Alden, Eva

e24089 Background: Little is known about risk and protective factors for dementia in cancer survivors. With increasing longevity due to improved cancer therapy, it’s prudent to study factors contributing to cognitive impairment in this patient population. Methods: We performed multivariable cox regression analyses to assess established risk factors for all-cause dementia (age, education, APOE4-status, social and physical activity engagement) in breast and prostate cancer survivors. Patients 50+ years old with pathology-confirmed cancer diagnosis at Mayo Clinic were identified from a longitudinal, population-based cohort – Mayo Clinic Study of Aging. Analyses were controlled for age, APOE4-status, education, and cancer treatment. Results: We included a total of 209 patients with breast cancer (mean age 75.4 years, 24% APOE4-positive, median follow-up 6.8 years) and 352 with prostate cancer (mean age 77 years, 26% APOE4-positive, median follow-up 6.4 years). 31 patients with breast cancer (15%) and 66 patients with prostate cancer (20%) were diagnosed with dementia at last follow-up. Older age was associated with increased risk for dementia (5-year increase – breast: hazard ratio (HR) 1.9 [95%CI 1.3-2.7, p = 0.001]; prostate: HR 2.4 [95%CI 1.8-3.2, p < 0.0001]). APOE4-positivity was associated with increased dementia risk in breast (HR 3.6 [95%CI 1.6-7.8, p < 0.002]), but not prostate cancer (HR 1.2 [95%CI 0.7-2.0, p = 0.5]). More education was associated with lower dementia risk in prostate cancer (education year: HR 0.91 [95%CI 0.84-0.98, p < 0.02]; education years > 12: HR 0.26 [95%CI 0.1-0.6, p < 0.001]). Physical activity engagement in mid-life was associated with lower dementia risk (prostate: HR 0.56 [95%CI 0.4-0.8, p < 0.005]; breast: HR 0.48 [95%CI 0.3-0.9, p < 0.02]). Conclusions: In this longitudinal, population-based study we found that some risk and protective factors for dementia in cancer survivors vary by cancer type. While advanced age is an expected dementia risk factor, there were mixed results for APOE4-positivity (increased risk only in breast cancer) and education (only protective in prostate cancer). Our results support further study into factors influencing dementia risk by cancer type in hopes of identifying preventative strategies.

Abstract Introduction The aim of this study was to develop a conditional normative model for Rey's Auditory Verbal Learning Test (AVLT) that accounts for practice effects. Methods In our normative sample, robust conditional norms were derived from 1001 cognitively unimpaired (CU) adults ages 50 to 89 who completed the AVLT up to eight times. Linear mixed‐effects models adjusted for baseline performance, prior test exposures, time, demographics, and interaction terms. In our preliminary validation, mean performance on conditional and typical normative scores across two to four completed follow‐up tests in preclinical Alzheimer's disease participants at baseline with positive amyloid and tau positron emission ( n = 27 CU amyloid [A]+tau[T]+) was compared to biomarker negative individuals ( n = 269 CU A–T–). Results AVLT performance using typical norms did not differ across A+T+ and A–T– groups. Conditional norms z‐scores were lower in the A+T+ relative to the A–T– group for 30‐minute recall ( P = .033) and sum of trials ( P = .030). Discussion Conditional normative methods that account for practice effects show promise for identifying longitudinal cognitive decline.

Abstract Objective Individuals with early-onset dysexecutive Alzheimer’s disease (dAD) have high rates of failed performance validity testing (PVT), which can lead to symptom misinterpretation and misdiagnosis. Method The aim of this retrospective study is to evaluate rates of failure on a common PVT, the test of memory malingering (TOMM), in a sample of clinical patients with biomarker-confirmed early-onset dAD who completed neuropsychological testing. Results We identified seventeen patients with an average age of symptom onset at 52.25 years old. Nearly fifty percent of patients performed below recommended cut-offs on Trials 1 and 2 of the TOMM. Four of six patients who completed outside neuropsychological testing were misdiagnosed with alternative etiologies to explain their symptomatology, with two of these patients’ performances deemed unreliable based on the TOMM. Conclusions Low scores on the TOMM should be interpreted in light of contextual and optimally biological information and do not necessarily rule out a neurodegenerative etiology.

AbstractIntroductionThis study evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of the Cogstate Brief Battery (CBB) for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and prodromal Alzheimer's disease (AD) in a population‐based sample.MethodsParticipants included adults ages 50+ classified as cognitively unimpaired (CU, n = 2866) or MCI (n = 226), and a subset with amyloid (A) and tau (T) positron emission tomography who were AD biomarker negative (A–T–) or had prodromal AD (A+T+).ResultsDiagnostic accuracy of the Learning/Working Memory Composite (Lrn/WM) for discriminating all CU and MCI was moderate (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.75), but improved when discriminating CU A–T– and MCI A+T+ (AUC = 0.93) and when differentiating MCI participants without AD biomarkers from those with prodromal AD (AUC = 0.86). Conventional cut‐offs yielded lower than expected sensitivity for both MCI (38%) and prodromal AD (73%).DiscussionClinical utility of the CBB for detecting MCI in a population‐based sample is lower than expected. Caution is needed when using currently available CBB normative data for clinical interpretation.

AbstractBackgroundPractice effects can obscure interpretation of longitudinal cognitive performance. Reliable change indices (RCIs) provide data for determining a significant change, typically for a single repeat assessment, but multiple follow‐up visits are common clinically and in research cohorts. Further, regression‐based or linear mixed effects models improve prediction of future cognitive decline and have higher correlations with neuroimaging biomarkers than RCI approaches. We present norms for change for the Auditory Verbal Learning Tests (AVLT) with conditional normative z‐scores for up to 7 repeat assessments, and demonstrate application of this method to individuals with preclinical Alzheimer’s disease (AD).MethodNormative Sample: Robust conditional norms were derived from 1001 adults ages 50‐90 from the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging (MCSA) who completed the AVLT across 4‐8 visits approximately 15 months apart and remained cognitively unimpaired (CU) across all available visits. Linear mixed effects models were used to compute a conditional normative z‐score for AVLT 30‐minute recall and sum of trials. Models included adjustment for baseline performance, number of prior test exposures, demographic factors (age, sex, education), and interactions (baseline*time; sex*time). Test Sample: We used a preclinical AD sample with positive amyloid and tau imaging (n= 27 CU A+T+; Jack et al. 2017) expected to have a higher rate of intra‐individual cognitive decline relative to CU A‐T‐ individuals (n = 268) to compare mean performances of conditional normative z‐scores to typical age‐corrected Mayo’s Older Americans Normative Studies (MOANS) norms. Participants had at least 1 and up to 4 follow‐up visits, with their most recent AT data used for classification.ResultAVLT performance based on typical norms did not differ across A+T+ and A‐T‐ groups. Specifically, across 2‐4 follow‐up visits, the typical norms mean z‐score was similar across groups (p=0.945; see Table 1). However, the conditional norms mean z‐score that accounts for practice effects and typical trajectories of AVLT performance was lower in the A+T+ relative to the A‐T‐ group for 30‐minute recall (p=0.055) and sum of trials (p=0.060).ConclusionConditional normative methods that account for practice effects are more sensitive to preclinical AD than typical norms, and show promise for identifying transitional cognitive decline.

AbstractBackgroundThe numeric clinical staging scheme described by the NIA‐AA workgroup proposes evidence of subtle decline on longitudinal cognitive testing as one option to define transitional cognitive decline for individuals in the Alzheimer’s continuum. Few studies have compared longitudinal and cross‐sectional definitions of subtle objective cognitive impairment (sOBJ). The study aim was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of cross‐sectional sOBJ and longitudinal objective cognitive decline (ΔOBJ) for preclinical Alzheimer’s disease (AD) based on Cogstate One Card Learning (OCL) performance.MethodWe included Mayo Clinic Study of Aging cognitively unimpaired (CU) participants who were A+T+ by amyloid and tau PET assessment (n=32) and A‐T‐ (n=211); all had at least two follow‐up visits. sOBJ was defined as performance ≤ ‐1SD on OCL accuracy using age‐corrected normative data. ΔOBJ was measured using two different methods: (1) within subjects’ standard deviation (WSD) using a ≤ ‐1 z‐score for change to define decline based on Cogstate’s normative change data, and (2) extracted subject‐specific slopes from a linear mixed effects model (LME) which can be interpreted as approximate annual change; decline was defined as slope < 10%ile among a reference sample of CU participants aged 50‐65 at baseline (N=732).ResultssOBJ and ΔOBJ‐WSD both showed low sensitivity in detection of A+T+ (9.4% and 12.5%, respectively). Total AUC values did not differ significantly (p=.31) across sOBJ (AUC = .64, CI = .53‐.75) and ΔOBJ‐WSD (AUC = .53, CI = .42‐.65) methods. Sensitivity of the ΔOBJ‐LME method to predict A+T+ was improved (37.5%) when using a conventional cutoff of <10%ile slope and was further improved (56%) when using an optimal derived cutoff equivalent to <17%ile slope within the reference group. Like the sOBJ method, the ΔOBJ‐LME method differentiated groups better than chance (AUC = .69, CI = .58‐.80). Despite increased sensitivity, total AUC values were not significantly different across sOBJ and ΔOBJ‐LME methods (p=.34). However, total AUC of ΔOBJ‐LME was significantly better than ΔOBJ‐WSD (p=.03).ConclusionsΔOBJ may be more sensitive to preclinical AD than sOBJ and may serve as a helpful method for identifying at risk CU individuals if advanced statistical methods are used for defining change.