Search

Abstract: Children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) often experience treatment-related neurocognitive deficits and significant pain. Pain may exacerbate these cognitive impairments. This study examined neuropathic pain and neurocognitive outcomes in survivors of childhood ALL treated with contemporary therapy on a clinical trial (NCT00137111). There were 345 survivors (45% female, M = 6.9 years at diagnosis) who completed neurocognitive assessments including measures of sustained attention, learning and memory, and parent ratings of attention during at least one of 4 time points: on-therapy (Induction and Reinduction), end of therapy, and 2 years post-therapy. At-risk performance was defined as a score at least 1SD below the age-adjusted mean. Data on neuropathic pain (events, duration, and severity according NCI Common Toxicity Criteria) and pharmacologic pain management (opioids and gabapentin) were ascertained. Results showed that 135 survivors (39%) experienced neuropathic pain during treatment. Compared with those without pain, survivors with pain had greater memory impairments at end of therapy (California Verbal Learning Test [CVLT]-Total, 24% vs 12%, P = 0.046). Within the pain group, survivors who experienced a greater number of pain events (CVLT-Total = -0.88, P = 0.023) and those who were treated with opioids (versus gabapentin) had poorer learning and memory performance (CVLT-Total = -0.73, P = 0.011; Short Delay = -0.57, P = 0.024; Long Delay = -0.62, P = 0.012; and Learning Slope = -0.45, P = 0.042) across time points. These are considered medium-to-large effects (SD = 0.45-0.88). Neuropathic pain may be a risk factor for learning problems after therapy completion, and treatment for pain with opioids may also adversely affect neurocognitive performance. Therefore, patients who experience pain may require closer monitoring and additional intervention for neurocognitive impairment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Previous studies have reported compromised reading ability in children with amblyopia. Standardized psychoeducational test norms have not been used; therefore, the practical consequences of poor reading ability, such as eligibility for reading supports at school, have not been assessed. Furthermore, several studies have used atypical reading conditions such as monocular or distant viewing. It is also not clear how amblyopia treatment impacts reading ability. Thus, the goal of this study was to use standardized tests to compare binocular reading performance in children treated for amblyopia to that of a large normative sample, as well as to the types of control groups used in previous studies. Children treated for strabismic or anisometropic amblyopia (N = 14) were compared to children treated for strabismus without amblyopia (N = 12) and to children with healthy vision (N = 39). Visual acuity, stereoacuity, interocular suppression, intellectual functioning, oral single-word reading (TOWRE-2), and oral paragraph reading (GORT-5) were assessed. The control group showed significantly higher single-word reading accuracy than the amblyopia and strabismus groups. However, mean performance for all groups was within the average range of the normative sample. While mean scores were in the average range, six children (four amblyopia, two strabismus) performed below average on the single-word reading task; four of these children also showed below average paragraph reading. Reading scores were not correlated with visual acuity in the patient groups. The results raise the possibility that both strabismus and amblyopia can disrupt reading ability, even following successful treatment, to an extent that might benefit from reading supports at school. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There are some children who encounter unexpected reading difficulties in the fourth grade. This phenomenon has been described as late emerging reading disabilities (LERD). Using Grade 4 as a starting point, this study examined the reading development of 964 children between kindergarten and Grade 7. The results showed that 72.0% of children had typical reading performance in Grade 4, whereas there was 0.7% with poor word reading, 12.6% with poor reading comprehension, 2.5% with poor word reading and comprehension, and 12.2% with borderline performance. We also showed that there were similar proportions of children who had early versus late emerging reading difficulties; however, most of the late emerging poor readers recovered by Grade 7. Furthermore, our study showed that poor comprehenders showed poorer performance than typical readers on word reading, pseudoword decoding, and spelling between Grade 1 and Grade 7 and poorer performance on a working memory task in kindergarten. Overall, this study showed that most children recover from late emerging reading problems and that working memory may be an early indicator for reading comprehension difficulties. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]