PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Boelders, Sander Martijn AU - Nicenboim, Bruno AU - Butterbrod, Elke AU - de Baene, Wouter AU - Postma, Eric AU - Rutten, Geert-Jan AU - Ong, Lee-Ling AU - Gehring, Karin TI - Predicting cognitive function three months after surgery in patients with a glioma AID - 10.1101/2024.10.08.24315076 DP - 2024 Jan 01 TA - medRxiv PG - 2024.10.08.24315076 4099 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/10/08/2024.10.08.24315076.short 4100 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/10/08/2024.10.08.24315076.full AB - Introduction Patients with a glioma often suffer from cognitive impairments both before and after anti-tumor treatment. Ideally, clinicians can rely on predictions of post-operative cognitive functioning for individual patients based on information obtainable before surgery. Such predictions would facilitate selecting the optimal treatment considering patients’ onco-functional balance.Method Cognitive functioning three months after surgery was predicted for 317 patients with a glioma across eight cognitive tests. Nine multivariate Bayesian regression models were used following a machine-learning approach while employing pre-operative neuropsychological test scores and a comprehensive set of clinical predictors obtainable before surgery. Model performances were compared using the Expected Log Pointwise Predictive Density (ELPD), and pointwise predictions were assessed using the Coefficient of Determination (R²) and Mean Absolute Error. Models were compared against models employing only pre-operative cognitive functioning and the best-performing model was interpreted. Moreover, an example prediction including uncertainty for clinical use was provided.Results The best-performing model obtained a median R² of 34.20%. Individual predictions, however, were uncertain. Pre-operative cognitive functioning was the most influential predictor. Models including clinical predictors performed similarly to those using only pre-operative functioning (ΔELPD 14.4±10.0, ΔR² −0.53%.).Conclusion Post-operative cognitive functioning cannot yet reliably be predicted from pre-operative cognitive functioning and the included clinical predictors. Moreover, predictions relied strongly on pre-operative cognitive functioning. Consequently, clinicians should not rely on the included predictors to infer patients’ cognitive functioning after treatment. Moreover, it stresses the need to collect larger cross-center multimodal datasets to obtain more certain predictions for individual patients.Importance of the study Patients with a glioma often suffer from cognitive impairments both before and after anti-tumor treatment. Ideally, clinicians would be able to rely on predictions of cognitive functioning after treatment for individual patients based on information that is obtainable before surgery. Such predictions would facilitate selecting the optimal treatment considering patients’ onco-functional balance and could improve patient counseling. First, our study shows that cognitive functioning three months after surgery cannot be reliably predicted from pre-operative cognitive functioning and the included clinical predictors, with pre-operative cognitive functioning being the most important predictor. Consequently, clinicians should not rely on the included predictors to infer individual patients’ cognitive functioning after surgery. Second, results demonstrate how individual predictions resulting from Bayesian models, including their uncertainty estimates, may ultimately be used in clinical practice. Third, our results show the importance of collecting additional predictors and stress the need to collect larger cross-center multimodal datasets.Key points- Cognitive functioning after treatment cannot yet reliably be predicted- Pre-operative cognitive functioning was the most important predictor- Additional predictors and larger cross-center datasets are neededCompeting Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study was funded by ZonMw (10070012010006, 824003007).Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:This study was part of a protocol registered with the Medical Ethics Committee Brabant (file number NW2020-32).I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesData described in this work is not publicly available to protect the privacy of patients. All code used in this study is available as supplementary material.