The late neurocognitive and psychosocial effects of treatment for pediatric brain tumor (PBT) represent important areas of clinical focus and ongoing research. Neurocognitive sequelae and associated problems with learning and socioemotional development negatively impact PBT survivors’ overall health-related quality of life, educational attainment and employment rates. Multiple factors including tumor features and associated complications, treatment methods, individual protective and vulnerability factors and accessibility of environmental supports contribute to the neurocognitive and psychosocial outcomes in PBT survivors. Declines in overall measured intelligence are common and may persist years after treatment. Core deficits in attention, processing speed and working memory are postulated to underlie problems with overall intellectual development, academic achievement and career attainment. Additionally, psychological problems after PBT can include depression, anxiety and psychosocial adjustment issues. Several intervention paradigms are briefly described, though to date research on innovative, specific and effective interventions for neurocognitive late effects is still in its early stages. This article reviews the existing research for understanding PBT late effects and highlights the need for innovative research to enhance neurocognitive and psychosocial outcomes in PBT survivors.

Glucose is the principal cerebral metabolic substrate under normal circumstances. Glucose provides energy (adenosine triphosphate) to neural cells and carbon for neurotransmitter production, one of the numerous biosynthetic reactions that the brain carries out, via glycolysis and the tricarboxylic acid (TCA) cycle.¹ However, glucose metabolism also fulfills other, less-acknowledged cerebral biosynthetic requirements, which are no less important from a clinical standpoint when they remain unmet,² such as anaplerosis (ie, the replenishment of intermediates that are normally lost from the TCA pool). Thus, a myriad of cerebral energetic and carbon fluxes, many of which are poorly understood quantitatively,³ stem from brain glucose availability. This is, in turn, contingent on the activity of the facilitative membrane glucose transporter type I (GLUT1), which permits glucose to cross the blood-brain barrier and subsequently transit into, and probably through, astrocytes.

Objective: To assess the efficacy of lovastatin on visuospatial learning and attention for treating cognitive and behavioral deficits in children with neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1). Methods: A multicenter, international, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted between July 2009 and May 2014 as part of the NF Clinical Trials Consortium. Children with NF1 aged 8–15 years were screened for visuospatial learning or attention deficits (n = 272); 146 children demonstrated deficits at baseline and were randomly assigned to lovastatin (n = 74; 40 mg/d) or placebo (n = 70). Treatment was administered once daily for 16 weeks. Primary outcomes were total errors on the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery Paired Associate Learning task (visuospatial learning) and the Score subtest from the Test of Everyday Attention for Children (sustained attention). Secondary outcomes measured executive function, attention, visuospatial skills, behavior, and quality of life. Primary analyses were performed on the intention-to-treat population. Results: Lovastatin had no significant effect on primary outcomes after 16 weeks of treatment: visuospatial learning (Cohen d = −0.15, 95% confidence interval −0.47 to 0.18) or sustained attention (Cohen d = 0.19, 95% confidence interval −0.14 to 0.53). Lovastatin was well tolerated, with no increase in reported adverse events compared to placebo. Conclusions: Lovastatin administered once daily for 16 weeks did not improve visuospatial learning or attention in children with NF1 and is not recommended for amelioration of cognitive deficits in this population. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00853580) and Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12607000560493). Classification of evidence: This study provides Class I evidence that for children with NF1, lovastatin does not improve visuospatial learning or attention deficits.

The present investigation examined neurocognitive functioning, focusing on executive functioning (EF), in 39 children and adolescents with Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) and 24 healthy control subjects all ages 8 to 17 years. The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Third Edition along with several measures of executive functioning including the Wisconsin Card Sorting Task, Trail Making Test, Controlled Oral Word Association Test, and the Stroop Color Word Test were administered. The neurocognitive profiles for the group of depressed children and adolescents were grossly intact as most scores on intellectual and EF measures fell within the average range and did not differ from the comparison group. Mental processing speed was decreased in the MDD versus normal control group and 27% of the depressed group performed below average on the Trail Making Test. This investigation provided a good base from which to compare future literature on EF in outpatients with early-onset MDD.

Brain lesions after traumatic brain injury (TBI) are heterogeneous, rendering outcome prognostication difficult. The aim of this study is to investigate whether early magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of lesion location and lesion volume within discrete brain anatomical zones can accurately predict long-term neurological outcome in children post-TBI. Fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) MRI hyperintense lesions in 63 children obtained 6.2±5.6 days postinjury were correlated with the Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended-Pediatrics (GOS-E Peds) score at 13.5±8.6 months. FLAIR lesion volume was expressed as hyperintensity lesion volume index (HLVI)=(hyperintensity lesion volume / whole brain volume)×100 measured within three brain zones: zone A (cortical structures); zone B (basal ganglia, corpus callosum, internal capsule, and thalamus); and zone C (brainstem). HLVI-total and HLVI-zone C predicted good and poor outcome groups (p<0.05). GOS-E Peds correlated with HLVI-total (r=0.39; p=0.002) and HLVI in all three zones: zone A (r=0.31; p<0.02); zone B (r=0.35; p=0.004); and zone C (r=0.37; p=0.003). In adolescents ages 13-17 years, HLVI-total correlated best with outcome (r=0.5; p=0.007), whereas in younger children under the age of 13, HLVI-zone B correlated best (r=0.52; p=0.001). Compared to patients with lesions in zone A alone or in zones A and B, patients with lesions in all three zones had a significantly higher odds ratio (4.38; 95% confidence interval, 1.19-16.0) for developing an unfavorable outcome.

Objective: The article discusses a feasibility study conducted to examine whether Pay Attention!, an intervention training sustained, selective, alternating, and divided attention, could be utilized in a clinical setting with children diagnosed with ADHD, and whether children who received the intervention made attention and executive functioning gains. Method: After a diagnostic and baseline evaluation, 23 school-aged children with ADHD participate in up to 16 sessions of Pay Attention! and the outcomes are evaluated. Results: Results show the intervention is feasible to administer and acceptable to participants. Parents and clinicians rate fewer ADHD symptoms following the intervention and report improvements in executive function. Child performance on neuropsychological tests showed improvements in fluid reasoning and cognitive flexibility and working memory. Conclusion: The findings suggest that a randomized clinical trial of Pay Attention! is warranted to investigate its viability as a treatment for attention and executive functioning deficits in ADHD. (J. of Att. Dis. 2010; 14(1) 86-94)