Original Title: Rehabilitación neuropsicológica en personas con cáncer pediátrico

Authors' objectives: • Evaluate the efficacy and safety of neuropsychological rehabilitation in children treated for or undergoing treatment for pediatric cancer. • Determine the cost-effectiveness of neuropsychological rehabilitation in children treated for or undergoing treatment for pediatric cancer. • Determine the pre-budgetary impact of neuropsychological rehabilitation in children treated for or undergoing treatment for pediatric cancer. • Describe the ethical, legal, organizational, social, and environmental aspects, as well as patient perspectives, associated with the use of neuropsychological rehabilitation in children treated for or undergoing treatment for pediatric cancer. • Describe the future research needs for neuropsychological rehabilitation in children treated for or undergoing treatment for pediatric cancer from the viewpoints of patients, family members/caregivers, medical professionals, and facility managers.

Authors' results and conclusions: RESULTS: EFFECTIVENESS/SAFETY: A total of 11 studies were included (n = 703). The one study that used neurofeedback failed to see any appreciable benefits from the intervention. The rest exclusively applied a cognitive training program except in one case, which also worked on psychosocial aspects in a group intervention with parents and children. Among those who used cognitive training programs, one found no significant differences in life quality related to health. A study involving hospitalized children found a significant impact of intervention on functional independence and fatigue (in both cases, the quality of the evidence was very poor ⨁◯◯◯). Parents' and professors' reports of executive and conductive function improved significantly after intervention (6 studies; g = -0.34, IC95%: -0.61, -0.06; very poor quality ⨁◯◯◯), but there were no significant differences in follow-up. There were no significant differences in reading comprehension or mathematics (3 low-quality studies in each case ⨁⨁◯◯). A study that used a specific program of reading and monitoring for five years did not find significant differences. There were no significant differences in immediate attention/memory verbal (4 studies, poor quality) or work (6 studies, poor quality ⨁⨁◯◯), but there were in immediate visuospatial memory (2 studies, g = 0.96, IC95%: 0.48, 1.95; poor quality ⨁⨁◯◯) and work (3 studies, g = 0.76, IC95%: 0.38, 1.13; poor quality ⨁⨁◯◯). These positive outcomes are primarily influenced by one study. In the articles reporting them, no adverse effects were reported. COST-EFFECTIVENESS: No evidence on the cost-effectiveness of neuropsychological rehabilitation in pediatric cancer patients was identified. The uncertainty about the validity and consistency of the effectiveness results did not allow us to undertake a “de novo” cost-effectiveness analysis. COST STUDY: The cost study in the Spanish context, based on a cognitive rehabilitation intervention offered by a patient association, estimated the cost per patient/family at €687. BUDGET IMPACT: The budgetary impact after 5 years of the implementation of the intervention for cancer patients from 0 to 14 years of age in Spain would be between €700,000 and €1,500,000, depending on the number of sessions offered. ETHICAL, LEGAL, ORGANIZATIONAL, SOCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS AND PATIENT'S PERSPECTIVE: The following facilitators of acceptance and adherence to neuropsychological rehabilitation were identified: evaluation at the time of discharge, the results of which are shared with all the agents involved; clear and precise personalized information on how to carry out follow-up tests; coordinated action between health professionals, parents, and teachers; psychosocial interventions. Among the barriers are: logistical and organizational difficulties, lack of understanding of the needs of the population of cancer survivors, poor communication and coordination between the different organizations involved, or cultural or social barriers that make it difficult for a cancer survivor to access rehabilitation programs. CONCLUSIONS: • The quality of the research on the effectiveness of neuropsychological rehabilitation in pediatric cancer patients is poor-quality and focused on cognitive training, with few studies and a small sample size for each variable evaluated, among other methodological limitations. • Only one study examined neurofeedback, with no significant benefits. • There is no evidence to back up the claim that neurocognitive training improves reading and math skills, psychological symptoms, or health-related quality of life. • Cognitive training may result in a minor improvement in executive/conductive function as perceived by parents at the end of the treatment, but the results available during the follow-up period (between 3-6 months) were not statistically significant. • A computerized self-guided program at home can provide moderate-to-high benefits in terms of attention, processing speed, and visual spatial memory (both immediate and long-term). • There is no evidence that these programs may have negative emotional or behavioral consequences. • The cost-effectiveness of these interventions has yet to be determined. Future studies should consider health-related quality of life or academic performance in economic evaluations. • There is no evidence of cost-effectiveness of neuropsychological rehabilitation in pediatric oncology patients. • The cost of the intervention per patient/family was estimated at €687 and depends above all on the number of sessions offered to each patient and/or their family. • At 5 years, the budgetary impact of implementing the intervention for all cancer patients between 0 and 14 years of age in Spain would be between €700 000 and €1 525 000.

Authors' recommendations: With the available evidence, it is not possible to recommend neuropsychological training for cognitive rehabilitation in pediatric cancer.

Authors' methods: For the effectiveness/security and cost-effectiveness sections, a systematic review of randomized controlled trials and economic evaluations, respectively, was conducted in the databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO. Non-pharmacological interventions that evaluate neurocognitive processes, executive function/conduct as evaluated by parents and teachers, psychiatric symptoms, health-related quality of life, or academic performance were included. When data was available, a meta-analysis of the results was performed. To carry out the economic evaluation, a study of costs was carried out from the perspective of the health system and with a time horizon of 1 year. In addition, the budgetary impact that the implementation of the intervention would have for the health system at 5 years was analyzed.d. To assess the economic, legal, organizational, social, and environmental aspects as well as the patients' perspectives, a systematic review of qualitative or mixed studies in the databases MEDLINE and EMBASE was conducted.

Project Status: Completed

Year Published: 2023

URL for published report: https://sescs.es/rehabilitacion-neuropsicologica-en-personas-con-cancer-pediatrico/

English language abstract: An English language summary is available

Publication Type: Full HTA

Country: Spain

Organisation Name: Canary Health Service

Contact Address: Dirección del Servicio. Servicio Canario de la Salud, Camino Candelaria 44, 1ª planta, 38109 El Rosario, Santa Cruz de Tenerife

Contact Name: sescs@sescs.es

Contact Email: sescs@sescs.es