Artificial and natural interventions for chemotherapy- and / or radiotherapy-induced cognitive impairment: A systematic review of animal studies
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Cancer survivors frequently experience cognitive impairments. This systematic review assessed animal literature to identify artificial (pharmaceutical) or natural interventions (plant/endogenously-derived) to reduce treatment-related cognitive impairments. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched and SYRCLE's tool was used for risk of bias assessment of the 134 included articles. RESULTS: High variability was observed and risk of bias analysis showed overall poor quality of reporting. Results generally showed positive effects in the intervention group versus cancer-therapy only group (67% of 156 cognitive measures), with only 15 (7%) measures reporting cognitive impairment despite intervention. Both artificial (61%) and natural (75%) interventions prevented cognitive impairment. Artificial interventions involving GSK3B inhibitors, PLX5622, and NMDA receptor antagonists, and natural interventions utilizing melatonin, curcumin, and N-acetylcysteine, showed most consistent outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Both artificial and natural interventions may prevent cognitive impairment in rodents, which merit consideration in future clinical trials. Greater consistency in design is needed to enhance the generalizability across studies, including timing of cognitive tests and description of treatments and interventions.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., et al. (2021) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.n71 · Cited by 108,283 · see citing works
Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews.
Ouzzani, M., Hammady, H., Fedorowicz, Z., & Elmagarmid, A. (2016) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4 · Cited by 26,092 · see citing works
The ARRIVE guidelines 2.0: Updated guidelines for reporting animal research
Percie du Sert, N., Hurst, V., Ahluwalia, A., Alam, S., Avey, M. T., Baker, M., Browne, W. J., Clark, A., Cuthill, I. C., Dirnagl, U., et al. (2020) · PLOS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3000410 · Cited by 5,939 · see citing works
Limitations of Animal Studies for Predicting Toxicity in Clinical Trials
Van Norman, G. A. (2019) · JACC: Basic to Translational Science · doi:10.1016/j.jacbts.2019.10.008 · Cited by 709 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…improving reporting consistency and standardizing cancer therapy regimens in animal studies is crucial. o u e - p r o o Finally, there is a large gap between rodents and humans in terms of drug tolerances and toxicity, hampering the translation of pre-clinical findings to the clinic 100 .”
BackgroundFemale rats are not more variable than male rats: a meta-analysis of neuroscience studies
Becker, J. B., Prendergast, B. J., & Liang, J. W. (2016) · Biology of Sex Differences · doi:10.1186/s13293-016-0087-5 · Cited by 473 · see citing works
Gibson, E. M., Nagaraja, S., Ocampo, A., Tam, L. T., Wood, L. S., Pallegar, P. N., Greene, J. J., Geraghty, A. C., Goldstein, A. K., Ni, L., et al. (2019) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2018.10.049 · Cited by 372 · see citing works
Elimination of microglia improves cognitive function following cranial irradiation
Acharya, M. M., Green, K. N., Allen, B. D., Najafi, A. R., Syage, A., Minasyan, H., Le, M. T., Kawashita, T., Giedzinski, E., Parihar, V. K., et al. (2016) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/srep31545 · Cited by 259 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
- Authors
- Kuil, L. E., Varkevisser, T. M. C. K., Huisman, M. H., Jansen, M., Bunt, J., Compter, A., Ket, H., Schagen, S. B., Meeteren, A. Y. N. S.-V., & Partanen, M.
- Affiliations
- The Netherlands Cancer Institute (NL)
- Princess Máxima Center (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Partanen, M.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2024-02
- Volume
- 157
- Pages
- 105514
- ISSN
- 0149-7634 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4390024594
- Cited by
- 4
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2025: 3 · 2024: 1
- FWCI
- 0.18
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- VU Research Portal (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Cancer-related cognitive impairment studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine › Intensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Brain Metastases and Treatment
- Keywords
- chemotherapy-induced cognitive impairment, cancer-related cognitive impairment, cognitive impairment prevention, PLX5622, NMDA receptor antagonists, melatonin, curcumin, N-acetylcysteine, phytochemicals, animal models of cancer
- MeSH terms
- Cancer Survivors, Animals, Humans, Cognitive Dysfunction
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
