Reference

Study Design

Exposure Group

Control Group

Measure

Memory Domain

Attention Domain

Executive Function Domain

General Cognitive Impairment (Domain- Nonspecific)

Schmidt et al.‎‎ [24]

Cross-sectional

Various Solid Malignancies

CH+

(n = 3108)

n/a

QLACS

Patients reporting as abnormal: 65.4%

n/a

n/a

Patient reporting as abnormal: 45.7%

Schagen et al.‎ [25]

Cross-sectional

BC

CH+

(n = 39)

BC

CH−

(n = 34)

5-point Likert scale

Patients reporting as abnormal: 31% (CH+) vs 6% (CH−) (p = 0.007)

Patients reporting as abnormal:

21% (CH+) vs 3% (CH−) (p = 0.022)

n/a

n/a

Downie et al.‎ [26]

Cross-sectional

BC

CH+

(n = 21)

n/a

Semi-structured interview

Patients reporting as abnormal: %95

Patients reporting as abnormal: 90%

Patients reporting as abnormal: 43%

n/a

Shilling et al.‎ [27]

Longitudinal

BC

CH+

(n = 142)

n/a

Semi-structured interview

Patients reporting as abnormal:

- 71% at 6 months post-treatment

- 60% at 18 months post-treatment;

Patients reporting as abnormal:

- 64% at 6 months post-treatment

- 42% at 18 months post-treatment

n/a

n/a

Skaali et al.‎ [28]

Cross-sectional

TC

CH+

one cycle of chemotherapy (n = 38); two or more cycles of chemotherapy (n = 53)

TC

CH−

(n = 31)

Semi-structured interview

Patients reporting as abnormal:

- 26% (CH+) vs 7% (CH−) after one cycle of chemotherapy (p = 0.08);

- 25% (CH+) vs 7% (CH−) after two or more cycles of chemotherapy (p = 0.08)

Patients reporting as abnormal:

- 21% (CH+) vs 3% (CH−) after one cycle of chemotherapy (p = 0.09);

- 13% (CH+) vs 3% (CH−) after two or more cycles of chemotherapy (p = 0.09)

n/a

Patients reporting as abnormal:

- 29% (CH+) vs 10% (CH−) after one cycle of chemotherapy (p = 0.1);

- 29% (CH+) vs 10% (CH−) after two or more cycles of chemotherapy (p = 0.1)