Search

Background: Cancer-related cognitive impairment (CRCI) is a commonly reported complaint among non-CNS cancer patients. Even subtle CRCI may have detrimental effects on quality of life and identifying patients at increased risk for CRCI to improve survivorship care is important. In the present paper, we systematically reviewed available studies of possible genetic risk factors for developing CRCI. Methods: Keyword-based systematic searches were undertaken on 24 July 2018 in PubMed, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, and CINAHL. Three authors independently evaluated full-texts of identified papers and excluded studies with registration of reasons. Seventeen studies reporting results from 14 independent samples were included for review. Two authors independently quality assessed the included studies. The review was preregistered with PROSPERO (CRD42018107689). Results: Ten studies investigated apolipoprotein E (APOE), with four studies reporting that carrying at least one risk allele (APOE4 (ε4)) was associated with CRCI, while six studies found no association. The remaining identified genetic risk variants associated with CRCI located in: COMT, four DNA repair genes, five oxidative stress genes, 22 genes related to breast cancer phenotype, and GNB3. No associations were found between CRCI and genes coding for interleukin-6 (IL6), tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF), interleukin 1 beta (IL1B), and brain-derived neurotropic factor (BDNF). With the exception of APOE, the genetic risk factors had only been investigated in one or two studies each. Conclusions: Overall, the available evidence of possible genetic risk factors for CRCI is limited. While some research suggests a role for the ε4 allele, the literature is generally inconsistent, and the currently available evidence does not allow clear-cut conclusions regarding the role of genetic factors in the development of CRCI. Larger genetic studies and studies investigating additional genetic variants are needed to uncover genetic risk factors for CRCI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cancer and cancer treatments may impact the brain through several pathways leading to cognitive impairment. Neuroimaging evidence has begun to elucidate the neurobiological underpinnings of cancer-related cognitive impairment. The aim of this paper was to systematically review available literature on structural brain alterations following adult non-central nervous system (CNS) cancers and associated treatments. Methods: This review followed PRISMA guidelines and was registered in PROSPERO (ID#107387). Comprehensive searches were conducted in June 2018 using PubMed and Web of Science. Inclusion criteria were English peer-reviewed journal articles of formal, controlled studies that examined structural neuroimaging outcomes in adult non-CNS cancer patients and survivors. Selected articles were assessed for quality and risk of bias using the National Institutes of Health Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies. Results: Thirty-six publications of prospective and cross-sectional studies met inclusion criteria and were included. Structural brain alterations following cancer and its treatment were reported in a majority of the publications as evidenced by reduced global and local gray matter volumes, impaired white matter microstructural integrity, and brain network alterations. Structural alterations were most often evident when cancer-treated groups were compared with healthy controls, and more subtle when compared with cancer controls. Regarding the existence of pretreatment impairments, the evidence was equivocal. There was significant between-study heterogeneity in imaging analytical approaches and use of statistical adjustments. Over half reported associations with cognitive outcomes, though regions and associated cognitive domains were heterogeneous. Conclusions: Structural brain alterations following cancer and cancer treatments were reported in a majority of the reviewed studies. However, the extent of observed alterations depended on the choice of comparison groups. Methodological issues exist that will need to be addressed systematically to ensure the validity of findings. Large-scale prospective studies with extended assessment points are warranted to replicate and build upon initial findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]