K., Downing, R.W., Stepansky, P. (1978). Assessment of psychiatric illness severity by family physicians. Social Science & Medicine, 12, 45–47.Google Scholar
Hiscock, M., Hiscock, C.K. (1989). Refining the forced-choice method for the detection of malingering. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 11(6), 967–974.Google Scholar
Iverson, G.L., Lange, R.T., Green, P., Franzen, M.D. (2002). Detecting exaggeration and malingering with the Trail Making Test. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 16(3), 398–406.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Larrabee, G.J. (2007). Assessment of malingered neuropsychological deficits. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Larrabee, G.J. (2003). Detection of symptom exaggeration with the MMPI-2 in litigants with malingered neurocognitive dysfunction. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 17, 54–68.Google Scholar
Larrabee, G.J. (2008). Aggregation across multiple indicators improves the detection of malingering: Relationship to likelihood ratios. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 22(4), 666–679.Google Scholar
Larrabee, G.J. (2012). Performance validity and symptom validity in neuropsychological assessment. Journal of the International Neuropsychology Society, 18(4), 625–630.Google Scholar
Lees-Haley, P.R., English, L.T., Glenn, W.J. (1991). A fake bad scale on the MMPI-2 for personal injury claimants. Psychological Reports, 68, 203–210.Google Scholar
Mathias, C.W., Greve, K.W., Bianchini, K.J., Houston, R.J., Crouch, J.A. (2002). Detecting malingered neurocognitive dysfunction using the reliable digit span in traumatic brain injury. Assessment, 9(3), 301–308.Google Scholar
Millis, S.R., Putman, S.H. (1995). The California Verbal Learning Test in the detection of incomplete effort in neuropsychological evaluation. Psychological Assessment, 7(4), 463–471.Google Scholar
Mulder, J.L., Dekker, R., Dekker, P.H. (1996). Verbale Leer en Geheugen Test. Handleiding. Lisse, the Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
Nelson, N.W., Parsons, T.D., Grote, C.L., Smith, C.A., Sisung, J.R. II (2006). The MMPI-2 Fake Bad Scale: Concordance and specificity of true and estimated scores. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 28, 1–12.Google Scholar
O'Farrell, E., Mackenzie, J., Collins, B. (2013). Clearing the air: A review of our current understanding of “Chemo Fog”. Current Oncology Reports, 15(3), 260–269.Google Scholar
Phillips, K.A., Ribi, K., Sun, Z., Stephens, A., Thompson, A., Harvey, V., Bernhard, J. (2010). Cognitive function in postmenopausal women receiving adjuvant letrozole or tamoxifen for breast cancer in the BIG 1-98 randomized trial. Breast, 19(5), 388–395.Google Scholar
Pomykala, K.L., de Ruiter, M.B., Deprez, S., McDonald, B.C., Silverman, D.H. (2013). Integrating imaging findings in evaluating the post-chemotherapy brain. Brain Imaging and Behavior, 7, 436–452.Google Scholar
Powell, M.R., Locke, D.E.C., Smigielski, J.S., McCrea, M. (2011). Estimating the diagnostic value of the Trail Making Test for suboptimal effort in acquired brain injury rehabilitation patients. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 25(1), 108–118.Google Scholar
Reedy, S.D., Boone, K.B., Cottingham, M.E., Glaser, D.F., Lu, P.H., Victor, T.L., Wright, M.J. (2013). Cross validation of the Lu and colleagues (2003) Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure Test effort equation in a large known-group sample. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 28(1), 30–37.Google Scholar
Reitan, R.M. (1958). Validity of the Trail Making Test as an indicator of organic brain damage. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 8, 271–276.Google Scholar
Rey, A. (1941). L'examen psychologique dans les cas d'encephalopathie traumatique. Archives de Psychologie, 28, 286–340.Google Scholar
Robins Wahlin, T.B., Bäckman, L., Wahlin, A., Winblad, B. (1996). Trail Making Test performance in a community-based sample of healthy very old adults: Effects of age on completion time, but not on accuracy. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 22(1), 87–102.Google Scholar
Rodenhuis, S., Bontenbal, M., Beex, L.V., Wagstaff, J., Richel, D.J., Nooij, M.A., de Vries, E.G. (2003). High-dose chemotherapy with hematopoietic stem-cell rescue for high-risk breast cancer. The New England Journal of Medicine, 349, 7–16.Google Scholar
Rodriguez-Aranda, C., Martinussen, M. (2010). Age-related differences in performance of phonemic verbal fluency measured by the Controlled Oral Word Association Task (COWAT): A meta-analytic study. Developmental Neuropsychology, 30(2), 697–717.Google Scholar
Schagen, S.B., Muller, M.J., Boogerd, W., Mellenbergh, G.J., van Dam, F.S. (2006). Change in cognitive function after chemotherapy: A prospective longitudinal study in breast cancer patients. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 98(23), 1742–1745.Google Scholar
Schagen, S.B., van Dam, F.S., Muller, M.J., Boogerd, W., Lindeboom, J. (1999). Cognitive deficits after postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy for breast carcinoma. Cancer, 85(5), 640–650.Google Scholar
Scherling, C.S., Smith, A. (2013). Opening up the window into “Chemobrain”: A neuroimaging review. Sensors, 13, 3169–3203.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schilder, C.M., Seynaeve, C., Beex, L.V., Boogerd, W., Linn, S.C., Gundy, C.M., Schagen, S.B. (2010). Effects of tamoxifen and exemestane on cognitive functioning of postmenopausal patients with breast cancer: Results from the neuropsychological side study of the tamoxifen and exemestane adjuvant multinational trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 28(8), 1294–1300.Google Scholar
Schmand, B., Groenink, S.C., van den Dungen, M. (2008). Letterfluency: Psychometric properties and Dutch normative data. Tijdschrift voor Gerontologie en Geriatrie, 39(2), 64–76.Google Scholar
Schmand, B., Lindeboom, J. (2003). Amsterdam Short-Term Memory Test (ASTM). PITS: Psychologische Instrumenten, Tests en Services.Google Scholar
Seigers, R., Fardell, J.E. (2011). Neurobiological basis of chemotherapy induced cognitive impairment: A review of rodent research. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 35, 729–741.Google Scholar
Seigers, R., Schagen, S.B., Van Tellingen, O., Dietrich, J. (2013). Chemotherapy-related cognitive dysfunction: Current animal studies and future directions. Brain Imaging Research, 7, 453–459.Google Scholar
Slick, D.J., Sherman, E.M.S., Iverson, G.L. (1999). Diagnostic criteria for malingered neurocognitive dysfunction: Proposed standards for clinical practice and research. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 13(4), 545–561.Google Scholar
Spielberger, C.D., Gorsuch, R.L., Lushene, R., Vagg, P.R., Jacobs, G.A. (1983). Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
Strauss, E., Sherman, E.M.S., Green, O. (2006). Assessment of response bias and suboptimal performance. In A compendium of neuropsychological tests: Administration, norms, and commentary (3rd ed., pp. 1145–1189). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tombaugh, T. (1996). The test of memory malingering (TOMM). North Tonawanda, NY: Multi Health Systems.Google Scholar
Van Dam, F.S., Schagen, S.B., Muller, M.J., Boogerd, W., vd Wall, E., Droogleever Fortuyn, M.E., Rodenhuis, S. (1998). Impairment of cognitive function in women receiving adjuvant treatment for high-risk breast cancer: High-dose versus standard-dose chemotherapy. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 90(3), 210–218.Google Scholar
Van den Burg, W., Saan, R.J., Deelman, B.G. (1985). 15-woordentest. Provisional Manual. Groningen, the Netherlands: University Hospital, Department of Neuropsychology.Google Scholar
Verhage, F. (1964). Intelligentie en leeftijd. Onderzoek bij Nederlanders van twaalf tot zevenenzeventig jaar. Assen, the Netherlands: Van Gorcum.Google Scholar
Wechsler, D. (1981). Manual for the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Wechsler, D. (1997). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (3rd ed). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Wefel, J. S. (2002, August). Psychoneuroendocrinology in breast cancer: The effect of adjuvant tamoxifen therapy on cognitive and emotional functioning in women with early breast cancer. A dissertation presented at the faculty of the department of psychology, University of Houston, TX, United States.Google Scholar
Wefel, J.S., Lenzi, R., Theriault, R.L., Davis, R.N., Meyers, C.A. (2004). The cognitive sequelae of standard-dose adjuvant chemotherapy in women with breast carcinoma: Results of a prospective, randomized, longitudinal trial. Cancer, 100(11), 2292–2299.Google Scholar
Wefel, J.S., Saleeba, A.K., Buzdar, A.U., Meyers, C.A. (2010). Acute and late onset cognitive dysfunction associated with chemotherapy in women with breast cancer. Cancer, 116(14), 3348–3356.Google Scholar
Wefel, J.S., Schagen, S.B. (2012). Chemotherapy-related cognitive dysfunction. Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports, 12(3), 267–275.Google Scholar
Wefel, J.S., Vardy, J., Ahles, T., Schagen, S.B. (2011). International Cognition and Cancer Task Force recommendations to harmonise studies of cognitive function in patients with cancer. The Lancet Oncology, 12(7), 703–708.Google Scholar