1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. What this paper adds
  4. Method
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. References

Aim  This meta-analysis provides a systematic review of studies into intellectual and attentional functioning of paediatric brain tumour survivors (PBTS) as assessed by two widely used measures: the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (3rd edition; WISC-III) and the Conners’ Continuous Performance Test (CPT).

Method  Studies were located that reported on performance of PBTS (age range 6–16y). Meta-analytic effect sizes were calculated for Full-scale IQ, Performance IQ, and Verbal IQ as measured by the WISC-III, and mean hit reaction time, errors of omission, and errors of commission as measured by the CPT. Exploratory analyses investigated the possible impacts of treatment mode, tumour location, age at diagnosis, and time since diagnosis on intelligence.

Results  Twenty-nine studies were included: 22 reported on the WISC-III in 710 PBTS and seven on CPT results in 372 PBTS. PBTS performed below average (ps<0.001) on Full-scale IQ (Cohen’s d=−0.79), Performance IQ (d=−0.90), and Verbal IQ (d=−0.54). PBTS committed more errors of omission than the norm (d=0.82, p<0.001); no differences were found for mean hit reaction time and errors of commission. Cranial radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and longer time since diagnosis were associated with lower WISC-III scores (ps<0.05).

Interpretation  PBTS have seriously impaired intellectual functioning and attentiveness. Being treated with cranial radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy as well as longer time since diagnosis leads to worse intellectual functioning.


Conners’ Continuous Performance Test


Full-scale IQ


Mean hit reaction time


Paediatric brain tumour survivors


Performance IQ


Verbal IQ

What this paper adds

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. What this paper adds
  4. Method
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. References
  •  PBTS show medium- to large-sized depressions in IQ.
  •  PBTS show large-sized increases in commission errors, indicating inattentiveness.
  •  Radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and longer time since diagnosis are related to worse intellectual outcome.

In the USA the incidence of cancer in children aged 0 to 14 years is almost three per 100 000.1 Approximately 17 to 22.5% of children with cancer have a brain tumour.1,2 Advances in medicine have led to an increasing number of children surviving cancer. The 5-year survival rate of children diagnosed with a brain tumour under the age of 15 increased from 57% for patients diagnosed from 1975 to 1977 to 74% for patients diagnosed from 1996 to 2004.3

With more children becoming long-term survivors, the need has grown to understand fully the nature and magnitude of the late effects of the tumour and treatment. Compared with survivors of other malignancies, survivors of brain tumours in childhood bear the greatest risk of neurocognitive impairment.4 Numerous studies have shown that 40 to 100% of paediatric brain tumour survivors (PBTS) show some form of neurocognitive deficit.5 Frequently reported impairments in PBTS are declining levels of general intelligence and attention deficits. Deficits in these areas can have a deleterious effect on academic achievement and psychosocial functioning.6–8

Besides the burden of the tumour itself, the treatment can contribute to neurocognitive impairments. Radiotherapy is especially considered to have an impact on neurocognitive functioning.9,10 Chemotherapy, however, has also been found to be associated with poor outcomes in PBTS.11 In addition to the treatment, tumour location can affect the neurocognitive outcome of PBTS, with infratentorial tumours being associated with worse outcomes than supratentorial tumours.12 Furthermore, age at diagnosis is known to have an impact on neurocognitive outcome.13 The young brain is especially vulnerable to the adverse effects of treatment because of the rapid cell proliferation, dendritic and axonal outgrowth, as well as myelination, which take place during infancy, childhood, and adolescence. Therefore, radiotherapy is postponed or omitted in most protocols if the child is under the age of 3 years.11 In addition, time since treatment is an important determinant of neurocognitive deficits, as the deficits often increase over time, owing to a slower rate of acquiring new skills and knowledge compared with healthy peers.13,14

The current paper reports the results of a quantitative meta-analysis, investigating the magnitude and consistency of neurocognitive deficits in PBTS. Analysis of the literature determined general intelligence and attention as two frequently studied areas of neurocognitive functioning. General intelligence provides insight into the generic cognitive functioning of the patient and is measured most often using the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (3rd edition; WISC-III).15 Attention is required to some extent for nearly all components of neurocognitive functioning and is therefore a crucial area to study thoroughly. The Conners’ Continuous Performance Test (CPT, CPT II) is the most widely used measure for attention.16,17 Besides intelligence and attention, processing speed and working memory are often studied in PBTS. These areas are important in understanding the neurocognitive functioning of a patient; they are, however, beyond the scope of this meta-analysis, which focuses on the two key areas: intelligence and attention. The CPT comprises a measure for processing speed; therefore, this area is reported as well. Additionally, exploratory analyses investigated the possible impact of cranial radiotherapy, chemotherapy, tumour location, age at diagnosis, and time since diagnosis on general intelligence.


  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. What this paper adds
  4. Method
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. References

Selection of studies

Studies were searched using the PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase computerized databases. Relevant studies were located by combining the search terms: neurocogniti*, neuropsych*, cogniti*, child*, pediatric*, tumor, tumour, cancer, neoplasm*, central nervous system, and brain.

All retrieved studies were reviewed to include studies meeting the following criteria: (1) the participants included children treated for a brain tumour by neurosurgery, radiotherapy, and/or chemotherapy; (2) intelligence was assessed using the full WISC-III (as abbreviated versions might yield unreliable data) and/or attention was assessed using the CPT; (3) mean age of PBTS at assessment was between 6 years and 16 years, corresponding to the age range covered by the WISC-III; (4) the study was published in a peer-reviewed English language journal; and (5) the study was published before November 2011. The last search was performed on 25 November 2011. The reference lists of included studies were explored to locate additional potentially relevant studies for inclusion in the meta-analysis. No research protocol of the present meta-analysis exists.

Dependent variables

The WISC-III is the most widely used intelligence test for children aged 6 to 16 years. Dependent measures include Full-scale IQ (FSIQ), Verbal IQ (VIQ), and Performance IQ (PIQ), on which normative samples obtain a mean score of 100 with a standard deviation (SD) of 15. VIQ is a measure of the ability to use and understand language. PIQ assesses perceptual reasoning. FSIQ is calculated by averaging VIQ and PIQ. Higher scores indicate better intellectual functioning. WISC-IV studies were not included because the WISC-IV does not allow calculation of VIQ and PIQ scores, and only few PBTS studies reported WISC-IV scores.18,19

The CPT is a widely used test to assess attention. In the CPT, a sequence of different letters is shown, one at a time, and the participant is instructed to press the space bar as quickly as possible without committing errors when any letter other than ‘X’ appears on the screen. Each letter is displayed for 250 ms, with different time intervals between each letter. Main dependent variables are (1) mean hit reaction time (MHRT), measuring processing speed, (2) errors of omission, measuring inattentiveness, and (3) errors of commission, measuring impulsivity.20 Scores are reported in T scores, with a mean of 50 and an SD of 10. For all CPT variables, higher scores indicate worse performance.

Quality assessment

Two authors (MAdR and RvM) independently assessed the quality of the included studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.21 The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale assesses quality in terms of the selection of children (four criteria), comparability of study groups if applicable (one criterion), and outcome assessment (three criteria). Differences in assessment between both authors were resolved by consensus. Some criteria were not applicable to all studies; therefore we used the percentage of the applicable criteria each study met as a score.

Statistical analyses

The computer programs Comprehensive Meta-Analysis 2.222 and SPSS version 18.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) were used for statistical analyses. Techniques by Hozo et al. were used to convert medians into means and SDs if necessary.23–27 Where studies compared two or more subgroups of PBTS, the data were aggregated into one mean and SD per study.

For each of the dependent measures, effect sizes were calculated for each study separately. Effect sizes were calculated in terms of Cohen’s d, with sizes of 0.20, 0.50, and 0.80 translating into small, medium, and large effects respectively.28 Only one study used a comparison group of healthy participants;29 all other studies used normative data to interpret data derived from PBTS. For comparability, normative data were used to calculate effect sizes for all studies. For each dependent variable, an overall effect size was calculated by weighting all the effect sizes according to the sample sizes. To test whether the variability in effect sizes exceeded what could be expected from sampling error alone, Q and I2 tests of heterogeneity were conducted.30,31 That is, when homogeneously distributed, an identical underlying effect size is representative for all studies and so-called fixed effects analysis can be used for estimating the assumed common effect. If the effect sizes are heterogeneously distributed, a random effects analysis estimates the mean of distribution of effects across all studies, which yields wider confidence intervals for the combined effect size.

A major concern in conducting a meta-analysis is the presence of publication bias, meaning that studies reporting non-significant results are less likely to be published, leading to erroneous inflation of meta-analytic effect sizes. The possibility of publication bias was reduced by including unpublished data.32–34 Furthermore, the possibility of publication bias was studied using two methods. First, we calculated Rosenthal’s fail-safe N, which calculates the necessary number of studies to nullify the overall effect, for each significant combined effect size.35 Second, the correlation between sample sizes (the number of PBTS) and effect sizes was calculated for each dependent variable. A significant negative correlation between sample sizes and effect sizes would indicate a tendency that significant results in small samples are easier to publish than non-significant results in small samples.

We studied the possible moderating effects of the following variables on the study specific effect sizes for the dependent variables of the WISC-III: (1) cranial radiotherapy as measured by the percentage of patients treated with cranial radiotherapy (% cRT); (2) chemotherapy as measured by the percentage of patients treated with chemotherapy (% chemo); (3) tumour location as measured by the percentage of patients treated for infratentorial brain tumour (% infra); (4) age at diagnosis (age at dx); and (5) time since diagnosis (time since dx). The effects were analysed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis by meta-regression analyses, assessing the relationship between the moderating variables and the effect sizes on the dependent variables. For each moderating variable we calculated the proportion of variance accounted for, with 1%, 9%, and 25% being interpreted as small, moderate, and large effects respectively.28 These analyses were not conducted on the CPT, because of the limited number of studies available. Alpha was set at 0.05 in all analyses.


  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. What this paper adds
  4. Method
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. References

Figure 1 shows the selection of studies in a flowchart. Twenty-nine studies met inclusion criteria. Twenty-two studies reported scores on the WISC-III for a total of 710 PBTS.9,12,23–26,29,34,36–49 Seven studies reported CPT results for a total of 372 PBTS.32,33,50–54 When two or more studies reported on the same participants, we included the most recently published study to prevent erroneously inflated homogeneity of meta-analytic results. Grill et al.44 and Kieffer-Renaux et al.47 report partly on the same participants. The most recent publication by Grill et al. reports on PIQ and VIQ, but does not report on FSIQ. The earlier publication of Kieffer-Renaux et al., however, does report on FSIQ. Therefore, the study by Grill et al. was included in the meta-analysis of PIQ and VIQ, whereas the study by Kieffer-Renaux et al. was included in the meta-analysis of FSIQ.


Figure 1.  Flow chart of study selection n, number of studies; PBTS, paediatric brain tumour survivors; WISC Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children; CPT, Conners’ Continuous Performance Test.

Download figure to PowerPoint

For five of the 22 WISC-III studies we aggregated data on two or more PBTS subgroups into one mean and SD per study: (1) Patel et al.12 compared PBTS according to their tumour location; (2) Callu et al.39 compared patients with low-grade gliomas and malignant cerebellar tumours; (3) Lacaze et al.24 studied three samples of patients with optic pathway tumours who received three different treatments; (4) Kieffer-Renaux et al.47 compared patients with medulloblastoma who received two different doses of radiotherapy; and (5) Mulhern et al.48 compared patients with medulloblastoma with those having low-grade glioma.

Table I displays details of the studies incorporated in this meta-analysis. Some studies reported insufficient details to allow calculation of effect sizes. In these cases, authors were contacted to provide the missing data.50,32–34,51 For some studies, data were unavailable on one or more of the dependent variables, leading to unequal numbers of studies for these dependent variables.

Table I. Characteristics of studies included in the meta-analysis
 StudyNumber of participants and diagnosisTreatmentLocationTime/ageQuality
% cRT% Chemo% InfraMean age at dxTime since dxaNOS score
  1. Ages are in years. aCalculated by subtracting age at assessment and age at diagnosis. bStereotactic radiotherapy. BTNS, brain tumour not specified; % cRT, percentage of patients treated with cranial radiation therapy; % Chemo, percentage of patients treated with chemotherapy; % infra, percentage of patients with an infratentorial tumour; dx, diagnosis; NOS, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, in percentages of applicable criteria that were met; WISC-III, Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (3rd edition). LGG, low-grade glioma; MB, medulloblastoma; BT, mixed diagnosis group; NA, not available; HGG, high-grade glioma; GNS, glioma not specified; PF, posterior fossa tumour; EP, ependymoma; GCT, germ cell tumour; CPT, Conners’ Continuous Performance Test.

WISC-IIIHazin et al.4913 LGG, 7 MB35351008.31.9100
Patel et al.1270 BT7671497.83.4100
Saury and Emanuelson368 MB100100637.85.150
Sands et al.3724 BT29.210065.43.03.3100
Aukema et al.296 MB1001001004.78.950
Bonner et al.38101 BT74NA567.03.9100
Callu et al.3920 HGG, 19 LGG44361005.43.4100
Briere et al.4012 MB, 6 GNS9478NA6.3NA0
Ris et al.2683 LGG0016NANA100
Sanders et al.415 HGG80100400.911.4100
Jalali et al.237 LGG100bNA<42NANA100
Khong et al.4212 MB1001001008.53.450
Beebe et al.4392 LGG001008.10.4100
Grill et al.4476 PF100721005.76.150
Spiegler et al.3434 MB, EP100701005.52.5100
Lacaze et al.2421 LGG381000NANA100
Packer4540 MB1001001006.04.050
Carey et al.4615 BT6053NANANA100
Kieffer-Renaux et al.4736 MB1001001008.05.050
Merchant et al.258 GCT10000NANA100
Grill et al.919 MB, EP100NA1006.15.3100
Mulhern et al.4818 MB, 18 LGG5050100NANA100
CPTButler et al.50131 BTNSNANANA6.55.350
Mabbott et al.5164 MB, EP50NA505.85.6100
Conklin et al.3261 BTNSNANANA6.55.050
Stargatt et al.5216 BT62691009.94.1100
Reeves et al.5338 MB1001001008.32.0100
Mulhern et al.5437 BT1004962NANA100
Mulhern et al.3325 MB100NA1008.25.2100

Figures 2 and 3 display the studies’ effect sizes as well as the overall effect sizes for each of the dependent variables and the accompanying 95% confidence intervals. Effect sizes of all dependent variables were heterogeneously distributed and a random effect analysis was used in all analyses. There was no significant association between the study quality ratings and effect sizes (all ps>0.08) for any of the dependent variables.


Figure 2.  Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, 3rd edition (WISC-III) study results. CI, confidence interval; FSIQ, Full-scale IQ; PIQ, Performance IQ; VIQ, Verbal IQ.

Download figure to PowerPoint


Figure 3.  Conners’ Continuous Performance Test (CPT) study results. Higher scores indicate worse performance for all three dependent variables. CI, confidence interval; EC, errors of commission; EO, errors of omission; MHRT, mean hit reaction time.

Download figure to PowerPoint

Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-III

PBTS had lower FSIQ scores than their peers, as indicated by a combined random effect size of d=−0.79 (p<0.001), translating into a large effect. Of the 21 studies that reported on FSIQ, 14 reported scores significantly (p<0.05) below the average FSIQ of 100,9,12,26,34,36–41,45–48 whereas none of the studies reported scores significantly higher than average.

PIQ scores were significantly lower in PBTS than in the normative sample, as indicated by a combined random effect size of d=−0.90 (p<0.001), again translating into a large effect. Fifteen of the 19 studies found PIQ scores of PBTS significantly (p<0.05) below average,9,12,24,26,34,36–40,43,44,47–49whereas in none of the studies were scores significantly higher than average found. [Correction added on 27 December 2012, after first online publication: effect size of PIQ corrected to d=0.90].

VIQ scores of PBTS were significantly below average. The combined random effect size was d=−0.54 (p<0.001), which represents a medium effect size. Eleven of the 19 studies reported scores that were significantly (p<0.05) below the mean.9,12,23,34,36–38,40,44,47,48 Eight studies reported VIQ scores that did not differ significantly from the mean of the normative sample.24–26,29,39,42,43 The combined effect size for PIQ was significantly higher than the combined effect size for VIQ (d=−0.29, p<0.001), indicating greater impairments in PIQ than in VIQ.

There was no evidence for publication bias for any of the WISC-III measures, as we found high fail-safe N values and non-significant (ns) positive correlations between sample size and effect size (FSIQ: fail-safe N=871, r=0.36, ns; PIQ: fail-safe N=1030, r=0.16, ns; and VIQ: fail-safe N=406, r=0.25, ns).

Conners’ Continuous Performance Test

The studies were ambiguous about the scores of PBTS on MHRT of the CPT. Three of seven studies found significantly slower MHRT,51,53,54 whereas two studies found responses of the PBTS to be significantly faster than average.32,33 Two other studies found PBTS scores in the average range.50,52 Across studies a non-significant combined random effect size of d=0.15 was found for MHRT.

The number of errors of omission on the CPT committed by PBTS was higher than the normative sample, as indicated by a combined random effect size of d=0.82 (p<0.001), which is considered to be a large effect. All but one study found significantly higher errors of omission rates in PBTS than the normative sample.32,33,51–53 Fail-safe N was 64 and there was a positive non-significant correlation between sample sizes and effect sizes (r=0.85), together indicating that there was no evidence for publication bias.

PBTS did not differ from the normative sample on the number of errors of commission, as indicated by a non-significant combined random effect size of d=0.03. Five of seven studies found no performance differences between PBTS and the normative sample;32,33,50,51,54 one study reported PBTS to make fewer errors of commission than the normative sample,52 and another study found that more errors were made by the PBTS than the normative sample.53

Exploratory analyses

Table II reports the results for the meta-regression analysis for the five moderating variables. Cranial radiotherapy was a strong predictor of lower intellectual functioning, accounting for 26%, 32%, and 19% of the variance in FSIQ, PIQ, and VIQ respectively, with cranial radiotherapy leading to lower scores as opposed to no cranial radiotherapy. Chemotherapy accounted for 22% of the variance in FSIQ and 29% of the variance in PIQ scores, with chemotherapy leading to lower scores as opposed to no chemotherapy. There was no association between chemotherapy and VIQ. Furthermore, we found no predictive value of tumour location or age at diagnosis for intelligence scores. Longer time since diagnosis, however, was highly predictive of lower scores on all WISC-III scales, accounting for large proportions of the variance (FSIQ 41%; PIQ 44%; VIQ 25%). As expected, there was a strong association between cranial radiotherapy and chemotherapy (r=0.54, p<0.05), and between age at diagnosis and time since diagnosis (r=−0.66, p<0.05), not allowing us to distinguish between the effects of these moderating variables.

Table II. Meta-regression analyses, Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (3rd edition) studies
n β R2 p n β R2 p n β R2 p
  1. FSIQ, Full-scale IQ; PIQ, Performance IQ; VIQ, Verbal IQ; n, number of studies; β, standardized Beta coefficient; R2, R squared; cRT, cranial radiation therapy; Chemo, chemotherapy; Infra, infratentorial tumour.

Treatment module
Tumour location
Age at diagnosis150.400.160.061140.150.020.568140.350.120.114
Time since diagnosis14−0.640.41<0.00113−0.670.44<0.00113−0.500.250.014


  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. What this paper adds
  4. Method
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. References

This meta-analysis summarized neurocognitive functioning of 710 (WISC-III) and 372 (CPT, CPT II) PBTS. We found substantial impairments in intellectual functioning and attentional abilities. PBTS scored on average −0.54SD to −0.90SD lower on the WISC-III scales than the normative sample, with PIQ scores being even more depressed than VIQ scores. The number of PBTS in this meta-analysis that were at grade level and succeeding academically is unknown. However, a large body of research has demonstrated that intellectual functioning, as assessed with intelligence tests, is a powerful predictor of academic achievement and vocational success.55,56 In PBTS this association was substantiated by Reddick et al.,57 who found a positive relation between intelligence scores of PBTS, as measured with the Wechsler intelligence scales, and academic achievement, as measured with the abbreviated Wechsler Individual Achievement Test. Moreover de Boer et al.58 report academic failure and lower intelligence to be risk factors for decreased employment rates in PBTS, with PBTS being nearly five times more likely to be unemployed than healthy peers.

This meta-analysis found performance intelligence to be more vulnerable to the detrimental effects of a brain tumour and its associated treatment than verbal intelligence, with the observed PIQ scores in this meta-analysis being on average −0.29SD lower than the VIQ scores. Similar findings have been reported in other populations at risk for brain damage, including children born very preterm and those with traumatic brain injury.59,60 The discrepancy between PIQ and VIQ findings in PBTS might be related to the high rate of cerebellar tumours in this group, as half of the paediatric brain tumours are located within the posterior fossa.34 PIQ subtests are of a multi-component nature and draw more heavily on motor functions, visuomotor integration, visual attention, abstract reasoning, and working memory than the VIQ subtests. Information about how many PBTS were excluded from the analyses because of a persistent motor or sensory disability was lacking. However, it is well known that many of these neurocognitive functions depend heavily on cerebellar functioning.61–63 Therefore damage to the cerebellum is expected to be related to depressed PIQ scores. Secondly, lower PIQ than VIQ scores may be related to a general slowing in information processing resulting from white matter damage. Compared with VIQ subtests, many PIQ subtests draw heavily on processing speed owing to their timed character. Although grey matter development peaks during childhood, white matter continues to develop gradually until early adulthood.59 The maturation of white matter is therefore challenged in PBTS because cancer therapy damages the healthy cells of the central nervous system. Glial progenitor cells are especially vulnerable to the effects of chemotherapy and radiotherapy.64 These cells are responsible for the formation of oligodendrocytes and astrocytes, both myelinating cells that are crucial for white matter integrity. White matter integrity plays a major role in information processing speed with decreased white matter integrity, resulting in slower processing speed.65

In the present meta-analysis, severe attentional problems in PBTS were revealed, as indicated by the high mean number of errors of omission committed by PBTS on the CPT compared with the normative sample. In addition to the errors of omission of the CPT, attention problems in PBTS have been reported using other measures of attention. PBTS perform below the norm on the Freedom of Distractibility Index, the attentional factor of the WISC-III.40 Also, measuring attention using the Gordon Diagnostic System, PBTS scores on focused attention have been reported to be almost 1SD below the mean of the normative sample and more than 1SD below the mean on selective attention.66 Other researchers have used the Conners’ Rating Scale for Parents and Teachers to identify attention deficits in PBTS; they found more than half of the patients obtained scores above the 75th centile, indicating attentional difficulties.67 Attentional abilities develop early in life and form the basis for other emerging and proliferating neurocognitive functions.59 As a result, attentional abilities are an important prerequisite for scholastic development and are strongly associated with academic achievement.59 Reddick et al.57 found worse attentional functioning in PBTS, measured with the CPT, to be associated with lower academic achievement scores, as measured with the abbreviated Wechsler Individual Achievement Test.

Interestingly, this meta-analysis found no evidence for slow processing speed in PBTS as measured with MHRT on the CPT. Individual studies revealed conflicting findings, with some researchers reporting worse performance of PBTS than the normative sample and others reporting no difference or even better performance by PBTS. Our failure to find evidence for slowed information processing as measured by the MHRT on the CPT does not fit with the frequently observed impairments in white matter integrity in PBTS. Such impairments are expected to result in slower processing speed.65 Perhaps MHRT is a limited measure for processing speed. It is possible that slowed information processing becomes evident only in tasks that place demands on the integration of multiple stimulus modalities and involve more complex mental operations, which would engage widespread neural networks in the brain. Speed on such complex tasks, for example the performance subtests of the WISC-III, draw more heavily on white matter integrity than simple stimulus response tasks such as the CPT. Indeed, several researchers have reported decreased scores of PBTS on the processing measures obtained with more complex tasks such as the speed index of the Wechsler Scale and the Trail Making Task.12,29,38

Inhibitory control seems to be spared in PBTS, as the number of errors of commission on the CPT was in the average range. This result converges with results of earlier studies into inhibitory control, which failed to find evidence for inhibitory problems.68,69 The absence of an effect on inhibitory control may be explained in terms of tumour location. Inhibition of responses is primarily mediated by the prefrontal cortex, and paediatric brain tumours in the frontal lobe are rare.59,70 On the other hand, there are a multitude of connections between the cerebellum and the frontal lobes, which can be damaged by local radiotherapy, so causing inhibitory problems.61 Also, frontal lobes are irradiated in craniospinal radiotherapy, for example for medulloblastomas. Indeed Aukema et al.29 found vulnerability of the white matter in the frontal lobes in survivors of medulloblastoma, which was associated with slower processing speed. The fact that we did not find inhibitory control problems might also be caused by the relatively slow development of the prefrontal cortex at the ages the patients were tested.59

As described above, cancer treatment inevitably causes cell damage, challenging the normal maturation and myelination of the neural pathways in the young brain, and consequently challenging the development of cognitive, motor, behavioural, and emotional functioning.42,57,71,72 In our exploratory analyses we found that cranial radiotherapy and chemotherapy are indeed strong predictors of worse intellectual functioning. In our analyses it was impossible to make the distinction between different doses and volumes of radiotherapy, but it is known from the literature that higher doses and larger volumes are associated with worse neurocognitive outcomes.5 The combination of radiotherapy and chemotherapy in adults is believed to play an important role in neurocognitive deficits, owing to the induced damage to neural progenitor cells for hippocampal neurogenesis and the maintenance of subcortical white matter integrity.64 Moreover, we found that longer time since diagnosis is highly associated with worse intellectual outcomes. This finding is probably explained in terms of the neurocognitive problems such as reduced attentiveness, slower processing speed, and memory problems exhibited by PBTS that challenge the learning process, causing an increasing gap between PBTS and their peers in intellectual functioning. No effect was found for tumour location on intellectual functioning. Although the adverse effects of the tumour and its treatment are considered detrimental for the developing brain, interestingly no relationship was found between mean age at diagnosis and WISC-III scores of PBTS. Longer follow-ups might reveal effects of age at diagnosis.

This meta-analysis has some limitations that need to be taken into account. A limited number of studies were available for this meta-analysis. Also, the available studies did not allow a distinction to be made between the different brain tumour diagnoses, tumour locations, and treatment intensities. This may have contributed to heterogeneity in the study findings. For the quality analysis, we used the most relevant quality rating that we found. Nevertheless, not all criteria were applicable to the included studies, which potentially decreased the reliability of the quality ratings. Furthermore, it has been reported in the literature that there is an effect of sex in outcome, to the disadvantage of female children.72 However, owing to lack of variability in proportions of male and female children in the included studies, it was not possible to include sex in the analyses. It would have been interesting to compare scores of patients on the WISC-III and the CPT; unfortunately none of the included studies reported on both a full WISC-III and the CPT. In addition, with one single exception, the included studies used an uncontrolled study design or compared PBTS with other patient groups.29 Also, working memory and other important cognitive areas have not been addressed in this meta-analysis, despite their interdependence with intelligence, attention, and processing speed. Even though the WISC-III and the CPT are well-validated tests and normative data are available, the use of a healthy comparison group, matched on demographic background characteristics, would have been preferable.


  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. What this paper adds
  4. Method
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. References

This meta-analysis highlights the negative neurocognitive sequelae of paediatric brain tumours and their treatment in terms of intellectual functioning and attentiveness. Moreover, longer time since diagnosis was found to be associated with worse intellectual functioning. Poor intellectual functioning and inattentiveness might underlie the negative outcomes of PBTS in terms of academic achievement, vocational success, and general adaptive functioning. The field is in urgent need of developing effective screening and treatments for these negative neurocognitive sequelae of PBTS.


  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. What this paper adds
  4. Method
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. References

This meta-analysis was performed as part of the PRISMA study, a study funded by the Dutch Cancer Society (KWF Kankerbestrijding, grant number UVA 2008-4013). We thank Jason Ashford, Deane W Beebe, Melanie J Bonner, Robert N Butler, Diane L Fairclough, Donald L Mabbott, Shawna L Palmer, and Sean Phipps for providing us with the requested data.


  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. What this paper adds
  4. Method
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. Conclusions
  8. Acknowledgements
  9. References
  • 1
    Kaatsch P. Epidemiology of childhood cancer. Cancer Treat Rev2010; 36: 27785.
  • 2
    Mariotto AB, Rowland JH, Yabroff KR, et al.Long-term survivors of childhood cancers in the United States. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev2009; 18: 103340.
  • 3
    Ries LAG, Melbert D, Krapcho M, et al.SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975–2005. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute, 2008.
  • 4
    Butler RW, Mulhern RK. Neurocognitive interventions for children and adolescents surviving cancer. J Pediatr Psychol2005; 30: 6578.
  • 5
    Duffner PK. Risk factors for cognitive decline in children treated for brain tumors. Eur J Paediatr Neurol2010; 14: 10615.
  • 6
    Bhat SR, Goodwin TL, Burwinkle TM, et al.Profile of daily life in children with brain tumors: an assessment of health-related quality of life. J Clin Oncol2005; 23: 5493500.
  • 7
    Koch SV, Kejs AM, Engholm G, Johansen C, Schmiegelow K. Educational attainment among survivors of childhood cancer: a population-based cohort study in Denmark. Br J Cancer2004; 91: 9238.
  • 8
    Zebrack BJ, Gurney JG, Oeffinger K, et al.Psychological outcomes in long-term survivors of childhood brain cancer: a report from the childhood cancer survivor study. J Clin Oncol2004; 22: 9991006.
  • 9
    Grill J, Renaux VK, Bulteau C, et al.Long-term intellectual outcome in children with posterior fossa tumors according to radiation doses and volumes. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys1999; 45: 13745.
  • 10
    Conklin HM, Li C, Xiong X, Ogg RJ, Merchant TE. Predicting change in academic abilities after conformal radiation therapy for localized ependymoma. J Clin Oncol2008; 26: 396570.
  • 11
    Rutkowski S, Bode U, Deinlein F, et al.Treatment of early childhood medulloblastoma by postoperative chemotherapy alone. N Engl J Med2005; 352: 97886.
  • 12
    Patel SK, Mullins WA, O’Neil SH, Wilson K. Neuropsychological differences between survivors of supratentorial and infratentorial brain tumours. J Intellect Disabil Res2011; 55: 3040.
  • 13
    Ris MD, Packer R, Goldwein J, Jones-Wallace D, Boyett JM. Intellectual outcome after reduced-dose radiation therapy plus adjuvant chemotherapy for medulloblastoma: a Children’s Cancer Group study. J Clin Oncol2001; 19: 34706.
  • 14
    Palmer SL, Goloubeva O, Reddick WE, et al.Patterns of intellectual development among survivors of pediatric medulloblastoma: a longitudinal analysis. J Clin Oncol2001; 19: 23028.
  • 15
    Conners CK. Conners’ Continuous Performance Test (CPT). Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems, 1995.
  • 16
    Conners CK. Conners’ Continuous Performance Test (CPT II). New York: Multi-Health System, 2002.
  • 17
    Wechsler D. Wechsler’s Intelligence Scale for Children, 3rd edn. London: Harcourt Brace, 1992.
  • 18
    Hardy KK, Willard VW, Bonner MJ. Computerized cognitive training in survivors of childhood cancer: a pilot study. J Pediatr Oncol Nurs2011; 28: 2733.
  • 19
    O’Neil S, Ji LY, Buranahirun C, et al.Neurocognitive outcomes in pediatric and adolescent patients with central nervous system germinoma treated with a strategy of chemotherapy followed by reduced-dose and volume irradiation. Pediatr Blood Cancer2011; 57: 66973.
  • 20
    Strauss E, Sherman EMS, Spreen O. A Compendium of Neuropsychological Tests: Administration, Norms and Commentary, 3rd edn. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2006.
  • 21
    Wells GA, Shea B, O’Connell D, et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for Assessing the Quality of Nonrandomized Studies in Meta-Analysis. (accessed 1 November 2011).
  • 22
    Borenstein M, Rothstein H. Comprehensive Meta-Analysis, A Computer Program for Research Synthesis, 2nd edn. Englewood, NJ: Biostat, 1999.
  • 23
    Jalali R, Goswami S, Sarin R, More N, Siddha M, Kamble R. Neuropsychological status in children and young adults with benign and low-grade brain tumors treated prospectively with focal stereotactic conformal radiotherapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys2006; 66: S149.
  • 24
    Lacaze E, Kieffer V, Streri A, et al.Neuropsychological outcome in children with optic pathway tumours when first-line treatment is chemotherapy. Br J Cancer2003; 89: 203844.
  • 25
    Merchant TE, Sherwood SH, Mulhern RK, et al.CNS germinoma: disease control and long-term functional outcome for 12 children treated with craniospinal irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys2000; 46: 11716.
  • 26
    Ris MD, Beebe DW, Armstrong FD, et al.Cognitive and adaptive outcome in extracerebellar low-grade brain tumors in children: a report from the Children’s Oncology Group. J Clin Oncol2008; 26: 476570.
  • 27
    Hozo SP, Djulbegovic B, Hozo I. Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med Res Methodol2005; 5: 13.
  • 28
    Cohen J. The statistical power of abnormal-social psychological research: a review. J Abnorm Soc Psychol1962; 65: 14553.
  • 29
    Aukema EJ, Caan MW, Oudhuis N, et al.White matter fractional anisotropy correlates with speed of processing and motor speed in young childhood cancer survivors. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys2009; 74: 83743.
  • 30
    Gliner JA, Morgan GA, Harmon RJ. Meta-analysis: formulation and interpretation. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry2003; 42: 13769.
  • 31
    Huedo-Medina TB, Sanchez-Meca J, Marin-Martinez F, Botella J. Assessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Q statistic or I2 index?Psychol Methods2006; 11: 193206.
  • 32
    Conklin HM, Khan RB, Reddick WE, et al.Acute neurocognitive response to methylphenidate among survivors of childhood cancer: a randomized, double-blind, cross-over trial. J Pediatr Psychol2007; 32: 112739.
  • 33
    Mulhern RK, Palmer SL, Reddick WE, et al.Risks of young age for selected neurocognitive deficits in medulloblastoma are associated with white matter loss. J Clin Oncol2001; 19: 4729.
  • 34
    Spiegler BJ, Bouffet E, Greenberg ML, Rutka JT, Mabbott DJ. Change in neurocognitive functioning after treatment with cranial radiation in childhood. J Clin Oncol2004; 22: 70613.
  • 35
    Rosenthal R. Writing meta-analytic reviews. Psychol Bull1995; 118: 18392.
  • 36
    Saury JMG, Emanuelson I. Cognitive consequences of the treatment of medulloblastoma among children. Pediatr Neurol2011; 44: 2130.
  • 37
    Sands SA, Oberg JA, Gardner SL, Whiteley JA, Glade-Bender JL, Finlay JL. Neuropsychological functioning of children treated with intensive chemotherapy followed by myeloablative consolidation chemotherapy and autologous hematopoietic cell rescue for newly diagnosed CNS tumors: an analysis of the head start II survivors. Pediatr Blood Cancer2010; 54: 42936.
  • 38
    Bonner MJ, Hardy KK, Willard VW, Gururangan S. Additional evidence of a nonverbal learning disability in survivors of pediatric brain tumors. Childrens Health Care2009; 38: 4963.
  • 39
    Callu D, Viguier D, Laroussinie F, et al.Cognitive and academic outcome after benign or malignant cerebellar tumor in children. Cogn Behav Neurol2009; 22: 2708.
  • 40
    Briere ME, Scott JG, McNall-Knapp RY, Adams RL. Cognitive outcome in pediatric brain tumor survivors: delayed attention deficit at long-term follow-up. Pediatr Blood Cancer2008; 50: 33740.
  • 41
    Sanders RP, Kocak M, Burger PC, Merchant TE, Gajjar A, Broniscer A. High-grade astrocytoma in very young children. Pediatr Blood Cancer2007; 49: 88893.
  • 42
    Khong PL, Leung LH, Fung AS, et al.White matter anisotropy in post-treatment childhood cancer survivors: preliminary evidence of association with neurocognitive function. J Clin Oncol2006; 24: 88490.
  • 43
    Beebe DW, Ris MD, Armstrong FD, et al.Cognitive and adaptive outcome in low-grade pediatric cerebellar astrocytomas: evidence of diminished cognitive and adaptive functioning in national collaborative research studies (CCG 9891/POG 9130). J Clin Oncol2005; 23: 5198204.
  • 44
    Grill J, Viguier D, Kieffer V, et al.Critical risk factors for intellectual impairment in children with posterior fossa tumors: the role of cerebellar damage. J Neurosurg2004; 101: 1528.
  • 45
    Packer RJ. Radiation-induced neurocognitive decline: the risks and benefits of reducing the amount of whole-brain irradiation. Curr Neurol Neurosci Rep2002; 2: 1313.
  • 46
    Carey ME, Barakat LP, Foley B, Gyato K, Phillips PC. Neuropsychological functioning and social functioning of survivors of pediatric brain tumors: evidence of nonverbal learning disability. Child Neuropsychol2001; 7: 26572.
  • 47
    Kieffer-Renaux V, Bulteau C, Grill J, Kalifa C, Viguier D, Jambaque I. Patterns of neuropsychological deficits in children with medulloblastoma according to craniospatial irradiation doses. Dev Med Child Neurol2000; 42: 7415.
  • 48
    Mulhern RK, Reddick WE, Palmer SL, et al.Neurocognitive deficits in medulloblastoma survivors and white matter loss. Ann Neurol1999; 46: 83441.
  • 49
    Hazin I, Dellatolas G, Garcia D, Pedrosa F, Pedrosa A. Intellectual Impairment after treatment for medulloblastoma and astrocytoma in childhood: the Brazilian experience. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol2011; 33: 50615.
  • 50
    Butler RW, Copeland DR, Fairclough DL, et al.A multicenter, randomized clinical trial of a cognitive remediation program for childhood survivors of a pediatric malignancy. J Consult Clin Psychol2008; 76: 36778.
  • 51
    Mabbott DJ, Penkman L, Witol A, Strother D, Bouffet E. Core neurocognitive functions in children treated for posterior fossa tumors. Neuropsychology2008; 22: 15968.
  • 52
    Stargatt R, Rosenfeld JV, Maixner W, Ashley D. Multiple factors contribute to neuropsychological outcome in children with posterior fossa tumors. Dev Neuropsychol2007; 32: 72948.
  • 53
    Reeves CB, Palmer SL, Reddick WE, et al.Attention and memory functioning among pediatric patients with medulloblastoma. J Pediatr Psychol2006; 31: 27280.
  • 54
    Mulhern RK, White HA, Glass JO, et al.Attentional functioning and white matter integrity among survivors of malignant brain tumors of childhood. J Int Neuropsychol Soc2004; 10: 1809.
  • 55
    Deary I, Strand S, Smith P, Fernandes C. Intelligence and educational achievement. Intelligence2007; 35: 1321.
  • 56
    Watkins MW, Lei P, Canivez GL. Psychometric intelligence and achievement: a cross-lagged panel analysis. Intelligence2007; 35: 5968.
  • 57
    Reddick WE, White HA, Glass JO, et al.Developmental model relating white matter volume to neurocognitive deficits in pediatric brain tumor survivors. Cancer2003; 97: 25129.
  • 58
    de Boer AG, Verbeek JH, van Dijk FJ. Adult survivors of childhood cancer and unemployment: a metaanalysis. Cancer2006; 107: 111.
  • 59
    Anderson V, Northam E, Hendy J, Wrennall J. Developmental Neuropsychology; A Clinical Approach. Hove, East Sussex: Psychology Press, 2001.
  • 60
    Johnson S. Cognitive and behavioural outcomes following very preterm birth. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med2007; 12: 36373.
  • 61
    Cantelmi D, Schweizer TA, Cusimano MD. Role of the cerebellum in the neurocognitive sequelae of treatment of tumours of the posterior fossa: an update. Lancet Oncol2008; 9: 56976.
  • 62
    Salman MS. The cerebellum: it’s about time! But timing is not everything–new insights into the role of the cerebellum in timing motor and cognitive tasks. J Child Neurol2002; 17: 19.
  • 63
    Copeland DR, deMoor C, Moore BD III, Ater JL. Neurocognitive development of children after a cerebellar tumor in infancy: a longitudinal study. J Clin Oncol1999; 17: 347686.
  • 64
    Monje M, Dietrich J. Cognitive side effects of cancer therapy demonstrate a functional role for adult neurogenesis. Behav Brain Res2012; 227: 3769.
  • 65
    Dockstader C, Gaetz W, Rockel C, Mabbott DJ. White matter maturation in visual and motor areas predicts the latency of visual activation in children. Hum Brain Mapp2012; 33: 17991.
  • 66
    Dennis M, Hetherington CR, Spiegler BJ. Memory and attention after childhood brain tumors. Med Pediatr Oncol1998; 30 (Suppl. 1) 2533.
  • 67
    Netson KL, Conklin HM, Ashford JM, Kahalley LS, Wu S, Xiong X. Parent and teacher ratings of attention during a year-long methylphenidate trial in children treated for cancer. J Pediatr Psychol2011; 36: 43850.
  • 68
    Kahalley LS, Conklin HM, Tyc VL, et al.ADHD and secondary ADHD criteria fail to identify many at-risk survivors of pediatric ALL and brain tumor. Pediatr Blood Cancer2011; 57: 1108.
  • 69
    Kiehna EN, Mulhern RK, Li C, Xiong X, Merchant TE. Changes in attentional performance of children and young adults with localized primary brain tumors after conformal radiation therapy. J Clin Oncol2006; 24: 528390.
  • 70
    Rubia K, Smith AB, Brammer MJ, Taylor E. Right inferior prefrontal cortex mediates response inhibition while mesial prefrontal cortex is responsible for error detection. Neuroimage2003; 20: 3518.
  • 71
    Han R, Yang YM, Dietrich J, Luebke A, Mayer-Proschel M, Noble M. Systemic 5-fluorouracil treatment causes a syndrome of delayed myelin destruction in the central nervous system. J Biol2008; 7: 12.
  • 72
    Mulhern RK, Merchant TE, Gajjar A, Reddick WE, Kun LE. Late neurocognitive sequelae in survivors of brain tumours in childhood. Lancet Oncol2004; 5: 399408.