Effect of memory therapy on enhancing postoperative cognitive function recovery and alleviating mood disturbances in brain glioma patients

Abstract

Objective: To assess the impact of memory therapy on enhancing recovery of postoperative cognitive function and alleviating mood disturbances in brain glioma patients.

Methods: This retrospective study included 160 brain glioma patients who met the inclusion criteria from August 2019 to July 2022. They were divided into a control group and an observation group according to according to different treatment method, with 80 cases in each group. The control group was given routine rehabilitation, while the observation group received additional memory therapy. The study compared complications between the two groups, focusing on the changes in cognitive function [using the Neurobehavioral Cognitive Status Check Scale (NCSE), Clinical Dementia Score (CDR)], mood disturbances [measured by the State Anxiety Scale (S-AI), Trait Anxiety Scale (T-AI), and Hospital Stress Scale score], health-promoting behaviors [evaluated with the Chinese Version of Health Promotion Lifestyle Scale-II (HPLP-II)], coping styles [assessed through the Medical Response Questionnaire (MCQM)], and cancer-related fatigue [using the Cancer-Related Fatigue Scale (CFS)] before and after intervention were observed. A total of 160 glioma cases were classified into either a good or poor prognosis category, based on their prognosis 12 months post-surgery. Baseline data from both groups were compared, and multivariate logistic regression was employed to analyze the factors influencing outcomes in glioma patients.

Results: After intervention, the observation group exhibited higher scores of NCSE, HPLP-II, and CFS, but lower scores on the CDR, S-AI, T-AI and hospital stress scale compared to the control group (all P<0.05). Additionally, within the MCQM, the observation group showed reduced avoidance and yield scores, and an increased facing score, compared to the control group (all P<0.05). No significant difference was observed between the complication rates of the control (8.75%) and observation groups (3.75%) (P>0.05). However, the incidence of adverse prognosis was significantly lower in the observation group compared to the control group (8.75% vs 22.50%) (P<0.05). There were no significant differences in age, maximum tumor diameter, preoperative Karnofsky Performance Status score, gender or lesion location between the poor prognosis group and the good prognosis group (all P>0.05). The poor prognosis group had a higher proportion of patients in clinical stages III-IV and a lower proportion receiving recall therapy compared to good prognosis group (P<0.05). Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified clinical stage (III-IV stage) [OR=3.562 (95% CI: 1.476-8.600)] as a risk factor for poor prognosis after brain glioma surgery (P<0.05), while undergoing memory therapy [β=0.330 (95% CI: 0.99-0.842)] acted as a protective factor against poor prognosis (P<0.05).

Conclusion: Memory therapy has been shown to promote postoperative cognitive function recovery in glioma patients, reduce anxiety and stress response, bolster coping mechanisms and health-promoting behavior, diminish cancer-related fatigue, and improve patient prognosis.

Keywords: Glioma; cognitive function; memory therapy; mood disturbance.

Figure 1

Comparison of cognitive function between the two groups. Note: (A) represents the NCSE score, (B) represents the CDR score; Compared to the control group, ***P<0.001; Compared to before the intervention in this group, ###P<0.001. NCSE, Neurobehavioral Cognitive Status Check Scale; CDR, Clinical Dementia Score.

Figure 2

Comparison of adverse emotions between the two groups. Note: (A) is the S-AI score, (B) is the T-AI score, and (C) is the hospital stress scale; compared to the control group, ***P<0.001; compared to the group before intervention, ###P<0.001. S-AI, State Anxiety Scale; T-AI, Trait Anxiety Scale.

Figure 3

Comparison of health promotion behavior and cancer-related fatigue between the two groups. Note: (A) is HPLP-II score, (B) is CFS score; compared to the control group, ***P<0.001; compared to this group before intervention, ###P<0.001. HPLP-II, Chinese Version of Health Promotion Lifestyle Scale-II; CFS, Cancer-Related Fatigue Scale.

Figure 4

Comparison of coping styles between the two groups. Note: (A) is the avoidance score, (B) is the confrontation score, and (C) is the yield score; compared to the control group, ***P<0.001; compared to this group before intervention, ###P<0.001.