Cohort studyindependent cross-checkabstract checked★ key study I-CHM-111 standard review

Memory problems after breast cancer chemotherapy

Longitudinal Trajectory and Characterization of Cancer-Related Cognitive Impairment in a Nationwide Cohort Study.

Overview

Janelsins MC et al.. J Clin Oncol 2018 · PMID 30240328 · DOI 10.1200/JCO.2018.78.6624

Patients' memory scores fell during chemotherapy and were still lower 6 months later, unlike controls.

Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: moderate

Original publication

Plain-language summary

Study explained simply
What did the researchers want to find out?

Track thinking skills through chemotherapy

How was the study done?

Prospective cohort with controls

How many people, animals or samples were studied?

580 patients, 363 controls

What was actually found?

Decline persisting at 6 months

How large was the observed effect?

P<.005 group-by-time

What do the results mean in everyday life?

'Chemo brain' is real for some

What are the study's limitations?

Short follow-up; cancer itself may contribute

What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

Supports existence; not 'persistent' long-term

Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

High

What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

Cannot show permanent damage

Scientific in-depth review

1. Full reference

Authors
Janelsins MC et al.
Journal
J Clin Oncol
Year
2018
Identifier
PMID 30240328 DOI 10.1200/JCO.2018.78.6624
Verification
verified – PubMed efetch 2026-10-26 (PublicationType and CommentsCorrections checked); Crossref 2026-10-26
Retracted
no
Corrections
none
Extent checked
abstract only
Conflicts of interest and funding

NCI grants; COI not stated in abstract.

2. Research question

How does cognition change from before to 6 months after chemotherapy in breast cancer?

3. Study design and population

Study design
Cohort study – Prospective nationwide observational cohort with controls (NCORP)
Population

Women with stage I-IIIC breast cancer receiving chemotherapy and matched controls

Country

USA

Period

Assessments pre-chemotherapy, post-chemotherapy, 6 months post

Sample size

580 patients, 363 controls

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Breast cancer patients scheduled for chemotherapy; non-cancer controls

4. Methods and endpoints

Exposure / intervention

Chemotherapy

Comparator

Controls without cancer

Endpoints

Visual memory (CANTAB DMS), other memory, attention, executive function

Statistical methods

Longitudinal mixed models adjusted for age, education, race, cognitive reserve, anxiety, depression

5. Actual results

Results

Significant group-by-time effect (P<.005) on Delayed Match to Sample; patients declined from pre-chemotherapy to 6 months post (P=.005), controls did not (P=.426); several other tests showed worse performance in patients over time.

Absolute risks

not reported in abstract

Authors' conclusion

Cancer-related cognitive impairment affects multiple domains for at least 6 months after chemotherapy.

6. Strengths

  • Prospective with pre-treatment baseline
  • Large, nationwide, controls

7. Weaknesses

  • Follow-up only 6 months
  • Controls without cancer (cancer itself may contribute)
  • Effect sizes not given in abstract

8. Risk of bias

Orienting tool
ROBINS-E
Type of assessment
simplified assessment (abstract only)
Full formal assessment
no
Overall risk of bias
some concerns
Rationale

Observational; adjusted, baseline-controlled.

9. Assessment of the statistical interpretation

Only P values in abstract; no recalculation possible.

10. Relevance to the specific claim

Supports real chemotherapy-associated cognitive decline lasting at least 6 months; does not establish permanence.

11. Independent contrary findings

Kim 2022 (I-CHM-112): effect largest within 1 month, suggesting mainly acute.

12. Transferability to Germany and Europe

Applicable.

13. Overall methodological judgement

Good-quality evidence of medium-term effect.

Multidimensional assessment
Multidimensional assessment
Authenticity of the sourceverified
Methodological qualitymoderate
Risk of biassome concerns
Precision of resultsmoderate
Directnessdirect
Reproducibilityreplicated
Consistency with the overall evidenceconsistent
Regional transferabilityhigh
Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive)not applicable

14. Open questions

Persistence beyond 1-2 years.

15. Linked fact checks