Abstract
Purpose
The cognitive performance of patients with breast cancer (BCa) may be affected by cancer and its treatments. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) is a widely used cognitive impairment screening tool, but practice effects must be considered for longitudinal assessments. Since learning effects could be overcome through the alternate use of two versions of the MoCA, we aimed to explore their interchangeability by comparing their overall, and domain- and task-specific, scores among patients with BCa.
Methods
BCa patients from the NEON-BC cohort were evaluated with the MoCA, version 7.1, after diagnosis and after 1 year. At the 3-year follow-up (n = 422), the 7.1 and 7.3 versions were applied at the beginning and at the end (approximately 1 h later) of this evaluation, respectively. Agreements between versions, regarding total, sub-domain, and task scores, were assessed using Bland–Altman plots and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC).
Results
The mean total scores were not statistically different between versions and the ICC was 0.890. The Bland–Altman limits of agreement were − 3.70 to 3.88. For women with midrange scores, total scores were significantly higher in version 7.1. There were significant differences in the percentage of correct answers in 7 out of 12 tasks, being the highest for the copy of a geometric figure (more than twofold higher with version 7.3). In version 7.1, the language and memory domains presented higher scores and lower visuospatial ability.
Conclusion
Despite similar overall scores being obtained with the two versions of the MoCA, there were item-specific differences that may compromise their interchangeable use.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/5270a/5270a7657e211507c3eda44ced49d59e5e7fd3fe" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a0937/a0937ff254fcccf7026cb311d9376430c3d3f977" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/b0ae3/b0ae30b17caa1e7a5732bc02742563ca0c1d2bd4" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/afdb8/afdb8c6d798f9c8f25e7a8365822a3c2531960c8" alt=""
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The datasets generated and analyzed in this study will not be publicly available given that the included patients do not specifically provide their consent for public sharing of their data and that anonymization is unlikely to be feasible, since the identification of patients treated in only one institution within a relatively short period may be possible when taking sociodemographic and clinical characteristics into account.
Code availability
Not applicable.
References
Ahles TA (2012) Brain vulnerability to chemotherapy toxicities Psycho-Oncology 21:1141–1148
Joly F, Giffard B, Rigal O, De Ruiter MB, Small BJ, Dubois M, LeFel J, Schagen SB, Ahles TA, Wefel JS, Vardy JL, Pancré V, Lange M (2012) Castel H (2015) Impact of cancer and its treatments on cognitive function: advances in research From the Paris International Cognition and Cancer Task Force Symposium and Update Since. J Pain Symptom Manage 50:830–841
Nasreddine ZS, Phillips NA, Bedirian V, Charbonneau S, Whitehead V, Collin I, Cummings JL, Chertkow H (2005) The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. J Am Geriatr Soc 53:695–699
Isenberg-Grzeda E, Huband H, Lam H (2017) A review of cognitive screening tools in cancer. Current Opinion in Supportive and Palliative Care 11:24–31
Araújo N, Severo M, Lopes-Conceição L, Fontes F, Dias T, Branco M, Morais S, Cruz VT, Ruano L, Pereira S (2021) Trajectories of cognitive performance over five years in a prospective cohort of patients with breast cancer (NEON-BC). Breast 58:130–137
Cooley SA, Heaps JM, Bolzenius JD, Salminen LE, Baker LM, Scott SE, Paul RH (2015) Longitudinal change in performance on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment in older adults. The Clinical neuropsychologist 29:824–835
Nasreddine Z, Phillips N, Chertkow H (2011) MoCA Version 2. In: Editor (ed)^(eds) Book MoCA Version 2, City
Nasreddine Z, Phillips N, Chertkow H (2011) MoCA Version 3. In: Editor (ed)^(eds) Book MoCA Version 3, City
Bruijnen CJ, Dijkstra BA, Walvoort SJ, Budy MJ, Beurmanjer H, De Jong CA, Kessels RP (2020) Psychometric properties of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) in healthy participants aged 18–70. Int J Psychiatry Clin Pract 24(3):293–300
Costa AS, Fimm B, Friesen P, Soundjock H, Rottschy C, Gross T, Eitner F, Reich A, Schulz JB, Nasreddine ZS (2012) Alternate-form reliability of the Montreal cognitive assessment screening test in a clinical setting. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 33:379–384
Siciliano M, Chiorri C, Passaniti C, Sant’Elia V, Trojano L, Santangelo G (2019) Comparison of alternate and original forms of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA): an Italian normative study. Neurological Sciences 40:691–702
Nasreddine ZS, Phillips NA, Bédirian V, Charbonneau S, Whitehead V, Collin I, Cummings JL, Chertkow H (2005) The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 53:695–699
Freitas S, Simões M, Santana I, Martins C, Nasreddine Z (2013) Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA): Versão 1. Laboratório de Avaliação Psicológica, Faculdade de Psicologia e de Ciências da Educação da Universidade de Coimbra, Coimbra
Freitas S, Simões M, Santana I, Martins C, Nasreddine Z (2013) Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA): Versão 3. Laboratório de Avaliação Psicológica, Faculdade de Psicologia e de Ciências da Educação da Universidade de Coimbra, Coimbra
Freitas S, Simoes MR, Alves L, Santana I (2011) Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA): normative study for the Portuguese population. Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology 33:989–996
Pereira S, Fontes F, Sonin T, Dias T, Fragoso M, Castro-Lopes J, Lunet N (2014) Neurological complications of breast cancer: study protocol of a prospective cohort study. BMJ open 4:e006301
McNemar Q (1947) Note on the sampling error of the difference between correlated proportions or percentages. Psychometrika 12:153–157
Bland JM, Altman D (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. The lancet 327:307–310
Koo TK, Li MY (2016) A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med 15:155–163
Looney MA (2000) When is the intraclass correlation coefficient misleading? Meas Phys Educ Exerc Sci 4:73–78
Krishnan K, Rossetti H, Hynan LS, Carter K, Falkowski J, Lacritz L, Cullum CM, Weiner M (2017) Changes in Montreal Cognitive Assessment scores over time. Assessment 24:772–777
Popović IM, Šerić V, Demarin V (2007) Mild cognitive impairment in symptomatic and asymptomatic cerebrovascular disease. J Neurol Sci 257:185–193
Lebedeva E, Huang M, Koski L (2016) Comparison of alternate and original items on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment. Canadian Geriatrics Journal 19:15
Heun R, Kockler M (2002) Gender differences in the cognitive impairment in Alzheimer’s disease Archives of Women’s Mental. Health 4:129–137
Funding
Data management activities at baseline and 1-year follow-up were supported by the Chair on Pain Medicine of the Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, and by the Grünenthal Foundation-Portugal. Three- and 5-year evaluations were conducted within the research activities of the Unidade de Investigação em Epidemiologia—Instituto de Saúde Pública da Universidade do Porto (EPIUnit, UIDB/04750/2020) funded by national funding from Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia—FCT (Ministério da Educação e Ciência), and of the project “A five-year prospective cohort study on the neurological complications of breast cancer: frequency and impact in patient-reported outcomes” (POCI-01–0145-FEDER-016867, Ref. PTDC/DTP-EPI/7183/2014) funded by European Regional Development Fund through the Operational Programme Competitiveness and Internationalization and by FCT. LLC and SM were also funded under the scope of the project “NEON-PC—Neuro-oncological complications of prostate cancer: longitudinal study of cognitive decline” (POCI-01–0145-FEDER-032358; ref. PTDC/SAU-EPI/32358/2017). Individual grants attributed to NA (SFRH/BD/119390/2016) and FF (SFRH/BD/92630/2013) were funded by FCT and the “Programa Operacional Capital Humano” (POCH/FSE).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Natália Araújo: formal analysis, writing original draft, writing—review and editing; Luísa Lopes-Conceição: investigation, writing—review and editing; Samantha Morais: writing—review and editing; Filipa Fontes: funding acquisition, investigation, data curation, writing—review and editing; Teresa Dias: resources, writing—review and editing; Vítor Tedim Cruz: conceptualization, funding acquisition, writing—review and editing; Luís Ruano: conceptualization, funding, writing—review and editing; Susana Pereira: conceptualization, funding acquisition, investigation, supervision, project administration, writing—review and editing; Nuno Lunet: conceptualization, funding acquisition, supervision, project administration, writing—review and editing.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval
The NEON-BC study was approved by the Portuguese National Authority for Data Protection (no. 9469/2012 and 8601/2014) and by the Ethics Committee of IPO-Porto (Ref. CES 406/011 and CES 99/014). All participants gave their written informed consent.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Araújo, N., Lopes-Conceição, L., Morais, S. et al. Interchangeability of two versions of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment for the longitudinal evaluation of patients with breast cancer. Support Care Cancer 30, 2639–2647 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-021-06702-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-021-06702-y