case study 1 for neurocognitive disorders alex

Module 14: Neurocognitive Disorders

Case studies: neurocognitive disorders, learning objectives.

• Identify neurological disorders in case studies

Case Study: Sarah

Sarah is a 78-year-old female and is very outspoken. Sarah has been an actor in off Broadway shows as well as working as a consultant in the education industry for 30 years prior to retirement. Sarah and her family members over the past year have noticed that she is not remembering things as well. Sarah even admitted to her husband that she is more and more having forgetful moments over the past two years. Sarah’s mother and aunt were diagnosed with a neurocognitive disorder several years before they passed away. Sarah agreed to go to the doctor and was a bit worried about the biological impact of her mother’s disorder, but kept an open mind. Sarah went to the doctor and discussed what was going on, and the doctor referred Sarah to specialists who focus on memory. Sarah was asked if she partook in any substances, which she said she occasionally has wine to drink to unwind some evenings, but nothing problematic. Sarah was administered several memory tasks and the doctor said the results were OK, as she remembered two out of four items and said that he wanted to see her again in three months.

Sarah went back in three months and there was no change, but at six months she was only able to remember one out of four items on a memory task and he suggested starting treatment. Sarah was administered an acetylcholine agent that could help limit memory loss for a period of time. Over the next three years, Sarah remained with mild cognitive loss, but after three years on the medication, the effectiveness was not showing, unfortunately. Sarah was then told that she needed permanent care as her memory was progressing at a negative rate. Sarah was at home for another three years, but then was unable take care of herself and was put in a nursing home facility.

Figure 1 . Gina has seen a decline in her desire to participate in her usual activities alongside a decline in cognitive abilities.

Case Study: Gina

Gina is 76 years old and went to her doctor for a regular physical as she did each year. Gina told the physician that she recently has socially isolated herself and has not felt comfortable visiting and spending time with family. Gina also was having hallucinations and found that she had symptoms that were consistent with Parkinson’s disease, but was not sure. Gina also told the physician that she seems to forget things a great deal more than she used to and wanted to find out why. Gina also discussed with her doctor that her alertness and attention varied quite heavily. Gina said her family members have said that they noticed a 20–25% decrease in her cognition over the past six months. Gina discussed as well that she is not as active as she was six months ago, and sometimes she does not have the energy to go outside and go for a walk as she has done in the past. Gina took part of a memory task at the physician and was only unable to recall one out of four items that the doctor presented to remember. Gina’s doctor suggested that she receive an opinion from a specialist and referred her to them.

Think it Over

What are the treatment options that could be part of the process in helping Gina and why? Also, if you were the physician, which specialist or specialists would you refer Gina to and why? What tests/exams should Gina have in relation to further diagnosis?

Also, in Sarah’s case, do you feel going to the doctor helped her cause in relation to memory loss and if so why? What treatment would you focus on for Sarah and why?

• Sitting alone. Authored by : Arek Socha. Located at : https://pixabay.com/photos/woman-senior-citizen-elderly-old-3213761/ . License : Other . License Terms : Pixabay License

Multicenter, open-label, prospective study shows safety and therapeutic benefits of a defined ginkgo biloba extract for adults with Major Neurocognitive Disorder

• Split-Screen
• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data
• Peer Review
• Open the PDF for in another window
• Get Permissions
• Cite Icon Cite
• Search Site

Debashish Chowdhury , Ajit Kumar Roy , V. Radhika Reddy , Yogesh Kumar Gupta , Pushkar Nigam , Robert Hoerr; Multicenter, open-label, prospective study shows safety and therapeutic benefits of a defined ginkgo biloba extract for adults with Major Neurocognitive Disorder. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 2024; https://doi.org/10.1159/000540385

Download citation file:

• Ris (Zotero)
• Reference Manager

Article PDF first page preview

Introduction: Safety and therapeutic effects of gingko biloba extract EGb 761® to treat cognitive decline have been demonstrated in numerous clinical trials. However, trials in Indian populations have been lacking. Methods: This open-label, multicenter, single-arm, phase IV trial enrolled 150 patients aged ≥50 years with Major Neurocognitive Disorder due to Alzheimer’s disease, major vascular neurocognitive disorder, or mixed forms of both according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition (DSM-5) criteria and a Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score of 12–24. Patients took 120 mg EGb 761® twice daily for 18 weeks. Therapeutic effects were assessed by CERAD Constructional Praxis and Recall of Constructional Praxis (CERAD CP, CERAD Recall of CP), Trail-Making Test (TMT), Behavioral Pathology in Alzheimer's Disease (BEHAVE-AD), Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) scale and 11-point box scales for tinnitus and vertigo. Safety assessment was based on the occurrence of adverse events as well as changes in clinical, laboratory and functional parameters. Results: After 18 weeks, significant improvements compared to baseline were found in constructional praxis (CERAD CP, p<0.0001), memory (CERAD Recall of CP, p<0.0001), speed and executive functioning (TMT A, p<0.0001; TMT B, p<0.0001), and behavioral symptoms (BEHAVE-AD, p<0.0001). Forty-five adverse events were reported in 33 (22.0%) patients in total, including ten presumed adverse drug reactions in 9 (6.0%) patients. Headache and diarrhea of mild-to-moderate severity were the most frequent events. Two serious adverse events, both considered unrelated to the study drug, occurred in 2 (1.3%) patients. Conclusion: This study confirmed the favorable safety profile and suggested therapeutic benefits of EGb 761® in Indian patients with Major Neurocognitive Disorder.

Email alerts

Citing articles via, suggested reading.

• Online ISSN 1421-9824
• Print ISSN 1420-8008

INFORMATION

• Contact & Support
• Information & Downloads
• Rights & Permissions
• Terms & Conditions
• Catalogue & Pricing
• Policies & Information
• People & Organization
• Stay Up-to-Date
• Regional Offices
• Community Voice

SERVICES FOR

• Researchers
• Healthcare Professionals
• Patients & Supporters
• Health Sciences Industry
• Medical Societies
• Agents & Booksellers

Karger International

• S. Karger AG
• P.O Box, CH-4009 Basel (Switzerland)
• Allschwilerstrasse 10, CH-4055 Basel
• Tel: +41 61 306 11 11
• Fax: +41 61 306 12 34
• Contact: Front Office
• Experience Blog
• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Use

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

Search for a location

A Single-center, Self-controlled, Prospective Case Series Pilot Study to Assess the Effect of Lamivudine (3TC) on Neurocognitive Impairment Biomarkers and Type-I IFN (Interferon)-Stimulated Genes in the Plasma of Patients With Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI)

Fundación FLS de Lucha Contra el Sida, las Enfermedades Infecciosas y la Promoción de la Salud y la Ciencia

Status and phase

Funder types

Identifier s

Details and patient eligibility

To assess the ability of lamivudine to lower the levels of neurocognitive impairment biomarkers in the plasma of patients with MCI and positive AD biomarkers in a 24 weeks-treatment period.

To assess the incidence, nature, and severity of Treatment Emergent Adverse Events (TEAE).

Full description

To assess the ability of lamivudine to lower the levels of type-I IFN-stimulated genes in the plasma and cryopreserved PBMCs of patients with MCI and positive AD biomarkers in a 24 weeks-treatment period.

Exploratory objectives

To assess the ability of lamivudine to modify retrotransposons expression in cryopreserved PBMCs the plasma of patients with MCI and positive AD biomarkers in a 24 weeks-treatment period.

Inclusion criteria

Male or female participants 55 to 90 years of age (both inclusive) at the time of signing the informed consent.

Diagnosis of prodromal AD: MCI due to AD according to National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer's Association (NIA-AA) criteria as determined by a neurologist, geriatrician, psychiatrist, or clinician approved by the Sponsor or designee.

Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR)-Global Score of 0.5

Imaging studies (MRI or CT) within 21 years prior to screening that exclude secondary causes of dementia.

that has findings consistent with AD and without any other disease that may cause dementia.

Documented confirmation of AD diagnosis by positive CSF AD signature or positive amyloid-PET AD signature. Amyloid positivityCSF AD positivity established with low levels of CSF Aβ1-42 or CSF Aβ1-42/Aβ1-40 and high levels of p-Tau. A CSF examination performed within 612 months prior to screening are is allowed. A positive amyloide-PET is defined as abnormal deposits of amyloid in the PET imaging. Subjects without documented positive AD biomarker status must have a positive CSF biomarker result from a sample provided at screening.

If receiving an approved medication for AD (i.e., donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine, memantine, or memantine/donepezil combination product), must be on the medication with a stable dose for at least 4 weeks before the screening visit (dosing should remain stable throughout the study).

If receiving an OTC supplement for cognition (e.g., gingko biloba, omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid, vitamin E, curcumin), must not be exceeding the recommended dose and be at stable dose for at least 4 weeks prior to screening visit.

Able to visit the study center and undergo cognitive, functional, and other tests specified in the protocol.

Has a caregiver who:

Agrees to accompany the participant to all study visits and able to supervise the participant's compliance with the study procedures and provide detailed information about the participant.

Either lives with the participant or sees the participant on average for ≥ 1 hour/day ≥ 3 days/week, or in the Investigator's opinion, the extent of contact is sufficient to provide meaningful assessment of changes in participant behavior and function over time and provide information on safety and tolerability.

Can read, understand, and speak the designated language at the study center.

Caregiver must be cognitively able to fulfill the requirements of the study.

A male participant must agree to use a highly effective contraception method during the treatment period and for at least 3 months after the last dose of study treatment and refrain from donating sperm during this period.

A female participant is eligible to participate if she is not pregnant, not breastfeeding, and at least one of the following conditions applies:

Not a woman of childbearing potential (WOCBP) OR a WOCBP who agrees to use a highly effective contraception method during the treatment period and for at least 3 months after the last dose of study treatment.

A WOCBP must have a negative serum pregnancy test at screening and must use medically accepted means of contraception throughout the study.

Written informed consent provided by participant (or legal representative) and caregiver prior to any study-specific procedures.

Exclusion criteria

Any other cause of dementia shown by MRI or CT findings within 2 years of screening and neurological examination at screening.

Possible, probable, or definite vascular dementia according to the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and Association Internationale pour la Recherché et l'Enseignement en Neurosciences (NINDS-AIREN) criteria.

Evidence of significant abnormality that would suggest another potential etiology for dementia (e.g., evidence of cerebral contusion, encephalomalacia, aneurysm, vascular malformation, > 10 microhemorrhages, macrohemorrhage, single infarct > 1 cm3).

Other central nervous system diseases that may cause cognitive impairment (e.g., cerebrovascular disease including cerebrovascular dementia, Parkinsonism, Huntington's disease, subdural hematoma, normal pressure hydrocephalus, brain tumor, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease).

Concurrent or history of clinically significant psychiatric conditions (e.g., schizophrenia or bipolar affective disorder) that in the Investigator's opinion prevents the participant from participating or is likely to confound interpretation of drug effect or affect cognitive assessments.

Vitamin B12, folic acid, syphilis serology, and thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) results that are thought to contribute to the severity of dementia or cause dementia. Participants may be enrolled if in the Investigator's medical judgment, the abnormal laboratory values are not the cause of the cognitive symptoms.

History of known or suspected seizures including febrile seizures (excluding self-limited childhood febrile seizures), a history of significant head trauma with loss of consciousness or recent unconsciousness that is not explained.

Acute or unstable cardiovascular disease, active peptic ulcer, uncontrolled hypertension, uncontrolled diabetes or any medical condition that may interfere with the completion of the clinical study.

Known allergies, hypersensitivity, or intolerance to lamivudine or similar products or excipients.

History of alcohol, substance abuse or dependence as per DSM-V criteria (except nicotine dependence) within the last 3 years.

Concurrent malignancies or invasive cancers diagnosed within the past 3 years except for non-metastatic basal cell carcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma of skin, in situ carcinoma of the uterine cervix or non-metastatic prostate cancer.

Sexually active WOCBP or man capable of fathering a child who do not consent to using medicinally acceptable contraception (such as surgical sterilization, intrauterine contraceptive device, condom, or diaphragm, an injectable or inserted contraceptive) during the study and for 3 months after the last dose of study treatment.

Use of anxiolytics, narcotics, or sleep aids in a manner that would interfere with cognitive testing, in the opinion of the investigator. Atypical antipsychotics may be used at the discretion of the Investigator. Tricyclic antidepressants and monoamine oxidase (MAO) inhibitors may be used at the discretion of the investigator.

Previous treatment with lamivudine.

Received an investigational product for AD within the last 3 months.

Participated in another clinical study within 4 weeks prior to this study.

Subject has any of the following laboratory findings at screening:

• Severe liver dysfunction (Alanine aminotransferase > 2x upper limit of normal (ULN), aspartate aminotransferase > 2x ULN, or history of clinically significant liver disease in the investigator's judgment.
• Hemoglobin ≤ 10 g/dl.
• International Normalized Ratio (INR) > 1.5 or total bilirubin > 1.5 x ULN (unless subject has evidence of Gilbert's disease).
• Renal impairment Creatinine clearance (CrCl) < 45 ml/min.
• Poorly controlled diabetes as defined by hemoglobin A1C (HbA1C) > 8.
• Positive blood screen for Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV-1 and 2), Hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg), or Hepatitis C virus antibodies (HCV-Ab) at Screening.

Body weight ≤ 35 kg.

Resides in a moderate to high dependency continuous care facility (residence in low grade assisted living facility where there is sufficient autonomy to permit valid evaluation of activities of daily living is allowed).

Any other reason that in the opinion of the investigator would make the participant ineligible to participate or to complete this study.

Refrain from donating blood or blood products from the screening visit until 3 months after the EOS/ET visit.

Trial design

Primary purpose

Interventional model

25 participants in 1 patient group

Trial contacts and locations

Data sourced from clinicaltrials.gov

Clinical trials

Research sites

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 24 July 2024

Neurocognitive profiles of 22q11.2 and 16p11.2 deletions and duplications

• Ruben C. Gur   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4082-8502 1 ,
• Carrie E. Bearden   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8516-923X 2 , 3 , 4 ,
• Sebastien Jacquemont   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6838-8767 5 , 6 ,
• Ann Swillen 7 ,
• Therese van Amelsvoort 8 ,
• Marianne van den Bree   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4426-3254 9 ,
• Jacob Vorstman   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1677-3126 10 ,
• Jonathan Sebat   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9087-526X 11 ,
• Kosha Ruparel 1 ,
• Robert Sean Gallagher 1 ,
• Emily McClellan 1 ,
• Lauren White 1 ,
• Terrence Blaine Crowley   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3272-5458 12 ,
• Victoria Giunta 12 ,
• Leila Kushan   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2650-7147 2 ,
• Kathleen O’Hora 2 , 4 ,
• Jente Verbesselt   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3024-8520 7 ,
• Ans Vandensande 7 ,
• Claudia Vingerhoets 8 ,
• Mieke van Haelst 8 ,
• Jessica Hall   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3433-4784 9 ,
• Janet Harwood   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3225-0069 9 ,
• Samuel J.R.A. Chawner   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2590-2874 9 ,
• Nishi Patel 10 ,
• Katrina Palad 10 ,
• Oanh Hong 11 ,
• James Guevara 11 ,
• Charles Olivier Martin 6 ,
• Khadije Jizi 6 ,
• Anne-Marie Bélanger 6 ,
• Stephen W. Scherer   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8326-1999 10 ,
• Anne S. Bassett   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0681-7279 13 ,
• Donna M. McDonald-McGinn   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4077-250X 12 , 14 &
• Raquel E. Gur 1  

Molecular Psychiatry ( 2024 ) Cite this article

46 Accesses

Metrics details

• Diagnostic markers

Rare recurrent copy number variants (CNVs) at chromosomal loci 22q11.2 and 16p11.2 are genetic disorders with lifespan risk for neuropsychiatric disorders. Microdeletions and duplications are associated with neurocognitive deficits, yet few studies compared these groups using the same measures to address confounding measurement differences. We report a prospective international collaboration applying the same computerized neurocognitive assessment, the Penn Computerized Neurocognitive Battery (CNB), administered in a multi-site study on rare genomic disorders: 22q11.2 deletions ( n  = 492); 22q11.2 duplications ( n  = 106); 16p11.2 deletion ( n  = 117); and 16p11.2 duplications ( n  = 46). Domains examined include executive functions, episodic memory, complex cognition, social cognition, and psychomotor speed. Accuracy and speed for each domain were included as dependent measures in a mixed-model repeated measures analysis. Locus (22q11.2, 16p11.2) and Copy number (deletion/duplication) were grouping factors and Measure (accuracy, speed) and neurocognitive domain were repeated measures factors, with Sex and Site as covariates. We also examined correlation with IQ. We found a significant Locus × Copy number × Domain × Measure interaction ( p  = 0.0004). 22q11.2 deletions were associated with greater performance accuracy deficits than 22q11.2 duplications, while 16p11.2 duplications were associated with greater specific deficits than 16p11.2 deletions. Duplications at both loci were associated with reduced speed compared to deletions. Performance profiles differed among the groups with particularly poor memory performance of the 22q11.2 deletion group while the 16p11.2 duplication group had greatest deficits in complex cognition. Average accuracy on the CNB was moderately correlated with Full Scale IQ. Deletions and duplications of 22q11.2 and 16p11.2 have differential effects on accuracy and speed of neurocognition indicating locus specificity of performance profiles. These profile differences can help inform mechanistic substrates to heterogeneity in presentation and outcome, and can only be established in large-scale international consortia using the same neurocognitive assessment. Future studies could aim to link performance profiles to clinical features and brain function.

Similar content being viewed by others

1q21.1 distal copy number variants are associated with cerebral and cognitive alterations in humans

Effects of eight neuropsychiatric copy number variants on human brain structure

No signs of neurodegenerative effects in 15q11.2 BP1-BP2 copy number variant carriers in the UK Biobank

Introduction.

The “genetics first” approach has investigated recurrent rare copy number variants (CNVs), such as those associated with chromosome 22q11.2 and 16p11.2, providing evidence of increased risk for neurodevelopmental psychiatric disorders across the lifespan. This line of research builds on individuals diagnosed when presenting clinically for evaluation and care at health care facilities and centers that recruit for research on rare genetic disorders. There are common neurobehavioral features associated with these CNVs that manifest transdiagnostically in Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, Anxiety Disorders, Mood Disorders, Autism Spectrum Disorders, Schizophrenia and Psychosis Spectrum Disorders [ 1 , 2 ]. Notably, features of neurodevelopmental psychiatric disorders associated with these CNVs are similar to the presentation and course of some idiopathic (behaviorally defined) neurodevelopmental disorders. Among rare CNVs, 22q11.2 deletion and duplication as well as 16p11.2 deletion and duplication have been examined for developmental psychiatric disorders including cognitive functioning. A survey conducted at the Geisinger Health System reported that 22q11.2 duplication (0.119%) and 16p11.2 deletion (0.078%) were the most prevalent CNVs and were associated with lifelong cognitive and psychiatric disabilities documented in electronic health records [ 2 ]. The extent and nature of neurocognitive deficits associated with these deletions and duplications varies, and studies to date have usually examined a single CNV or either deletions or duplications. Furthermore, these studies have used varied quantity and quality of neurocognitive assessments, with most focusing on an “intelligence quotient” (IQ) assessed as part of a clinical or research evaluation.

Notably, most studies on cognitive functioning in these CNVs were during childhood, adolescence or young adulthood (6–25 years). Less is known about cognitive functioning in adults. Investigations that examined only 22q11.2 deletion have documented a high prevalence of learning difficulties and intellectual disabilities (mostly mild-moderate) and a range of neurocognitive deficits [e.g., 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 ]. Longitudinal studies have suggested that these deficits are associated with psychiatric symptoms [ 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 ], and may drive their exacerbation [ 13 ]. These impairments comprise several neurobehavioral domains including executive functions and social functioning [ 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 ]. They are influenced by environmental factors [ 16 ] and are associated with abnormalities in brain maturation [ 17 ]. Fewer studies have examined 22q11.2 duplication only [ 18 , 19 ] but these have likewise reported learning problems and cognitive deficits. In a study comparing deficits between 22q11.2 deletion and 22q11.2 duplication ( n  = 19 in each group), and another larger study (106 22q11.2 deletion, 38 22q11.2 duplication), it was concluded that patients with 22q11.2 duplication have a milder cognitive impairment than the 22q11.2 deletion counterparts [ 20 ].

Studies examining 16p11.2 deletion have likewise reported reduced intellectual functioning [ 21 ] and neurocognitive deficits partly associated with psychopathology [ 22 , 23 , 24 ]. There is also evidence for abnormalities in white matter integrity associated with these deficits [ 25 ]. Other studies have compared 16p11.2 deletion with 16p11.2 duplication [ 26 , 27 , 28 ] finding similar overall functioning across groups, although variance has been reported to be higher in 16p duplication [ 29 ]. A 16p11.2 study of 217 deletion carriers, 77 deletion family controls, 114 duplication carriers, and 32 duplication family controls reported higher frequency of psychotic symptoms in duplication compared to deletion carriers [ 30 ]. A study comparing individuals with 16p11.2 deletion to 16p11.2 duplication on structural magnetic resonance imaging and neurocognitive performance ( n  = 79 in each group), reported distinct anatomic abnormalities associated with neurocognitive deficits [ 31 ]. A study of 82 individuals with 16p11.2 deletion, 50 with 16p11.2 duplication, 370 with 22q11.2 deletion, and 45 with 22q11.2 duplication reported that autism features were largely comparable across the four groups [ 32 ]. Significant variability in IQ was noted in CNVs of both loci.

The conclusions that can be drawn from studies to date are limited, as most were based on small sample sizes and because the extent and granularity of the neurobehavioral measures were variable. Because these CNVs are rare, attaining sufficient sample sizes of individuals for drawing firm conclusions requires multi-site collaborations with harmonized measures across sites. The Genes to Mental Health Network (G2MH) [ 1 ] was established for this purpose, to accrue a prospective sample with uniform assessment, implementation protocol, and shared data management and quality control. The present study reports the neurocognitive profile of these four groups (22q11.2 deletion/duplication, 16p11.2p deletion/duplication) based on administration of the same neurocognitive battery across sites. The Penn Computerized Neurocognitive Battery (CNB) offers a neuroscience-based assessment of major behavioral domains linked to brain systems based on functional neuroimaging [ 11 , 33 , 34 , 35 ]. It provides measures of executive functions, episodic memory, complex cognition, social cognition and psychomotor speed. It has been applied to children, adolescents and adults, including individuals with 22q11.2 deletion [ 33 , 34 ], where it has been associated with IQ with a moderate intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC = 0.57) [ 36 ].

The goal of the present project is to examine the pattern of neurocognitive performance on the CNB in a multisite international collaboration and evaluate gene-dosage effects by comparing genomic variants associated with deletion or duplication in 22q11.2 and 16p11.2 loci on multiple domains related to brain function. Our study was aimed to advance the field by directly comparing these reciprocal CNVs, highly penetrant for developmental neuropsychiatric disorders, using the same neurocognitive battery to assess multiple cognitive domains, and in an unprecedently large sample. Findings of distinct neurocognitive profiles across CNVs, despite broad convergence at the symptom level, suggest that neurocognitive markers may provide a window into distinct underlying brain mechanisms. Based on the extant literature, which indicates greater burden of psychotic symptoms associated with 22q11.2 deletions [ 20 ] and 16p11.2 duplications [ 30 ], we hypothesized that this pattern will be reflected in the neurocognitive deficit profiles by showing greater relative deficits in 22q11.2 deletions and 16p11.2 duplications. The computerized testing allowed us to examine whether the CNVs differentially affect accuracy or speed. We also examined the association between IQ and the CNB-based estimate of overall performance.

Materials and methods

This multisite international collaborative project – “Dissecting the effects of genomic variants on neurobehavioral dimensions in CNVs enriched for neuropsychiatric disorders” – is one of several projects of the G2MH Network. This project includes seven data collection sites, four in North America (Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Montreal, Toronto), three in Europe (Cardiff, Leuven, Maastricht), and two primary genomic analysis sites (Toronto, San Diego). Here we focus on the prospective data collection of the CNB, describing procedures and results from the current sample.

Study participants

The current sample includes 761 unrelated individuals with IQ ≥ 40, good quality cognitive data, and a CNV at the 22q11.2 or 16p11.2 locus, confirmed by clinical fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), comparative genomic hybridization, single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) microarray, or multiplex ligation‐dependent probe amplification (MLPA) [ 37 ]. Participants were recruited from established academic clinical research settings that specialize in the study of rare genetic disorders. IQ estimates were based on chart reviews, and only participants with clinically expected or documented IQ of 40 or higher were invited to participate. IQ test scores were available on 467 of the participants and included WAIS-3 ( n  = 113), WAIS-4 ( n  = 14), WASI-1 ( n  = 86), WASI-2 ( n  = 102), WISC-3 ( n  = 31), WISC-4 ( n  = 40), WISC-5 ( n  = 67), WPPSI-4 ( n  = 14). The average interval between date of participation in the current study and date of IQ testing was 3.12 (SD = 4.92) years (range 0 to 26 years).

Inclusion criteria

1. Participants enrolled are aged ≥7 years old. The age range was selected to enable a multifaceted examination of behavioral dimensions and disorders at different settings including home, school, and the community. 2. Able to provide signed informed consent or assent, depending on age and functional ability. 3. Medically stable and able to participate in the evaluation. 4. A sample of blood or saliva is available for deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) extraction for genomic studies.

Exclusion criteria

Potential participants are excluded if they have any of the following conditions that may affect participation and interpretability of data obtained: 1. Medical or neurological disorders that may substantially affect brain function (e.g., untreatable seizures, significant head trauma, central nervous system (CNS) tumor, infection), or visual or auditory limitations (e.g., blindness, deafness). 2. Substance abuse in the past month. 3. Substance dependence not in remission for the past six months. 4. Estimated IQ < 40.

Figure  1 presents a consort diagram of participants with CNVs at the specified loci who were evaluated with the CNB across all recruitment sites and the reasons for exclusion from the current sample. Notably, we included in the current analysis one proband per family when more than one family member had the specified CNV and excluded individuals with CNVs additional to the specified loci.

Top box shows the total sample considered for inclusion in the analysis, the next level shows numbers of participants excluded and reasons for exclusion, and the bottom boxes show sample distribution in the four groups. QC Quality control.

Table  1 presents sample demographic characteristics by 22q11.2 and 16p11.2 loci. As can be seen, the sample for 22q11.2 deletion is the largest, reflecting ongoing collaborations among established centers conducting research with these patients. Females and males are represented across loci and most participants are of European ancestry. Participants’ characteristics were based on self-reports (and/or collateral report), investigators’ observations, and medical records.

Neurocognitive assessment

The Penn CNB [ 33 , 34 , 35 ] is a 1-hour computerized battery assessing in the current study five domains across 12 tests: Executive functions (abstraction & mental-flexibility, attention, and working memory); Episodic memory (facial and spatial memory); Complex cognition (nonverbal reasoning and spatial processing); Social cognition (emotion identification, emotion differentiation, and age differentiation); Psychomotor speed (motor speed and sensorimotor speed). Each test provides measures of both accuracy (number of correct responses) and speed (median time for correct responses), except Psychomotor processing tests that provide only speed measures. All responses were made on a keyboard and response time (RT) in milliseconds for each response was recorded. Speed is keyed such that higher values indicate faster performance (RTzscore *-1), and efficiency scores are calculated by averaging the standardized accuracy and speed scores of each test. Notably, we did not include in this study any language tasks (word memory and verbal reasoning) because equating for frequency of words and comparability of linguistic analogies in different languages requires additional steps - such as incorporating input from linguistic analyses using local corpora, adjusting to local dialect and vernacular, and establishing cultural acceptability - to ensure validity of tasks.

Implementation

Several steps were taken before starting data collection to ensure that high quality data are obtained in a consistent manner across sites.

Translation

The Penn CNB, established in English, has been translated into multiple languages. For the present study, French or Dutch versions were administered by the Montreal, Toronto, Leuven, and Maastricht sites. The validated translation process included professional translation of the initial version followed by back-translation and discussion with the local teams to assure acceptability, following procedures established in other translations of the CNB.

All clinical coordinators proctoring the CNB were trained with established procedures. These include a training video providing background on testing and describing each test and the required proctor involvement. This video was followed by a quiz requiring a passing grade of 90%. Next, the trainee administered the CNB to an individual and sent the recorded administration to Penn. Feedback was then provided and additional recordings requested if needed for certification.

In-person and remote assessment

At the initiation of the study, all CNBs were administered in-person at the clinical research facilities of each site or at home. With restrictions posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, the Penn CNB team developed and implemented procedures for remote administration. The procedures for remote administration of the CNB followed those of in-person administration [ 35 , 36 ], with certified test administrators proctoring the tests and ensuring a quiet, private setting at participants’ locations. Proctors underwent training on remote assessments, including familiarity with trouble-shooting the remote platform (i.e., Zoom: https://zoom.us ). To complete the virtual CNB, administrators provided participants a unique webpage link and participants were instructed to share their screen with the proctor, so that their performance can be monitored in real time. Through the screen share, the proctor dictated all instructions and observed the participant’s responses for each task. For younger individuals, a parent was present before the assessment started and remained available if needed, but in all cases and for all tasks participants entered the responses themselves. No differences were found between in-person and remote administration modes in studies using the CNB [ 38 ].

Data quality control (QC)

This step involved a rigorous validation process that used three methods. First, validation codes from the trained test assessors proctoring the CNB indicated when the quality of data was unusable (e.g., participant not engaged or stopped performing task). Second, Penn CNB auto-validation rules were implemented. These are hard-coded, test-specific rules developed to protect against poor data quality that can result from several factors (e.g., unreasonably short response times, unusual repetition of same-key response, unmotivated responding, intentional poor performance, fatigue, etc.). Recently, a third approach that uses data-driven performance validity metrics was also calculated for all tests except for abstraction and mental flexibility and motor speed tests. Data were excluded from analyses if the test was flagged on two or more of the above methods without removing the entire session, such that an individual could have data for some tests but not others. Data was winsorized followed by imputation using the random forest procedure before averaging accuracy or speed [ 39 ]. Of the 1098 participants with the identified loci and CNB data, 44 (4%) were excluded from analysis due to failing QC. This proportion is similar to other studies that have used the CNB. Of the 761 participants with valid CNBs, 399 were done in person and 362 remotely; 475 participants (62%) took the battery in English, 210 (28%) in Dutch and 76 (10%) in French. Healthy controls who were administered the CNB at Penn under the same procedures as the CNVs carriers provided normative data across the age range and were balanced for sex. They were medically and psychiatrically assessed and were free of disorders that may impact cognitive performance [ 33 , 34 , 35 ].

Statistical analysis

All analyses were performed using R v4.3.3 (R Core Team, 2024) and SAS software, version 9.4 (SAS Institute, Inc.; Cary, NC). The accuracy and speed scores on the tests were z-transformed using the normative means and standard deviations from the balanced sample of healthy controls. These z-scores, adjusted for Linear and Nonlinear age effects, served as the dependent measures in a Mixed Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analyses with Locus (22q11.2 vs. 16p11.2) and Deletion vs. Duplication as between-group factors and Test and Measure (accuracy, speed) as the repeated-measures (within group) factors. The Test (Domain) vector included the 10 tests that provided accuracy and speed scores and two tests that provided only speed scores. Sex and Site were entered as covariates. We recognize that sex is an important biological variable, but the sample size is still insufficiently powered across groups to examine five-way interactions with adding Sex as another grouping factor. Significant interactions (two-way, three-way and four-way) were followed up with post hoc tests using least square means. We also examined Pearson product moment correlations and ICCs between the CNB performance and IQ measures available in the database. Since these were hypothesis-driven sequential analyses planned for significant interaction effects, no corrections were made for multiple comparisons. The MMRM model was implemented in SAS Mixed procedure, using the Unstructured Covariance Structure option. Type3 tests results were reported. Plots in Figures were produced with R ggplot2. All code is freely and publicly available online ( https://github.com/upenn/G2MH/ ).

Locus and deletion vs. duplication effects

Results of the Locus (22q11.2, 16p11.2) × Deletion-Duplication × Measure (accuracy vs. speed) × Domain (neurocognitive test) MMRM are presented in Table  2 . As can be seen, several two-way and three-way interactions were significant and, most importantly, there was a significant four-way interaction ( p  = 0.0004), indicating that deletions and duplications in the two loci differentially affect accuracy and speed of neurocognitive performance profiles associated with CNVs.

The two-way (Locus × Deletion-Duplication), three-way (Locus × Deletion-Duplication × Accuracy vs. Speed) and four-way interactions (the Locus × Deletion-Duplication × Accuracy vs. Speed × Test domain) are shown in Fig.  2 (a, b, and c, respectively). Means of the four Locus × Deletion-Duplication groups on all neurocognitive domains are shown in Supplementary Table  S1 along with the statistical comparisons by test.

a Means (+/−SEM) of performance of the four groups in Efficiency (average of accuracy and speed) averaged across tests. b Accuracy (left panel) and Speed (right panel) averaged across tests. c Neurocognitive profiles of the four groups, 22q11.2 on the left panels and 16p11.2 on the right panels, showing means (+/−SEM) of performance for accuracy on the 10 tests and speed on 12 tests. a Del deletion, Dup duplication, ABF abstraction and mental flexibility, ATT attention, WM working memory, FME face memory, SME spatial (shape) memory, NVR nonverbal (matrix) reasoning, SPA spatial processing, EID emotion identification, EDI emotion intensity differentiation, ADI age differentiation, SM sensorimotor speed, MOT motor speed, Psymot Psychomotor.

As can be seen in Fig.  2a , the 22q11.2 deletion group was more impaired in average performance efficiency (average of accuracy and speed) than the 22q11.2 duplication group while the reverse was the case for the 16p11.2 locus, where performance of the duplication group was lower than that of the deletion group. This pattern was seen for accuracy, with the deletion group more impaired than the duplication group for the 22q11.2 locus, while the duplication group showing lower scores than the deletion group for the 16p11.2 locus. For speed, both duplication groups showed lower performance than their deletion counterparts (Fig.  2b ). The four-way interaction, displaying group effects for accuracy and speed by test Domain, is illustrated in Fig.  2c (see also box-and-whisker plots in Supplementary Figs.  S1 and S2 , and means and statistical comparisons in Supplementary Table  S1 ). For the 22q11.2 locus, the deletion group was more impaired than the duplication group on accuracy across tests, but especially in memory and non-verbal reasoning. Speed was comparable for the two groups across tests, except for slower speed in the context of better accuracy for the 22q11.2 duplication group in non-verbal reasoning, perhaps indicating a speed-accuracy tradeoff. Motor speed was also slower in the 22q11.2 duplication compared to the 22q11.2 deletion group. In contrast to the 22q11.2 locus groups, the 16p11.2 duplication group showed greater impairment than the 16p11.2 deletion group on specific neurocognitive domains. This effect was evident for accuracy in complex cognition, both non-verbal (matrix) reasoning and spatial processing domains. For speed, 16p11.2 duplication group showed reduced performance on the complex cognition test of nonverbal reasoning (marginally lower for spatial processing), and they were marginally slower on the social cognition test of emotion identification. Across accuracy and speed, the 16p11.2 duplication group was specifically impaired relative to the 16p11.2 deletion group on complex cognition.

Association with IQ

To allow better bridging of our CNB findings with available literature where an IQ measure has most frequently been used to assess cognitive capacity, we evaluated the association between the CNB estimate of overall accuracy, defined as the average accuracy z-scores across tests, and IQ data available from the participants’ health or research records indicating Wechsler scales scores. The association between the two measures (Fig.  3 ) is moderate, r(518) = 0.643, ICC = 0.527, p  < 0.001. The computerized estimates consistently higher than the paper-and-pencil based measures at the lower ranges of performance, as indicated by the majority of observations above the identity line. The partial correlation between the measures was 0.629 after partialling out the interval between the measures, a marginal reduction. This association was consistent across our groups (Supplementary Fig.  S3 ).

Scatterplot showing the association between full-scale IQ in records and IQ scaled scores based on the average performance accuracy on the CNB.

The adverse effects of CNVs on cognitive performance have been documented in the literature in studies that used a range of different measures. Most commonly an “intelligent quotient” (IQ) has been used based on standardized clinical tests (e.g., Wechsler scales). More extensive neurocognitive assessments have been reported in clinical and research samples that included examination of both deletions and duplications of CNVs such as 22q11.2 and 16p11.2 [ 31 , 32 ]. However, currently published reports do not permit comparing locus effects on a range of neurocognitive domains with the same detailed measurements in both deletion and duplication. The present study addresses this gap by reporting results of a comprehensive neurocognitive evaluation of a large multi-site sample of individuals with deletion or duplications at the 22q11.2 or 16p11.2 loci. The computerized neurocognitive battery (CNB) is an extensively validated and efficient instrument that is based on cognitive neuroscience and provides information on accuracy and speed of performance in neurocognitive domains related to brain systems [ 40 ]. The data in the current study were collected prospectively following rigorous training and quality assurance procedures. The administration was well tolerated by participants across sites, as evident in the low percentage of quality control rejections (4%).

The overall results support our hypothesis by indicating that whereas deletions are more deleterious than duplications at the 22q11.2 locus, opposite effects were seen at the 16p11.2 locus, where duplications were more deleterious than deletions. Our findings for the 22q11.2 locus are consistent with earlier studies showing that the cognition effects of the deletion are more deleterious than those of the duplication [ 20 ]. The literature on 16p11.2 is less consistent [ 30 , 31 , 32 ] and our study clarifies that overall, for this locus, the deletion is less deleterious than the duplication with respect to cognitive performance. Notably, the CNVs associated with schizophrenia risk, 22q11.2 deletion and 16p11.2 duplication [ 20 , 30 , 41 ], show greater deficits than the other groups on complex cognition and social cognition.

The computerized format allows separate evaluations of accuracy and speed of performance, and our analysis revealed further specific differences among the groups. At both 22q11.2 and 16p11.2 loci, deletions and duplications were associated with reduced accuracy and speed. The pattern of performance across domains also differed among the four groups. For the 22q11.2 loci, deletion affected accuracy across nearly all domains, while duplication was associated with milder impairment in accuracy with a similar profile. The 22q11.2 duplication group had slower speed with a similar profile, except for slower performance than the deletion group on non-verbal reasoning and motor speed. For the 16p11.2 loci, deletion and duplication had the same effect on accuracy of performance on most domains, but those with a duplication performed more poorly on the complex cognition domain (nonverbal reasoning and spatial processing). The effects of 16p11.2 loci were more pronounced for speed, where the duplication group performed more slowly than the deletion group on complex cognition tests.

The findings complement Chawner et al.’s study [ 32 ] that focused on autism profiles but also examined IQ profiles (Full Scale IQ, Verbal IQ & Performance IQ) in 16p11.2 and 22q11.2 CNV carriers. Chawner et al. did not examine specific neurocognitive domains beyond IQ. Although the work combined data from multiple international sites, it was not a pre-planned international effort, and as a result there was no opportunity for cross-site reliability and administration training. The work presented here advances the field because the collection of data across different international sites was prospectively planned and every site used the CNB for cognitive assessment. This meant that a) all sites were trained to administer the CNB using the same protocol, b) regular meetings took place to ensure harmonized data collection across sites c) the same data QC procedures were applied across sites. Furthermore, the CNB provides detailed assessment across multiple specific neurocognitive domains, advancing knowledge on the wide-ranging cognitive impacts of 22q11.2 and 16p11.2 CNVs. Assessment of such neurocognitive domains provides insight into which brain regions and pathways may be disrupted by these CNVs, in comparison to IQ which is a global cognitive measure. Importantly, specific neurocognitive domains are likely to represent focused targets for intervention through cognitive training, in contrast to IQ which is less ameliorable through intervention. Thus, deficits in domains such as attention, working memory and episodic memory offer very specific targets for interventions with quantifiable milestones for effectiveness. Improvement in such domains can positively affect functioning. For example, improved working memory significantly mediated improved adaptive functioning in a longitudinal study of 22q11.2 deletions [ 13 ].

Our results can inform common and differing mechanisms through which CNVs may impact cognition and brain function. Such investigations could link individual differences in performance with brain structural and functional parameters to allow individual characterization. For example, a multimodal MRI study of 22q11.2 deletion syndrome showed that brain parameters related to primary visual processing and insular function were relatively intact in individuals with the deletion, while those related to motor feedback, face processing, and emotional memory processes were more impaired compared to controls. Such approaches may help inform potential intervention targets and enhance the specificity of neuroimaging and electrophysiological indices related to cognitive dysfunction [ 42 ].

The molecular mechanism of cognitive performance deficit is probably different between 22q11.2 deletions and 16p11.2 duplications, as deletion entails loss of function while duplication suggests gain of function and there could be different pathways. Notably, 16p11.2 genes are enriched in pathways of mitogen-activated protein kinases (MAPK) signaling, growth factor signaling and DNA replication [e.g., ref. 43 ] while 22q11.2 seems to be enriched for synaptic function and neurotransmission among many other factors [e.g., ref. 44 ]. Mechanistic insights on the neurobehavioral deficits can benefit from preclinical work, which has identified 22q11.2 and 16p11.2 genes that contribute to the accuracy and speed of social and cognitive functions in mice (e.g., refs. 45 , 46 ). Notably, animal models and human studies examining human induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) have focused on deletions [ 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 ]. Further mechanistic insights on how CNVs affect behavior could be gleaned by developing and evaluating effects of duplications in animal models and human iPSC studies.

As most previous studies have examined IQ as a measure of cognition, we related global performance on the computerized neurocognitive battery to IQ measures available in clinical and research records or assessed across the sites. The correlation between these measures was moderate (r = 0.643) in the present study, and the ICC (0.527) slightly lower than an earlier study reporting an ICC of 0.57 between IQ and CNB average accuracy for a sample with 22q11.2 deletions [ 36 ]. The association between IQ and average CNB performance is unlikely attenuated by the time difference between the assessment, as suggested by the negligible change in association to 0.629 after partialling out this interval. It is likely further attenuated by the various instruments used for measuring IQ. Notably, the CNB is based on functional neuroimaging and includes domains that are not assessed in IQ tests. As seen in Fig.  3 , estimates based on CNB performance are consistently higher than IQ at the lower ability ranges. This pattern is similar to that reported in our earlier study of 22q11.2 Deletion participants [ 36 ]. A possible reason for this finding is that a low IQ score could mask relative strengths in specific neurocognitive domains that are not measured by IQ tests. Alternatively, the computerized testing format is more game-like, thereby boosting motivation, and gives equal weight to accuracy and speed, allowing individual trade-offs.

Limitations

While we report the results of a large collaborative study for rare CNVs, the sample size across the loci varies. Most participants are of European ancestry, reflecting location of sites and perhaps these CNVs being underdiagnosed in other ancestries. This issue needs further investigation. Differential ascertainment for variants is another potential limitation. For example, individuals with 22q11.2 deletions are more likely to be referred for testing for physical issues such as congenital heart defects, whereas those with 22q11.2 duplications are more likely to be referred for developmental reasons. The healthy controls for standardizing performance were from the University of Pennsylvania normative database, as collection of normative controls was not part of the funded study. A more rigorous approach would have entailed collection of normative samples at each site. However, there is evidence that normative data from the University of Pennsylvania are comparable to other settings [ 6 , 36 ]. Furthermore, the age range across the loci was broad and sample sizes limited systematic examination of age bins, which can be performed in the future with larger samples. A more comprehensive analysis of IQ data is beyond the scope of this report. We are not reporting here on breakpoints in the CNV loci, as this information will be part of the whole-genome sequencing that will become available at the conclusion of the study. Similarly, the association of neurocognitive performance with neuropsychiatric disorders, which are common in these CNVs, medications, and other medical conditions will be examined as part of the next phase of the study.

Notwithstanding these limitations, our study demonstrates that efficient prospective measures can help identify differential CNV effects on neurocognition. Our approach offers a unique opportunity to characterize the functional consequences of genetic mutations highly penetrant for multiple neuropsychiatric disorders. They have implications for genotype-phenotype relationships in psychiatry. Different psychiatric risk variants result in different cognitive profiles and perhaps trajectories and may represent different pathways to psychiatric outcomes. Examining cognitive endophenotypes provides a step further in understanding the route from genomic risk to psychiatric outcomes. Future studies could further elucidate unique and common features associated with these and other CNVs, pointing to mechanistic links between genomic variations and their phenomic manifestations.

Data availability

This dataset will be available through the National Data Archive ( https://nda.nih.gov ), including a data dictionary post data completion and data release.

Jacquemont S, Huguet G, Klein M, Chawner SJRA, Donald KA, van den Bree MBM, et al. Genes To Mental Health (G2MH): A framework to map the combined effects of rare and common variants on dimensions of cognition and psychopathology. Am J Psychiatry. 2022;179:189–203.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Shimelis H, Oetjens MT, Walsh LK, Wain KE, Znidarsic M, Myers SM, et al. Prevalence and penetrance of rare pathogenic variants in neurodevelopmental psychiatric genes in a health care system population. Am J Psychiatry. 2023;180:65–72.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Morrison S, Chawner SJRA, van Amelsvoort TAMJ, Swillen A, Vingerhoets C, Vergaelen E, et al. Cognitive deficits in childhood, adolescence and adulthood in 22q11.2 deletion syndrome and association with psychopathology. Transl Psychiatry. 2020;10:53.

Fiksinski AM, Bearden CE, Bassett AS, Kahn RS, Zinkstok JR, Hooper SR, et al. A normative chart for cognitive development in a genetically selected population. Neuropsychopharmacol. 2022;47:1379–86.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Davies RW, Fiksinski AM, Breetvelt EJ, Williams NM, Hooper SR, Monfeuga T, et al. Using common genetic variation to examine phenotypic expression a.nd risk prediction in 22q11.2 deletion syndrome. Nat Med. 2020;26:1912–8.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Yi JJ, Weinberger R, Moore TM, Calkins ME, Guri Y, McDonald-McGinn DM, et al. Performance on a computerized neurocognitive battery in 22q11.2 deletion syndrome: A comparison between US and Israeli cohorts. Brain Cogn. 2016;106:33–41.

Niarchou M, Zammit S, Van Goozen SHM, Thapar A, Tierling HM, Owen MJ, et al. Psychopathology and cognition in children with 22q11.2 deletion syndrome. British J Psychiatry. 2014;204:46–54.

Article   Google Scholar  

Chawner SJRA, Niarchou M, Doherty JL, Moss H, Owen MJ, van den Bree MBM. The emergence of psychotic experiences in the early adolescence of 22q11.2 Deletion Syndrome. J Psychiatric Research. 2019;109:10–17.

Antshel KM, Shprintzen R, Fremont W, Higgins AM, Faraone SV, Kates WR. Cognitive and psychiatric predictors to psychosis in velocardiofacial syndrome: a 3-year follow-up study. J Am Acad Child Adoles Psychiat. 2010;49:333–44.

Google Scholar  

Schneider M, Armando M, Pontillo M, Vicari S, Debbané M, Schultze-Lutter F, et al. Ultra high risk status and transition to psychosis in 22q11.2 deletion syndrome. World Psychiatry. 2016;15:259–65.

Vorstman JAS, Breetvelt EJ, Duijff SN, Eliez S, Schneider M, Jalbrzikowski M, et al. Cognitive decline preceding the onset of psychosis in patients with 22q11.2 deletion syndrome. JAMA Psychiatry. 2015;72:377–85.

Hooper SR, Curtiss K, Schoch K, Keshavan MS, Allen A, Shashi V. A longitudinal examination of the psychoeducational, neurocognitive, and psychiatric functioning in children with 22q11.2 deletion syndrome. Res Developm Disabil. 2013;34:1758–69.

Gur RE, McDonald-McGinn DM, Moore TM, Gallagher RS, McClellan E, White L, et al. Psychosis spectrum features, neurocognition and functioning in a longitudinal study of youth with 22q11.2 deletion syndrome. Psychol Med. 2023;53:1–10. Mar 29

Jalal R, Nair A, Lin A, Eckfeld A, Kushan L, Zinberg J, et al. Social cognition in 22q11.2 deletion syndrome and idiopathic developmental neuropsychiatric disorders. J Neurodevelopm Disorders. 2021;13:1–15.

Shashi V, Veerapandiyan A, Schoch K, Kwapil T, Keshavan M, Ip E, et al. Social skills and associated psychopathology in children with chromosome 22q11.2 deletion syndrome: implications for interventions. J Intellect Disabil Res. 2012;56:865–78.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Allen TM, Hersh J, Schoch K, Curtiss K, Hooper SR, Shashi V. Association of the family environment with behavioural and cognitive outcomes in children with chromosome 22q11.2 deletion syndrome. J Intellect Disabil Res. 2014;58:31–47.

Jalbrzikowski M, Lin A, Vajdi A, Grigoryan V, Kushan L, Ching CRK, et al. Longitudinal trajectories of cortical development in 22q11.2 copy number variants and typically developing controls. Mol Psychiatry. 2022;27:4181–90.

Verbesselt J, Zink I, Breckpot J, Swillen A. Cross-sectional and longitudinal findings in patients with proximal 22q11.2 duplication: A retrospective chart study. Am J Med Genet, Part A. 2022;188:46–57.

Drmic IE, MacKinnon Modi B, McConnell B, Jilderda S, Hoang N, Noor A, et al. Neurodevelopmental functioning in probands and non‐proband carriers of 22q11.2 microduplication. Am J Med Genet Part A. 2022;188:2999–3008.

Lin A, Vajdi A, Kushan-Wells L, Helleman G, Hansen LP, Jonas RK, et al. Reciprocal copy number variations at 22q11.2 produce distinct and convergent neurobehavioral impairments relevant for schizophrenia and autism spectrum disorder. Biol Psychiatry. 2020;88:260–72.

Zufferey F, Sherr EH, Beckmann ND, Hanson E, Maillard AM, Hippolyte L, et al. A 600 kb deletion syndrome at 16p11.2 leads to energy imbalance and neuropsychiatric disorders. J Med Genet. 2012;49:660–8.

Mei C, Fedorenko E, Amor DJ, Boys A, Hoeflin C, Carew P, et al. Deep phenotyping of speech and language skills in individuals with 16p11.2 deletion. Eur J Hum Genet. 2018;26:676–86.

Moreno-De-Luca A, Evans DW, Boomer KB, Hanson E, Bernier R, Goin-Kochel RP, et al. The role of parental cognitive, behavioral, and motor profiles in clinical variability in individuals with chromosome 16p11.2 deletions. JAMA Psychiatry. 2015;72:119–26.

Hanson E, Bernier R, Porche K, Jackson FI, Goin-Kochel RP, Snyder LG, et al. The cognitive and behavioral phenotype of the 16p11.2 deletion in a clinically ascertained population. Biol Psychiatry. 2015;77:785–93.

Owen JP, Chang YS, Pojman NJ, Bukshpun P, Wakahiro MLJ, Marco EJ, et al. Aberrant white matter microstructure in children with 16p11.2 deletions. J Neuroscience. 2014;34:6214–23.

Blackmon K, Thesen T, Green S, Ben-Avi E, Wang X, Fuchs B, et al. Focal cortical anomalies and language impairment in 16p11.2 deletion and duplication syndrome. Cereb Cortex. 2018;28:2422–30.

Jutla A, Turner JB, Green Snyder L, Chung WK, Veenstra‐VanderWeele J. Psychotic symptoms in 16p11.2 copy‐number variant carriers. Autism Res. 2020;13:187–98.

Hippolyte L, Maillard AM, Rodriguez-Herreros B, Pain A, Martin-Brevet S, Ferrari C, et al. The number of genomic copies at the 16p11.2 locus modulates language, verbal memory, and inhibition. Biol Psychiatry. 2016;80:129–39.

D’Angelo D, Lebon S, Chen Q, Martin-Brevet S, Snyder LAG, Hippolyte L, et al. Defining the effect of the 16p11.2 duplication on cognition, behavior, and medical comorbidities. JAMA Psychiatry. 2016;73:20–30.

Niarchou M, Chawner SJRA, Doherty JL, Maillard AM, Jacquemont S, Chung WK, et al. Psychiatric disorders in children with 16p11.2 deletion and duplication. Transl Psychiatry. 2019;9:8.

Owen JP, Bukshpun P, Pojman N, Thieu T, Chen Q, Lee J, et al. Brain MR imaging findings and associated outcomes in carriers of the reciprocal copy number variation at 16p11.2. Radiology. 2018;286:217–26.

Chawner SJRA, Doherty JL, Anney RJL, Antshel KM, Bearden CE, Bernier R, et al. A genetics-first approach to dissecting the heterogeneity of autism: Phenotypic comparison of autism risk copy number variants. Am J Psychiatry. 2021;178:77–786.

Gur RE, Yi JJ, McDonald-McGinn DM, Tang SX, Calkins ME, Whinna D, et al. Neurocognitive development in 22q11.2 deletion syndrome: comparison with youth having developmental delay and medical comorbidities. Mol Psychiatry. 2014;19:1205–11.

Tang SX, Moore TM, Calkins ME, Yi JJ, Savitt A, Kohler CG, et al. The psychosis spectrum in 22q11.2 Deletion Syndrome is comparable to that of nondeleted youths. Biol Psychiatry. 2017;82:17–25.

Gur RC, Richard J, Hughett P, Calkins ME, Macy L, Bilker WB, et al. A cognitive neuroscience-based computerized battery for efficient measurement of individual differences: Standardization and initial construct validation. J Neurosci Meth. 2010;187:254–62.

Gur RC, Moore TM, Weinberger R, Mekori-Domachevsky E, Gross R, Emanuel BS, et al. Relationship between intelligence quotient measures and computerized neurocognitive performance in 22q11.2 deletion syndrome. Brain Behav. 2021;11:e2221.

Vorstman JA, Jalali GR, Rappaport EF, Hacker AM, Scott C, Emanuel BS. MLPA: a rapid, reliable, and sensitive method for detection and analysis of abnormalities of 22q. Human mutation. 2006;27:814–21.

White LK, Hillman N, Ruparel K, Moore TM, Gallagher RS, McClellan et al. Remote assessment of the Penn computerised neurocognitive battery in individuals with 22q11.2 deletion syndrome. J Intellect Disabil Res. 2024;68:369–76.

Stekhoven DJ, Bühlmann P. MissForest—non-parametric missing value imputation for mixed-type data. Bioinformatics. 2012;28:112–8.

Roalf DR, Ruparel K, Gur RE, Bilker W, Gerraty R, Elliott MA, et al. Neuroimaging predictors of cognitive performance across a standardized neurocognitive battery. Neuropsychol. 2014;28:161–76.

Marshall CR, Howrigan DP, Merico D, Thiruvahindrapuram B, Wu W, Greer DS et al. Contribution of copy number variants to schizophrenia from a genome-wide study of 41,321 subjects. Nat Genet. 2017;49:27–35.

Cornblath EJ, Mahadevan A, He X, Ruparel K, Lydon-Staley DM, Moore TM, et al. Altered functional brain dynamics in chromosome 22q11.2 deletion syndrome during facial affect processing. Mol Psychiatry. 2022;27:1158–66.

Tai DJC, Razaz P, Erdin S, Gao D, Wang J, Nuttle X, et al. Tissue- and cell-type-specific molecular and functional signatures of 16p11.2 reciprocal genomic disorder across mouse brain and human neuronal models. Am J Hum Genet. 2022;109:1789–813.

Lin JR, Zhao Y, Jabalameli MR, Nguyen N, Mitra J, International 22q11.DS Brain and Behavior Consortium. et al. Rare coding variants as risk modifiers of the 22q11.2 deletion implicate postnatal cortical development in syndromic schizophrenia. Mol Psychiatry. 2023;28:2071–80.

Hiramoto T, Sumiyoshi A, Yamauchi T, Tanigaki K, Shi Q, Kang G, et al. Tbx1, a gene encoded in 22q11.2 copy number variant, is a link between alterations in fimbria myelination and cognitive speed in mice. Mol Psychiatry. 2022;27:929–38.

Yang M, Mahrt EJ, Lewis F, Foley G, Portmann T, Dolmetsch RE, et al. 16p11.2 deletion syndrome mice display sensory and ultrasonic vocalization deficits during social interactions. Autism Res. 2015;8:507–21.

Benedetti A, Molent C, Barcik W, Papaleo F. Social behavior in 16p11.2 and 22q11.2 copy number variations: Insights from mice and humans. Genes Brain Behav. 2022;21:e12787.

Nehme R, Pietiläinen O, Artomov M, Tegtmeyer M, Valakh V, Lehtonen L, et al. The 22q11.2 region regulates presynaptic gene-products linked to schizophrenia. Nat Commun. 2022;13:3690.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Supported by grants from the National Institute of Mental Health U01-MH119738 (REG, RCG), R01MH117014 (RCG, REG); U01-MH119737, U01-MH119737-02S1 (DMM, REG); U01MH119736, R21MH116473, R01MH085953 (CEB); U01MH119690 and 1U01MH119739 (JS); U01 MH119759 (AS); U01 MH119740 (TvA); U01 MH119738 (MVDB); MRF-058-0015F (CHAW); U01MH119741(JV, AB, SS); U01MH119738, U01MH119738:S1, and U01MH119746 JS). The authors thank the research participants, their families, and the research teams across the sites for their contribution to this research. We also thank the two anonymous Reviewers for their thoughtful and constructive comments and suggestions.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Lifespan Brain Institute of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) and Penn Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

Ruben C. Gur, Kosha Ruparel, Robert Sean Gallagher, Emily McClellan, Lauren White & Raquel E. Gur

Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

Carrie E. Bearden, Leila Kushan & Kathleen O’Hora

Department of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

Carrie E. Bearden

Neuroscience Interdepartmental Program, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

Carrie E. Bearden & Kathleen O’Hora

Department of Pediatrics, University of Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada

Sebastien Jacquemont

Sainte Justine Hospital Research Center, Montreal, QC, Canada

Sebastien Jacquemont, Charles Olivier Martin, Khadije Jizi & Anne-Marie Bélanger

Centre for Human Genetics, University Hospital Gasthuisberg and Department of Human Genetics, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

Ann Swillen, Jente Verbesselt & Ans Vandensande

Department of Psychiatry & Neuropsychology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands

Therese van Amelsvoort, Claudia Vingerhoets & Mieke van Haelst

Centre for Neuropsychiatric Genetics and Genomics Division of Psychological Medicine and Clinical Neurosciences Cardiff, Cardiff, UK

Marianne van den Bree, Jessica Hall, Janet Harwood & Samuel J.R.A. Chawner

Department of Psychiatry, Program in Genetics and Genome Biology, Research Institute, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada

Jacob Vorstman, Nishi Patel, Katrina Palad & Stephen W. Scherer

Department of Psychiatry, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA

Jonathan Sebat, Oanh Hong & James Guevara

Department of Pediatrics, Perelman School of Medicine of the University of Pennsylvania; 22q and You Center, Clinical Genetics Center, and Section of Genetic Counseling, CHOP, Philadelphia, PA, USA

Terrence Blaine Crowley, Victoria Giunta & Donna M. McDonald-McGinn

Dalglish Family 22q Clinic and Toronto General Hospital Research Institute, University Health Network; Clinical Genetics Research Program and Campbell Family Mental Health Research Institute, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health; Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

Anne S. Bassett

Department of Human Biology and Medical Genetics, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy

Donna M. McDonald-McGinn

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Conception and Study design: RCG, CEB, SJ. AS, TvA, MvdB, JV, JS, SWS, ASB, DMMDM, REG. Data accrual and quality assurance: RCG, CEB, SJ, AS, TvA, MvdB, JV, RSG, EM, LW, TBC, VG, LK, KOH, JV, AV, CV, MvH, JH, JH, NP, KP, OH, JG, COM, KJ, AMB, DMMDM, REG. Data analysis: RCG and KR. Wrote original manuscript: RCG and REG. Reviewed and commented on drafts: RCG, CEB, SJ, AS, TvA, MvdB, JV, JS, SJRAC, ASB, DMMDM, REG. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ruben C. Gur .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

JASV has served as a consultant for NoBias Therapeutics Inc. Other authors report no disclosures.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The research involving human subjects, human material, or human data was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) of the participating institutions approved all study procedures and the protocol was run under the oversight of the University of Pennsylvania Institutional Review Board (IRB # 832678). Informed consent/assent was obtained from each participant or accompanying parent or guardian according to local country guidelines.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary table s1, supplementary figures, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Gur, R.C., Bearden, C.E., Jacquemont, S. et al. Neurocognitive profiles of 22q11.2 and 16p11.2 deletions and duplications. Mol Psychiatry (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-024-02661-y

Download citation

Received : 27 September 2023

Revised : 26 June 2024

Accepted : 02 July 2024

Published : 24 July 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-024-02661-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Neurocognitive adverse events related to lorlatinib in non-small cell lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Simple Summary

1. introduction, 2. materials and methods, 2.1. eligibility criteria, 2.2. search strategy, 2.3. data extraction, 2.4. endpoints and subanalysis, 2.5. quality assessment, 2.6. statistical analysis, 3.1. characteristics of the included studies and patients, 3.2. naes in advanced or metastatic alk- or ros1-positive nsclc patients receiving lorlatinib, 3.3. management of naes, 3.4. quality assessment, 4. discussion, 5. conclusions, supplementary materials, author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, acknowledgments, conflicts of interest.

• Lin, J.J.; Riely, G.J.; Shaw, A.T. Targeting ALK: Precision Medicine Takes on Drug Resistance. Cancer Discov. 2017 , 7 , 137–155. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Golding, B.; Luu, A.; Jones, R.; Viloria-Petit, A.M. The Function and Therapeutic Targeting of Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase (ALK) in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC). Mol. Cancer 2018 , 17 , 52. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shaw, A.T.; Solomon, B.J.; Besse, B.; Bauer, T.M.; Lin, C.-C.; Soo, R.A.; Riely, G.J.; Ou, S.-H.I.; Clancy, J.S.; Li, S.; et al. ALK Resistance Mutations and Efficacy of Lorlatinib in Advanced Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase-Positive Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2019 , 37 , 1370–1379. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gainor, J.F.; Dardaei, L.; Yoda, S.; Friboulet, L.; Leshchiner, I.; Katayama, R.; Dagogo-Jack, I.; Gadgeel, S.; Schultz, K.; Singh, M.; et al. Molecular Mechanisms of Resistance to First- and Second-Generation ALK Inhibitors in ALK -Rearranged Lung Cancer. Cancer Discov. 2016 , 6 , 1118–1133. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shaw, A.T.; Bauer, T.M.; de Marinis, F.; Felip, E.; Goto, Y.; Liu, G.; Mazieres, J.; Kim, D.-W.; Mok, T.; Polli, A.; et al. First-Line Lorlatinib or Crizotinib in Advanced ALK-Positive Lung Cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2020 , 383 , 2018–2029. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Solomon, B.J.; Mok, T.; Kim, D.-W.; Wu, Y.-L.; Nakagawa, K.; Mekhail, T.; Felip, E.; Cappuzzo, F.; Paolini, J.; Usari, T.; et al. First-Line Crizotinib versus Chemotherapy in ALK -Positive Lung Cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2014 , 371 , 2167–2177. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Solomon, B.J.; Bauer, T.M.; Ignatius Ou, S.-H.; Liu, G.; Hayashi, H.; Bearz, A.; Penkov, K.; Wu, Y.-L.; Arrieta, O.; Jassem, J.; et al. Post Hoc Analysis of Lorlatinib Intracranial Efficacy and Safety in Patients With ALK-Positive Advanced Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer From the Phase III CROWN Study. J. Clin. Oncol. 2022 , 40 , 3593–3602. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Solomon, B.J.; Bauer, T.M.; Mok, T.S.K.; Liu, G.; Mazieres, J.; de Marinis, F.; Goto, Y.; Kim, D.-W.; Wu, Y.-L.; Jassem, J.; et al. Efficacy and Safety of First-Line Lorlatinib versus Crizotinib in Patients with Advanced, ALK-Positive Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Updated Analysis of Data from the Phase 3, Randomised, Open-Label CROWN Study. Lancet Respir. Med. 2023 , 11 , 354–366. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bauer, T.M.; Felip, E.; Solomon, B.J.; Thurm, H.; Peltz, G.; Chioda, M.D.; Shaw, A.T. Clinical Management of Adverse Events Associated with Lorlatinib. Oncologist 2019 , 24 , 1103–1110. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dagogo-Jack, I.; Abbattista, A.; Murphy, J.F.; Krulewicz, S.; Do, A.; Peterson, J.; Lin, J.J.; Gainor, J.F.; Messina, R.; Krueger, E.A.; et al. Factors Associated With Developing Neurocognitive Adverse Events in Patients Receiving Lorlatinib after Progression on Other Targeted Therapies. J. Thorac. Oncol. 2023 , 18 , 67–78. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Liu, G.; Mazieres, J.; Stratmann, J.; Ou, S.-H.I.; Mok, T.; Grizzard, M.; Goto, Y.; Felip, E.; Solomon, B.J.; Bauer, T.M. A Pragmatic Guide for Management of Adverse Events Associated with Lorlatinib. Lung Cancer 2024 , 191 , 107535. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Costa, R.B.; Costa, R.L.B.; Talamantes, S.M.; Kaplan, J.B.; Bhave, M.A.; Rademaker, A.; Miller, C.; Carneiro, B.A.; Mahalingam, D.; Chae, Y.K. Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Selected Toxicities of Approved ALK Inhibitors in Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer. Oncotarget 2018 , 9 , 22137–22146. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cameron, L.B.; Hitchen, N.; Chandran, E.; Morris, T.; Manser, R.; Solomon, B.J.; Jordan, V. Targeted Therapy for Advanced Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase ( ALK )-Rearranged Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2022 , 1 , CD013453. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dietrich, J. Neurotoxicity of Cancer Therapies. Continuum 2020 , 26 , 1646–1672. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Asher, A. Cognitive Dysfunction among Cancer Survivors. Am. J. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2011 , 90 , S16–S26. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• 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. The PRISMA 2020 Statement: An Updated Guideline for Reporting Systematic Reviews. BMJ 2021 , 372 , n71. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sterne, J.A.; Hernán, M.A.; Reeves, B.C.; Savović, J.; Berkman, N.D.; Viswanathan, M.; Henry, D.; Altman, D.G.; Ansari, M.T.; Boutron, I.; et al. ROBINS-I: A Tool for Assessing Risk of Bias in Non-Randomised Studies of Interventions. BMJ 2016 , 355 , i4919. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sterne, J.A.C.; Savović, J.; Page, M.J.; Elbers, R.G.; Blencowe, N.S.; Boutron, I.; Cates, C.J.; Cheng, H.-Y.; Corbett, M.S.; Eldridge, S.M.; et al. RoB 2: A Revised Tool for Assessing Risk of Bias in Randomised Trials. BMJ 2019 , 366 , l4898. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wells, G.A.; Shea, B.; O’Connell, D.; Peterson, J.; Welch, V.; Losos, M.; Tugwell, P. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for Assessing the Quality of Nonrandomized Studies in Meta-Analyses. Available online: https://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp (accessed on 16 June 2023).
• Barker, T.H.; Migliavaca, C.B.; Stein, C.; Colpani, V.; Falavigna, M.; Aromataris, E.; Munn, Z. Conducting Proportional Meta-Analysis in Different Types of Systematic Reviews: A Guide for Synthesisers of Evidence. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2021 , 21 , 189. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Schwarzer, G.; Rücker, G. Meta-Analysis of Proportions ; Humana: New York, NY, USA, 2022; pp. 159–172. [ Google Scholar ]
• Baldacci, S.; Besse, B.; Avrillon, V.; Mennecier, B.; Mazieres, J.; Dubray-Longeras, P.; Cortot, A.B.; Descourt, R.; Doubre, H.; Quantin, X.; et al. Lorlatinib for Advanced Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase–Positive Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer: Results of the IFCT-1803 LORLATU Cohort. Eur. J. Cancer 2022 , 166 , 51–59. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dagogo-Jack, I.; Oxnard, G.R.; Evangelist, M.; Digumarthy, S.R.; Lin, J.J.; Gainor, J.F.; Murphy, J.F.; Rabin, M.S.; Heist, R.S.; Muzikansky, A.; et al. Phase II Study of Lorlatinib in Patients With Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase–Positive Lung Cancer and CNS-Specific Relapse. JCO Precis. Oncol. 2022 , 6 , e2100522. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Frost, N.; Christopoulos, P.; Kauffmann-Guerrero, D.; Stratmann, J.; Riedel, R.; Schaefer, M.; Alt, J.; Gütz, S.; Christoph, D.C.; Laack, E.; et al. Lorlatinib in Pretreated ALK- or ROS1-Positive Lung Cancer and Impact of TP53 Co-Mutations: Results from the German Early Access Program. Ther. Adv. Med. Oncol. 2021 , 13 , 175883592098055. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Girard, N.; Galland-Girodet, S.; Avrillon, V.; Besse, B.; Duruisseaux, M.; Cadranel, J.; Otto, J.; Prevost, A.; Roch, B.; Bennouna, J.; et al. Lorlatinib for Advanced ROS1+ Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Results of the IFCT-1803 LORLATU Study. ESMO Open 2022 , 7 , 100418. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hochmair, M.J.; Fabikan, H.; Illini, O.; Weinlinger, C.; Setinek, U.; Krenbek, D.; Prosch, H.; Rauter, M.; Schumacher, M.; Wöll, E.; et al. Later-Line Treatment with Lorlatinib in ALK- and ROS1-Rearrangement-Positive NSCLC: A Retrospective, Multicenter Analysis. Pharmaceuticals 2020 , 13 , 371. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Lu, S.; Zhou, Q.; Liu, X.; Du, Y.; Fan, Y.; Cheng, Y.; Fang, J.; Lu, Y.; Huang, C.; Zhou, J.; et al. Lorlatinib for Previously Treated ALK-Positive Advanced NSCLC: Primary Efficacy and Safety From a Phase 2 Study in People’s Republic of China. J. Thorac. Oncol. 2022 , 17 , 816–826. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Orlov, S.V.; Iyevleva, A.G.; Filippova, E.A.; Lozhkina, A.M.; Odintsova, S.V.; Sokolova, T.N.; Mitiushkina, N.V.; Tiurin, V.I.; Preobrazhenskaya, E.V.; Romanko, A.A.; et al. Efficacy of Lorlatinib in Lung Carcinomas Carrying Distinct ALK Translocation Variants: The Results of a Single-Center Study. Transl. Oncol. 2021 , 14 , 101121. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shaw, A.T.; Felip, E.; Bauer, T.M.; Besse, B.; Navarro, A.; Postel-Vinay, S.; Gainor, J.F.; Johnson, M.; Dietrich, J.; James, L.P.; et al. Lorlatinib in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer with ALK or ROS1 Rearrangement: An International, Multicentre, Open-Label, Single-Arm First-in-Man Phase 1 Trial. Lancet Oncol. 2017 , 18 , 1590–1599. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Solomon, B.J.; Besse, B.; Bauer, T.M.; Felip, E.; Soo, R.A.; Camidge, D.R.; Chiari, R.; Bearz, A.; Lin, C.-C.; Gadgeel, S.M.; et al. Lorlatinib in Patients with ALK-Positive Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Results from a Global Phase 2 Study. Lancet Oncol. 2018 , 19 , 1654–1667. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Takeyasu, Y.; Yoshida, T.; Masuda, K.; Matsumoto, Y.; Shinno, Y.; Okuma, Y.; Goto, Y.; Horinouchi, H.; Yamamoto, N.; Ohe, Y. Lorlatinib Versus Pemetrexed-Based Chemotherapy in Patients with ALK-Rearranged NSCLC Previously Treated with Alectinib. JTO Clin. Res. Rep. 2022 , 3 , 100311. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Zhu, V.W.; Lin, Y.-T.; Kim, D.-W.; Loong, H.H.; Nagasaka, M.; To, H.; Ang, Y.L.-E.; Ock, C.-Y.; Tchekmedyian, N.; Ou, S.-H.I.; et al. An International Real-World Analysis of the Efficacy and Safety of Lorlatinib Through Early or Expanded Access Programs in Patients with Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor–Refractory ALK-Positive or ROS1-Positive NSCLC. J. Thorac. Oncol. 2020 , 15 , 1484–1496. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hayashi, H.; Teraoka, S.; Goto, Y.; Kumagai, T.; Nishio, M.; Sugawara, S.; Oizumi, S.; Matsumura, M.; Okura, M.; Peltz, G.; et al. First-Line Lorlatinib Versus Crizotinib in ALK-Positive NSCLC: Japanese Subgroup Analysis of CROWN. JTO Clin. Res. Rep. 2023 , 4 , 100471. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Soo, R.A.; Huat Tan, E.; Hayashi, H.; Seto, T.; Lin, C.-C.; Ou, S.-H.I.; Kim, D.-W.; Liu, G.; Abbattista, A.; Martini, J.-F.; et al. Efficacy and Safety of Lorlatinib in Asian and Non-Asian Patients with ALK-Positive Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Subgroup Analysis of a Global Phase 2 Trial. Lung Cancer 2022 , 169 , 67–76. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Shaw, A.T.; Solomon, B.J.; Chiari, R.; Riely, G.J.; Besse, B.; Soo, R.A.; Kao, S.; Lin, C.-C.; Bauer, T.M.; Clancy, J.S.; et al. Lorlatinib in Advanced ROS1-Positive Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Multicentre, Open-Label, Single-Arm, Phase 1–2 Trial. Lancet Oncol. 2019 , 20 , 1691–1701. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Bauer, T.M.; Shaw, A.T.; Johnson, M.L.; Navarro, A.; Gainor, J.F.; Thurm, H.; Pithavala, Y.K.; Abbattista, A.; Peltz, G.; Felip, E. Brain Penetration of Lorlatinib: Cumulative Incidences of CNS and Non-CNS Progression with Lorlatinib in Patients with Previously Treated ALK-Positive Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer. Target. Oncol. 2020 , 15 , 55–65. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Solomon, B.J.; Kim, D.-W.; Wu, Y.-L.; Nakagawa, K.; Mekhail, T.; Felip, E.; Cappuzzo, F.; Paolini, J.; Usari, T.; Tang, Y.; et al. Final Overall Survival Analysis From a Study Comparing First-Line Crizotinib Versus Chemotherapy in ALK-Mutation-Positive Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2018 , 36 , 2251–2258. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Herbst, R.S.; Morgensztern, D.; Boshoff, C. The Biology and Management of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer. Nature 2018 , 553 , 446–454. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Remon, J.; Pignataro, D.; Novello, S.; Passiglia, F. Current Treatment and Future Challenges in ROS1- and ALK-Rearranged Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer. Cancer Treat. Rev. 2021 , 95 , 102178. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Du, X.; Shao, Y.; Qin, H.-F.; Tai, Y.-H.; Gao, H.-J. ALK-Rearrangement in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC). Thorac. Cancer 2018 , 9 , 423–430. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Pikor, L.A.; Ramnarine, V.R.; Lam, S.; Lam, W.L. Genetic Alterations Defining NSCLC Subtypes and Their Therapeutic Implications. Lung Cancer 2013 , 82 , 179–189. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jia, K.; Ren, S. Neurocognitive Adverse Events of Lorlatinib: On the Way to Precise Prediction? J. Thorac. Oncol. 2023 , 18 , 26–28. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chen, W.; Jin, D.; Shi, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Zhou, H.; Li, G. The Underlying Mechanisms of Lorlatinib Penetration across the Blood-Brain Barrier and the Distribution Characteristics of Lorlatinib in the Brain. Cancer Med. 2020 , 9 , 4350–4359. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Sisi, M.; Fusaroli, M.; De Giglio, A.; Facchinetti, F.; Ardizzoni, A.; Raschi, E.; Gelsomino, F. Psychiatric Adverse Reactions to Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase Inhibitors in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Analysis of Spontaneous Reports Submitted to the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System. Target. Oncol. 2022 , 17 , 43–51. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Dutton, J.W.; Chen, H.; You, C.; Brodie, M.S.; Lasek, A.W. Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase Regulates Binge-like Drinking and Dopamine Receptor Sensitivity in the Ventral Tegmental Area. Addict. Biol. 2017 , 22 , 665–678. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• He, D.; Lasek, A.W. Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase Regulates Internalization of the Dopamine D2 Receptor. Mol. Pharmacol. 2020 , 97 , 123–131. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Peters, S.; Shaw, A.T.; Besse, B.; Felip, E.; Solomon, B.J.; Soo, R.A.; Bearz, A.; Gadgeel, S.M.; Lin, C.-C.; Kao, S.; et al. Impact of Lorlatinib on Patient-Reported Outcomes in Patients with Advanced ALK-Positive or ROS1-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer. Lung Cancer 2020 , 144 , 10–19. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mazieres, J.; Iadeluca, L.; Shaw, A.T.; Solomon, B.J.; Bauer, T.M.; de Marinis, F.; Felip, E.; Goto, Y.; Kim, D.-W.; Mok, T.; et al. Patient-Reported Outcomes from the Randomized Phase 3 CROWN Study of First-Line Lorlatinib versus Crizotinib in Advanced ALK-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer. Lung Cancer 2022 , 174 , 146–156. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Schoenmaekers, J.; Dijkstra, J.; van der Wekken, A.; Paats, M.; Broen, M.; Brandts, L.; Dingemans, A.-M.; Hendriks, L. In-Depth Analysis of Lorlatinib-Related Neurocognitive Adverse Events in Patients With Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer. Clin. Lung Cancer 2023 , 25 , 168–174. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Priantti, J.N.; Vilbert, M.; de Moraes, F.C.A.; Madeira, T.; de Lima Santiago, E.M.; Leighl, N.B.; Cavalcante, L.; Karim, N.F.A. Neurocognitive Adverse Events Related to Lorlatinib in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cancers 2024 , 16 , 2611. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16142611

Priantti JN, Vilbert M, de Moraes FCA, Madeira T, de Lima Santiago EM, Leighl NB, Cavalcante L, Karim NFA. Neurocognitive Adverse Events Related to Lorlatinib in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cancers . 2024; 16(14):2611. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16142611

Priantti, Jonathan N., Maysa Vilbert, Francisco Cezar Aquino de Moraes, Thiago Madeira, Evair Moisés de Lima Santiago, Natasha B. Leighl, Ludimila Cavalcante, and Nagla F. Abdel Karim. 2024. "Neurocognitive Adverse Events Related to Lorlatinib in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis" Cancers 16, no. 14: 2611. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16142611

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, supplementary material.

ZIP-Document (ZIP, 973 KiB)

Further Information

Mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals