Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting 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.

Neurocognitive dysfunction in hematopoietic cell transplant recipients: expert review from the late effects and Quality of Life Working Committee of the CIBMTR and complications and Quality of Life Working Party of the EBMT


Hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) is a potentially curative treatment for children and adults with malignant and non-malignant diseases. Despite increasing survival rates, long-term morbidity following HCT is substantial. Neurocognitive dysfunction is a serious cause of morbidity, yet little is known about neurocognitive dysfunction following HCT. To address this gap, collaborative efforts of the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research and the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation undertook an expert review of neurocognitive dysfunction following HCT. In this review, we define what constitutes neurocognitive dysfunction, characterize its risk factors and sequelae, describe tools and methods to assess neurocognitive function in HCT recipients, and discuss possible interventions for HCT patients with this condition. This review aims to help clinicians understand the scope of this health-related problem, highlight its impact on well-being of survivors, and to help determine factors that may improve identification of patients at risk for declines in cognitive functioning after HCT. In particular, we review strategies for preventing and treating neurocognitive dysfunction in HCT patients. Lastly, we highlight the need for well-designed studies to develop and test interventions aimed at preventing and improving neurocognitive dysfunction and its sequelae following HCT.


According to the Worldwide Network for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (WBMT) [1] and the World Health Organization (WHO), over one million hematopoietic cell transplants (HCT) have been performed worldwide and approximately 50,000 HCT procedures are performed annually [2, 3]. By 2030, an estimated half-million HCT recipients in the United States (US) will be long-term survivors [4]. These survivors are at risk for late effects that may adversely affect their quality of life (QOL) and increase morbidity and mortality [5, 6]. Neurocognitive dysfunction, including symptoms such as memory impairment, impaired concentration, and difficulty in performing multiple tasks simultaneously, has been recognized as a common complication in cancer patients [7, 8]. Neurocognitive dysfunction can significantly impact the early and late post-HCT course, and it has emerged as a major cause for post-transplant morbidity and mortality [9].

In adult HCT survivors, an incidence of neurocognitive dysfunction of up to 60% has been documented at 22–82 months post-HCT [10,11,12]. Neurocognitive dysfunction is associated with risk factors such as pre-transplant chemotherapy, use of total body irradiation (TBI) in conditioning, immunosuppressive therapies, length of hospital stay, and graft-vs.-host disease (GVHD) [10, 12,13,14,15,16]. For children undergoing HCT, special considerations include the presence of non-malignant disorders that impact neurocognitive function even without transplant (e.g., sickle cell anemia) and prior intense chemotherapy or radiation for malignant diseases during developmentally vulnerable periods, leading to language and speech delays [17].

Current gaps exist in our characterization of neurocognitive dysfunction following HCT and include: (1) an operational definition, (2) neurocognitive issues in adults and children, (3) risk factors, (4) assessment, and (5) interventions. To address this, the Late Effects and Quality of Life Working Committee of the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) and the Complications and Quality of Life Working Party of the European Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT) provide an expert review to characterize the state-of-the-science of neurocognitive dysfunction following HCT, and to build upon this data with general recommendations for clinical practice and future areas of research.


Neurocognitive function domains

Neurocognitive function refers to the activities of the brain that generate the complex behaviors of day-to-day life. While a large number of brain structures may be involved in generating these behaviors, unique neurocognitive functions can be described most comprehensively by evaluating eight domains (Table 1) [18]. Notably, neurocognitive evaluation in children may also include an assessment of academic achievement and global intelligence.

Table 1 Domains of neurocognitive function in adults and children

Neurocognitive dysfunction in HCT

Neurocognitive dysfunction describes a negative change in neurocognitive function that is independent of normal aging and may affect activities of daily living, including social interactions, complex behaviors, and occupational or academic functioning; this change may have a profound effect on quality of life [18]. Neurocognitive dysfunction may be assessed in relation to a subject’s prior abilities, if known, or in relation to a normative population.

Characterization of neurocognitive dysfunction challenges

A variety of issues hamper the ability to characterize and understand neurocognitive dysfunction following HCT. First, it is unclear whether self-appraisals of neurocognitive dysfunction correlate with objective neurocognitive test results, and most studies do not include an analysis of the patients’ perspectives. In the few studies that have performed this analysis, correlations between the patient’s perspective and the test results varied [10, 19,20,21]. Second, the heterogeneity in study designs, testing methods, and cutoffs makes it challenging to identify the neurocognitive domains most affected by HCT. Furthermore, definitions of neurocognitive dysfunction vary between studies, and analysis and interpretation of longitudinal data can be hampered by the practice effect of repeating tests over time and the high attrition rate due to adverse medical outcomes [19, 22]. Neurocognitive testing also depends on the patient’s ability to communicate in English or the local language of the health-care providers, thereby excluding minorities that may be less proficient in these languages. Finally, cultural differences and contextual understanding of neurocognitive function may impact neurocognitive testing, bias results, and lessen the validity of findings [23].

Neurocognitive issues in adults

A recent survey performed in a heterogeneous group of more than 400 survivors and caregivers by a patient advocacy group ( showed that finding information about neurocognitive dysfunction was the top concern for patients and second most important concern for caregivers (personal communication). Moreover, Bevans and colleagues [24] studied 171 adult survivors of allogeneic HCT and found that difficulty with concentration was one of the most prevalent physical symptoms reported by 3-year survivors. Historically, HCT has not often been an option for individuals over 55 years of age; however, with advances in treatment options such as reduced intensity regimens and supportive care measures, patients 65 years of age and older are now candidates for HCT. There is a scarcity of evidence regarding neurocognitive dysfunction and older HCT recipients. In the few studies that have reported findings in this population, results suggest regardless of age, HCT survivors have more neurocognitive dysfunction than healthy individuals [25]. Further, age was not associated with outcomes such as graft-vs.-host disease, non-relapse mortality or overall survival [25].

Despite the demand for information about neurocognitive dysfunction, assessment is complicated because many patients have neurocognitive dysfunction prior to transplant (see Table 2). Indeed, when neurocognitive function was evaluated prior to HCT, up to 58% of adults had some level of neurocognitive dysfunction. In a multi-institutional study, Scherwath and colleagues [13] followed 102 adult allogeneic HCT recipients and found that prior to HCT 4–24% of the patients demonstrated scores consistent with neurocognitive dysfunction across various domains, including verbal fluency, fine motor function, and verbal memory [13].

Table 2 Reported prevalence and kinetics of neurocognitive change before and following HCT

In addition to this confounding factor, only a limited number of researchers have examined the course of neurocognitive dysfunction following HCT. Thus far, studies have revealed that among adults, neurocognitive function declines in the first few months following HCT in a subset of patients, and then partially recovers over time (Table 2). For example, in one study, Syrjala and colleagues [26] prospectively assessed neurocognitive function among 92 allogeneic HCT survivors at a single center. Their results showed that by the end of the first year following HCT the neurocognitive functioning of most survivors recovered to pre-transplant levels in the majority of domains, excluding grip strength and motor dexterity [13]. Importantly, pre-transplant impairment on each test was identified in 15 to 32% patients [15].

In another study, Scherwath and colleagues [13] found that at 1-year post-HCT 41% of patients demonstrated neurocognitive dysfunction on at least one of the domains assessed compared with 47% of patients who experienced neurocognitive dysfunction at baseline. Also, 56% of survivors demonstrated decline at both Day + 100 and 1-year post-HCT and 17% of survivors developed cognitive decline starting at 1-year. Finally, in a recent systematic review conducted by Phillips and colleagues [27], researchers failed to identify a statistically significant change in neurocognitive function following HCT. Although this review included 11 studies and 404 patients, the authors highlighted important methodological limitations including heterogeneous samples, no control groups, small sample sizes, and a high prevalence of neurocognitive dysfunction prior to HCT [27]. These studies also failed to differentiate neurocognitive dysfunction from “chemo brain” or “chemo fog,” which is experienced by patients undergoing treatment for cancer [28, 29].

In cases where neurocognitive functioning does not recover, evidence suggests that neurocognitive dysfunction may persist in the long-term and negatively affect the quality of life of survivors. Indeed, Syrjala and colleagues documented that 41.5% of survivors compared with 19.7% of controls continued to demonstrate at least mild neurocognitive dysfunction at 5 years post-HCT [16, 26]. Many patients with neurocognitive dysfunction have a poor self-image and are often unable to resume pre-transplant activities, such as attending work or school. In fact, nearly half of patients remain on disability or sickness benefits following HCT due to multiple factors, including neurocognitive dysfunction [10]. Not surprisingly, higher incidences of anxiety, fatigue, depression, emotional distress, and poor physical and social functioning, have also been reported among HCT survivors with neurocognitive dysfunction [10, 21]. These side effects may lead to difficulty with medication management, including dosing errors and non-adherence, in the early period following HCT [30].

The aforementioned data support the notion that neurocognitive dysfunction is a prevalent complication following HCT in adults. Moreover, it is of upmost importance among adult HCT survivors. The demonstration of neurocognitive dysfunction prior to HCT among adults suggest that it may be a result of the disease itself as well as previous treatments.

Despite limited data, results also suggest that neurocognitive dysfunction may occur across the continuum of HCT survivor care and may also be associated with decrements in physical, emotional, and social health. Unfortunately, these decrements in well-being may also have important ramifications with respect to treatment compliance and subsequent increased risk for morbidity and mortality following HCT.

Neurocognitive issues in children

Neurocognitive dysfunction and associated decrements in intelligence quotient (IQ) have been noted in children when comparing pre and post-HCT scores [31,32,33]. For example, Shah and colleagues [32] found domain-specific alterations, including lower verbal and performance IQ scores at 5 years post-transplant; however, other researchers found no significant changes in these areas of neurocognitive function [34,35,36,37,38,39,40]. Although Simms and colleagues [36] found that parent ratings of their child’s academic ability were lower than those of a normative sample, other investigators [35, 37, 41] found academic achievement of children post-HCT to be within normal limits. Barrera and colleagues [38] noted deficits in academic achievement, and found that family (e.g., cohesion) and clinical factors (e.g., diagnosis) were predictors of neurocognitive function. Evidence suggests that other domains may also be impacted by neurocognitive dysfunction, including adaptive skills such as activities of daily living (e.g., dressing one’s self) diminished social competence, self-esteem, and emotional well-being in the first year following HCT [20, 22, 42].

Notably, studies have shown that younger age at diagnosis and treatment are associated with the most significant declines in neurocognitive function [33, 35, 36, 43]. Although IQ and academic achievement may remain within normal ranges for younger children post-HCT [34, 41], they may experience deficits in executive functioning skills, such as sustained attention, inhibition, response speed, and visual-motor integration skills [41]. Research has indicated that younger autologous HCT recipients experience neurocognitive dysfunction, including impairment in visual memory and visual-motor skills [44]. In addition, deficits in fine motor skills appear to be more pronounced in HCT recipients who received cranial irradiation at a younger age than those who received cranial irradiation at older ages [15, 31, 35].

To date, prospective longitudinal data in this area of research are limited. Longitudinal evaluation of neurocognitive functioning is important because it may elucidate differences over time as well as among specific domains. For example, Shah and colleagues [32] found that some patients develop domain-specific declines that eventually improve (e.g., visual-motor skills), whereas other patients develop domain-specific declines that are progressive and chronic (e.g., verbal skills). Significantly, patients in this study were unable to acquire new skills at a rate comparable to age-matched healthy peers, although this may have been due to changes in the sample across time as well as the unreliability of small sample sizes. The necessity for longitudinal evaluation in children is also evident when focusing on academic achievement. As an example, lower academic achievement has been noted, particularly as time since transplant increases [39, 45].

To date, literature reporting neurocognitive function of children post-HCT is inconclusive, conflicting, and often focused on specific domains such as IQ and academic functioning. Notably, studies of neurocognitive dysfunction have suggested that age at the time of diagnosis and HCT is a potentially important moderating variable such that younger age may be deleterious. Despite a need for additional longitudinal data, results also suggest that neurocognitive dysfunction may occur across the continuum of HCT survivor care for children as well.

Risk factors

Reported risk factors associated with neurocognitive impairment after HCT are presented below.

Conditioning regimen

Transplant conditioning includes the administration of chemotherapeutic agents, TBI or both prior to stem cell infusion. Chemotherapeutic agents that cross the blood–brain barrier and TBI have a direct cytotoxic effect upon the brain. Table 3 displays the most common agents used in transplant conditioning regimens and their side effects. A TBI dose of 12 Gy is the mainstay treatment of myeloablative conditioning regimens for acute lymphoblastic leukemia [46, 47] and the neurotoxic effects of this treatment have been studied in adults and children. Neuro-toxic effects with the use of reduced intensity conditioning regimens, have been documented [27]. For example, fludarabine, a common component of reduced intensity conditioning regimens, may be associated with neuro-toxic effects in both adults and children. It may be important, therefore, to tailor individual conditioning regimens balancing potential neurotoxic effects of the administered agents in the context of desired overall and disease-free survival.

Table 3 Reported factors associated with risk of neurocognitive dysfunction following hematopoietic cell transplantation

While researchers have demonstrated that TBI and chemotherapy are neurotoxic, the specific effects of TBI and chemotherapy on the patients’ neurocognitive functioning in the peri-transplant period are unknown. Different techniques of administering TBI between centers make data analyses complex, and as a result, conclusions are elusive. For example, Harder and colleagues [11] found mild to moderate late neurocognitive dysfunction in 60% of the patients who had received high-dose chemotherapy with TBI up to 12 Gy compared to healthy population norms. Others report no systematic effects of conditioning intensity on neurocognitive function; [14, 48] and a recent meta-analysis found no significant associations between TBI and neurocognitive dysfunction [27].

The potential adverse effect of myeloablative doses of TBI on neurocognitive function has been reported in young children with leukemia [14, 16, 49]. Addition of cranial or cranio-spinal irradiation, which may be added to TBI, may further impact neurocognitive function [40]. Other data in children reveal that the effects of TBI and cranial irradiation on neurocognitive function are relatively modest and variable [34,35,36,37,38,39]. Notteghem and colleagues [44] evaluated 76 children with extracranial solid tumors following autologous HCT using chemotherapy-only conditioning. They found that the percentage of children falling into the below average range for IQ was greater than that of children in the general population and over a third of participants had severe reading or writing difficulties. Research has also shown executive function and visual-spatial skills to be below age level in children who received busulfan [43].

GVHD and immunosuppressive therapies

Allogeneic HCT recipients who develop GVHD may need immunosuppressive therapy for extended periods of time. These include calcineurin inhibitors such as cyclosporine and tacrolimus, which are known to have neurotoxic effects including tremor, posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome (PRES) and thrombotic microangiopathy (TMA). Studies have shown that subgroups of children who received unrelated allogeneic HCT and developed GVHD demonstrated increased risk of neurocognitive dysfunction [32, 37]. Despite potential association between GVHD and neurocognitive dysfunction, at present we are limited to conjecture regarding the possible effects.


Immune defects post-HCT as well as immunosuppressive therapy used during allogeneic HCT increases the risk for viral infections, including cytomegalovirus (CMV), Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), and human herpesvirus 6 (HHV6). These infections may specifically affect non-verbal memory functions, attention and speed of cognitive performance [50,51,52,53,54,55]. Mild neurocognitive dysfunction associated with viral infections may not be identified by clinical or cognitive screening [50,51,52,53, 56, 57].

Primary disease

Unlike patients with hematological malignancies, patients with non-malignant disease may have neurocognitive dysfunction that is often related to their primary disease. For example, patients with adrenoleukodystrophy have disease-specific neurological dysfunction prior to HCT. These patients may have lesions in their central nervous system (CNS) that can affect both their physiological and psychological functioning. Similarly, patients with sickle cell disease often experience cerebral ischemic events prior to HCT that can affect their overall neurocognitive functioning. Finally, patients with severe combined immunodeficiency due to adenosine deaminase deficiency may have neurocognitive dysfunction prior to HCT that is a result of their disease [54, 55].

Other risk factors

Risk factors for neurocognitive dysfunction following HCT include female gender, younger age, higher body mass index (BMI), absence of social partner, allogeneic HCT, extensive chronic GVHD, higher intensity pre-HCT cancer treatment, and use of narcotics, corticosteroids, tricyclic antidepressants and sedatives [14, 58, 59]. In some studies, pre-HCT functioning [41, 44] and socioeconomic status are strong predictors of neurocognitive function following HCT [60]. However, other researchers have failed to find similar associations [38]. Behavioral problems such as sleep deprivation, fatigue, and depression may adversely affect neurocognitive function [60, 61]. Finally, researchers have noted a negative relationship between pre-HCT anxiety and post-HCT neurocognitive function [41]. Collectively, the evidence indicates there are many factors that could impact neurocognitive dysfunction and need to be examined for possible interventions targeting modifiable factors.


Both subjective and objective measures have been used to assess neurocognitive function in HCT. However, no standard recommendations exist for the timing or types of measures to assess neurocognitive function in either adults or children. Table 4A, B summarize tests for specific neurocognitive domains, applicable age ranges, average administration times, and general descriptions for each assessment tool. These tests are common in the published literature and address the domains that are most affected by neurocognitive dysfunction. All commonly used neurocognitive tests are standardized measures that are psychometrically validated and widely available in multiple languages [62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79].

Table 4A Commonly used neurocognitive tests
Table 4B Abbreviations, names, and description of commonly used neurocognitive tests in Table 4A

Neurocognitive testing


Researchers and clinicians currently use the following instruments to assess the neurocognitive function of adults before and after HCT: the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE), the Cognitive Abilities Screening Instrument (CASI), the Cognitive Assessment Screening Test (CAST), the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery (CANTAB), and the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS) [68]. However, the use of these screening tools is controversial. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) does not recommend these screening tools for use in cancer patients, including HCT patients [80], likely because these screening tools were developed for patients with dementia and may not be sensitive enough to address the subtle neurocognitive dysfunction found in HCT patients. Given the drawbacks of these assessments, it may be more applicable for researchers and clinicians to assess patients based on identified risk factors; thus, future research should focus on the development of a standardized risk factor profile for patients who may be at risk of poor neurocognitive functioning post-HCT.


Researchers and clinicians may consider assessing neurocognitive function of children prior to HCT, 1 year following HCT, and then at the beginning of each new stage of education. It should be noted that some children can be challenging to assess because they may not be old enough to perform specific assessments. As a result, deficits in neurocognitive function may only appear in the long-term along with increasing age and tasks that require higher executive functioning. In addition, to date, researchers have not developed assessment tools that can reliably predict future neurocognitive deficits in more complex domains (e.g., math, reading and executive function) in children. Clinicians should consider the impact of other factors, such as protective isolation, missed schooling, and socialization with peers, when assessing the neurocognitive function of children post-HCT. These factors are difficult to measure, but they may have a significant impact on the neurocognitive function and development of children over time.

Self-report measures and interview

Because the sole use of objective measures does not provide clinicians with a complete picture of the patient’s level of daily functioning, it is important to include self-report measures as well as a clinical interview in the assessment process. Self-report measures capture the patients’, parents’, or teachers’ assessment of neurocognitive function and serve as an additional tool to screen for neurocognitive dysfunction. Similarly, the clinical interview collects information, including previous education, occupation, medical and psychiatric history, and cognitive history [48, 81] in order to guide intervention for patients with neurocognitive dysfunction [82].

One self-report measure, The Childhood Cancer Survivor Study-Neurocognitive Questionnaire (CCSS-NCQ), addresses specific self-reported concerns about neurocognitive function in long-term survivors of childhood cancer, and it can be used with patients’ post-HCT. The CCSS-NCQ, which was developed in conjunction with the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function—Adult Version (BRIEF-A), uses similar items and includes novel items specific to outcomes in survivors of childhood cancer [83]. Versions for younger children are also available—the Brief-Pre (for pre-school children), the Brief-P (for school-age children), and the Brief-SR (for older children). In order to ensure the most accurate findings, a qualified neuropsychologist, who is aware of the relationship between mental health and subsequent neurocognitive assessment, should administer the assessment tools, interpret the results, and provide a report to clinicians [84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92].


In addition to the use of subjective and objective measures, neurologic specific biomarkers of central nervous system injury, neuroinflammation, and neuroimaging, should be examined as potential tools to evaluate neurocognitive dysfunction following HCT. Biomarker discovery is a promising area of inquiry that may facilitate a deeper understanding of the impact of HCT on the central nervous system. From a clinical perspective, biomarkers may help define risk and identify protective factors for neurocognitive dysfunction as well as help monitor patient response to treatment. Biomarkers may also help elucidate the potential relationship between distressing symptoms, such as sleep deprivation, anxiety/depression, and infection, and neurocognitive dysfunction, leading to better care and quality of life for patients after HCT.

Biomarkers of CNS injury and neuroinflammation

Biomarkers of neurologic injury have been historically studied in stroke patients and patients with brain metastasis [93,94,95,96,97]. Previous studies have identified associated biomarkers of neurocognitive function such as O6-methylguanine–DNA methyltransferase [98], neuron-specific enolase (NSE) [99], S100B [100] and neurotransmitters such as glutamate and gamma-amniobutyric acid (GABA). However, to date, these biomarkers have not been studied in patients with CNS damage caused by chemotherapy or radiation [101, 102]. Chemotherapy and radiation utilized in HCT conditioning may result in the stimulation of inflammatory pathways and associated elaboration of various cytokines, adhesion molecules and chemokines from leukocytes, fibroblasts, and endothelial cells. Pre-clinical models have shown that chemotherapy and radiation regulates expression of tumor necrosis factor-alpha, intracellular adhesion molecule-1, and interleukin (IL)-1 [103]. These inflammatory markers have been detected in the blood of patients who received radiation [104]. Similarly, serum levels of inflammatory cytokines have been measured in stroke patients [105, 106] and correlated with neurocognitive dysfunction among newly diagnosed breast cancer patients [107]. Markers of oxidative stress have been associated with neurocognitive dysfunction among childhood leukemia patients, but similar studies have not been conducted among HCT recipients [108]. Among HCT survivors, Bhatia and colleagues have characterized various single nucleotide polymorphisms in combination with neurocognitive assessment tools [109]. The results of these studies underscore the need for additional longitudinal studies in HCT patients evaluating select blood-based biomarkers in combination with imaging modalities and neuropsychological assessment tools.

Neuroimaging biomarkers

Magnetic resonance (MR)-based imaging and positron emission tomography techniques, including structural and functional MR imaging, diffusion tensor imaging, and MR spectroscopy, may play an important role as biomarkers for neurocognitive dysfunction following HCT. In multiple previous studies, researchers have used these techniques to detect neurocognitive dysfunction following the diagnosis and treatment of cancer. For example, Cao and colleagues [110] evaluated dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging as a biomarker to predict radiation-induced neurocognitive dysfunction. MR changes including reduced neuroanatomic volumes have also been associated with neurocognitive dysfunction among survivors of childhood leukemia; however, similar studies have not been conducted among HCT survivors [111].

Building on this work among HCT recipients, Correa and colleagues [112] utilized neuroimaging techniques and neuropsychological testing to study 28 adult HCT recipients conditioned with TBI and high-dose chemotherapy or high-dose chemotherapy alone. They noted gray matter loss and a concomitant increase in ventricular volume in patients 1-year following HCT, and no corresponding changes in healthy participants in the control group. Despite the noted changes in neuroimaging, statistically significant differences in rates of neurocognitive dysfunction were not found.

Other correlates

Physical and psychological symptoms associated with cancer and cancer treatment may also be associated with neurocognitive dysfunction. In this area of research, most studies have focused on fatigue and depressive symptoms [10, 19, 29, 30]. For example, one longitudinal study examined cancer-related symptoms associated with neurocognitive dysfunction and found significant relationships over time among several domains of neurocognitive function and symptoms such as fatigue, depression, and perceived stress [113]. Another study examined patients with multiple myeloma who completed autologous HCT and found similar associations between neurocognitive function and symptoms (e.g., depression) [19].

In 2002, Harder and colleagues [10] focused on neurocognitive dysfunction of patients receiving HCT within the past 22–82 months and found that neurocognitive dysfunction was present in 60% of participants and that fatigue was a strong predictor of neurocognitive dysfunction; however, a correlation with depression was not reported in this study [10]. Similarly, Booth-Jones and colleagues noted significant relationships between fatigue and depression and neurocognitive dysfunction in a cohort of patients at least six months following HCT [30]. However, it should be noted that two studies found no significant relationship between fatigue or depression and neurocognitive dysfunction [19, 29], and that two other studies found anxiety to be significantly associated with neurocognitive dysfunction [30, 113].


Awareness of neurocognitive dysfunction in HCT recipients is important for timely introduction of psychosocial support and other interventions, but there is a significant void in high-quality data to assess interventions in this area. Several approaches aimed at prevention or reduction of neurocognitive dysfunction have been studied in patients receiving systemic chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy, but to date, no prospective studies have been conducted and relevant interventions still need to be evaluated in HCT patients. Four potential strategies to mitigate the risks or improve outcomes of neurocognitive dysfunction after HCT are listed below and in Table 5.

Table 5 List of potential interventional strategies to mitigate the risks or improve outcomes of neurocognitive dysfunction after HCT

Strategy 1: Interventions to minimize therapy related neurocognitive toxicity

In order to reduce neurocognitive dysfunction, clinicians may consider reducing the use of neurotoxic therapies such as prophylactic cranial radiation, TBI, or neurotoxic agents [114, 115] or the substitution of busulfan for TBI-based conditioning during treatment [15]. Similarly, in cases where the patient does not need radiation to control disease (e.g., non-malignant diseases), clinicians may choose to reduce or eliminate neurotoxic agents given concerns for long-term sequelae.

Strategy 2: Management of acute CNS toxicities after allogeneic HCT

TBI has been associated with CNS complications within the first 100 days in adults and those patients with known seizure history may experience increased seizures [116]. PRES occurring in the first 100 days after allogeneic HCT is associated with neurocognitive dysfunction [116] and requires careful management strategies [117]. Identification of PRES and tight control of hypertension as well as a careful search for and removal of the etiologic agent remains a mainstay of management. For example, sirolimus, cyclosporine or tacrolimus have been associated with PRES and may be withdrawn if they are felt to be contributing to the development of PRES [118]. TMA and genetic susceptibility to TMA [119] can also be associated with neurocognitive dysfunction and also require prompt identification and management [120].

Strategy 3: Non-pharmacologic interventions

For adults, re-education or job training may be beneficial. For children, approaches include cognitive remediation strategies and educational interventions [121, 122]. Establishment of school re-entry programs that involve teachers early, tutoring in the immediate period following HCT, enlisting the school system to provide an individualized educational plan, and accommodations based upon a patient’s individual deficits should be considered [45, 122]. Poor recruitment and adherence to these educational programs remains a challenge and requires improvement in accessibility and convenience for children and their families [123].

Cognitive rehabilitation for childhood cancer survivors in the form of intensive therapist-delivered training such as the cognitive remediation program has shown encouraging initial results [121]. The application of computer-based techniques to support optimal neurocognitive function may also be considered in children and adults. The systematic use of computer-based cognitive training is associated with significant improvements in working memory attention problems and processing speed in childhood cancer survivors with attention and working memory deficits [124, 125].

Integrative therapies may also be useful to improve neurocognitive function (e.g., strategies to improve diet, exercise and stress management) following HCT. For example, nutraceuticals such as vitamin therapy and other supplements may improve neurocognitive function and need to be examined before any conclusions can be made regarding their efficacy in HCT patients. Campbell and colleagues [126] found aerobic exercise improved neurocognitive function in cancer patients. Current investigation is ongoing to examine the potential benefit of exercise on neurocognitive dysfunction (NCT02533947) in adults. Lastly, health behaviors such as abstinence from tobacco use, and consuming alcohol in moderation, may support healthy neurocognitive functioning following HCT.

Strategy 4: Pharmacologic interventions

These approaches include therapies with a variety of pharmacologic agents such as stimulants; however, data in HCT recipients is lacking. Therapy with methylphenidate is associated with short- and long-term improvements in attention, concentration, executive function, and memory in childhood cancer survivors with neurocognitive dysfunction [122, 124, 127]. However, rebound symptoms (psychosis, depression and attention problems) may arise with long-term use [128]. With perceived effects in social skills and behavior, further study focusing on the impact of methylphenidate on academic functioning is warranted.

The acetylcholinesterase inhibitor, donepezil, was studied in adult patients with primary brain tumors and showed improved attention, concentration, language function, verbal and figure memory, and mood [129]. Breast cancer patients taking modafinil have shown improvement in memory and attention [130]. Administration of recombinant human growth hormone may be associated with improved cognition; sustained attention and cognitive-perceptual performance in young adult survivors of childhood cancer [131].

Recommendations for research and clinical practice

Several significant gaps in our knowledge support our proposed recommendations for future research and the general recommendation for clinical practice shown in Table 6. Current practice recommendations are difficult to suggest due to the lack of adequately powered randomized controlled trials; however, the literature suggests a burden of neurocognitive dysfunction in HCT recipients and their caregivers. There is no evidence supporting standard drug or other intervention prophylaxis in all or even in currently definable subgroups of patients. There is also limited data to justify choice of conditioning based on predicted neurocognitive effects, and therefore conditioning treatments should be guided by primary disease. However, clinicians need to balance the need for high intensity conditioning regimens and disease control with short- and long-term sequelae of these therapies.

Table 6 Proposed recommendations for future research opportunities and for clinical practice

Clinicians may inform and counsel their patients of the signs of neurocognitive dysfunction prior to HCT, such as difficulty concentrating or remembering important dates, and conduct appropriate assessments at each follow-up visit to enable early intervention. Supportive treatment may be considered based on dominating symptoms. Moreover, referral for a neuropsychiatric consult may be also considered. Awareness of the risk factors and likelihood of neurocognitive dysfunction after HCT is important for counseling patients pre-transplant but also to help earlier identification of emerging toxicities to guide referrals to appropriate specialist and help management.


This review examined extant literature in key areas to characterize the state-of-the-science regarding neurocognitive dysfunction in patients who have completed HCT. Several significant gaps in our knowledge support our proposed recommendations for future research and the general suggestions for clinical practice. Future studies focusing on specific populations including various pediatric populations and older adult population are needed to delineate neurocognitive dysfunction following HCT as well as define potential risk and protective factors for patients who suffer from the condition and represent unmet needs. In addition, researchers should focus on the development and validation of a sensitive screening tool for neurocognitive dysfunction that can be used by clinicians who treat patients after HCT. Moreover, the combination of a wider application of neurocognitive assessments with newly developed biomarkers may prove to be a powerful combination of tools utilized to define at-risk HCT recipients. These data can then be utilized to develop and evaluate precision interventions focused on prevention and amelioration of neurocognitive dysfunction. With properly designed studies, appropriate interventions and practice guidelines can be developed. Emerging knowledge on evaluation and intervention may lead to better neurocognitive outcomes.


  1. 1.

    Gratwohl A, Pasquini MC, Aljurf M, Atsuta Y, Baldomero H, Foeken L, et al. One million haemopoietic stem-cell transplants: a retrospective observational study. Lancet Haematol. 2015;2:e91–100.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Carreras J. A total of 1 million stem cell transplants have been performed worldwide. 2017; Accessed 2 Mar 2017.

  3. 3.

    World Health Organization. Transplantation. n.d.; Accessed 2 Mar 2017.

  4. 4.

    Majhail NS, Tao L, Bredeson C, Davies S, Dehn J, Gajewski JL, et al. Prevalence of hematopoietic cell transplant survivors in the United States. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant: J Am Soc Blood Marrow Transplant. 2013;19:1498–501.

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Bhatia S, Robison LL, Francisco L, Carter A, Liu Y, Grant M, et al. Late mortality in survivors of autologous hematopoietic-cell transplantation: report from the Bone Marrow Transplant Survivor Study. Blood. 2005;105:4215–22.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Bhatia S, Francisco L, Carter A, Sun CL, Baker KS, Gurney JG, et al. Late mortality after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation and functional status of long-term survivors: report from the Bone Marrow Transplant Survivor Study. Blood. 2007;110:3784–92.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Askins MA, Moore BD 3rd. Preventing neurocognitive late effects in childhood cancer survivors. J Child Neurol. 2008;23: 1160–71.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Meyers CA. Neurocognitive dysfunction in cancer patients. Oncol (Williston Park, NY). 2000;14:75–9. discussion 79,81–72, 85

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Rizzo JD, Wingard JR, Tichelli A, Lee SJ, van Lint MT, Burns LJ, et al. Recommended screening and preventive practices for long-term survivors after hematopoietic cell transplantation: joint recommendations of the European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation, the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research, and the American Society of Blood and Marrow Transplantation. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant: J Am Soc Blood Marrow Transplant. 2006;12:138–51.

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Harder H, Cornelissen JJ, Van Gool AR, Duivenvoorden HJ, Eijkenboom WM, van den Bent MJ. Cognitive functioning and quality of life in long-term adult survivors of bone marrow transplantation. Cancer. 2002;95:183–92.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Harder H, Duivenvoorden HJ, van Gool AR, Cornelissen JJ, van den Bent MJ. Neurocognitive functions and quality of life in haematological patients receiving haematopoietic stem cell grafts: a one-year follow-up pilot study. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2006;28:283–93.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Sostak P, Padovan CS, Yousry TA, Ledderose G, Kolb HJ, Straube A. Prospective evaluation of neurological complications after allogeneic bone marrow transplantation. Neurology. 2003;60:842–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Scherwath A, Schirmer L, Kruse M, Ernst G, Eder M, Dinkel A, et al. Cognitive functioning in allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation recipients and its medical correlates: a prospective multicenter study. Psychooncology. 2013;22:1509–16.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Jim HS, Small B, Hartman S, Franzen J, Millary S, Phillips K, et al. Clinical predictors of cognitive function in adults treated with hematopoietic cell transplantation. Cancer. 2012;118: 3407–16.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Smedler AC, Winiarski J. Neuropsychological outcome in very young hematopoietic SCT recipients in relation to pretransplant conditioning. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2008;42:515–22.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Syrjala KL, Dikmen S, Langer SL, Roth-Roemer S, Abrams JR. Neuropsychologic changes from before transplantation to 1 year in patients receiving myeloablative allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant. Blood. 2004;104:3386–92.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Mulcahy Levy JM, Tello T, Giller R, Wilkening G, Quinones R, Keating AK, et al. Late effects of total body irradiation and hematopoietic stem cell transplant in children under 3 years of age. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2013;60:700–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Scott JG, Ostermeyer B, Shah AA. Neuropsychological assessment in neurocognitive disorders. Psychiatr Ann. 2016;46:118–26.

    Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Jones D, Vichaya EG, Wang XS, Sailors MH, Cleeland CS, Wefel JS. Acute cognitive impairment in patients with multiple myeloma undergoing autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant. Cancer. 2013;119:4188–95.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    van Dam FS, Schagen SB, Muller MJ, Boogerd W, vd Wall E, Droogleever Fortuyn ME, et al. Impairment of cognitive function in women receiving adjuvant treatment for high-risk breast cancer: high-dose versus standard-dose chemotherapy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998;90:210–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Booth-Jones M, Jacobsen PB, Ransom S, Soety E. Characteristics and correlates of cognitive functioning following bone marrow transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2005;36:695–702.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Meyers CA, Weitzner M, Byrne K, Valentine A, Champlin RE, Przepiorka D. Evaluation of the neurobehavioral functioning of patients before, during, and after bone marrow transplantation. J Clin Oncol: Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 1994;12:820–6.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Byrd D, Arentoft A, Scheiner D, Westerveld M, Baron IS. State of multicultural neuropsychological assessment in children: current research issues. Neuropsychol Rev. 2008;18:214–22.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Bevans MF, Mitchell SA, Barrett JA, Bishop MR, Childs R, Fowler D, et al. Symptom distress predicts long-term health and well-being in allogeneic stem cell transplantation survivors. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant: J Am Soc Blood Marrow Transplant. 2014;20:387–95.

    Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Hoogland AI, Nelson AM, Small BJ, Hyland KA, Gonzalez BD, Booth-Jones M, et al. The role of age in neurocognitive functioning among adult allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant recipients. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2017; 23: 1974–1979.

  26. 26.

    Syrjala KL, Artherholt SB, Kurland BF, Langer SL, Roth-Roemer S, Elrod JB, et al. Prospective neurocognitive function over 5 years after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation for cancer survivors compared with matched controls at 5 years. J Clin Oncol: Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2011;29: 2397–404.

    Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Phillips KM, McGinty HL, Cessna J, Asvat Y, Gonzalez B, Cases MG, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of changes in cognitive functioning in adults undergoing hematopoietic cell transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2013;48:1350–7.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Ahles TA, Saykin A. Cognitive effects of standard-dose chemotherapy in patients with cancer. Cancer Invest. 2001;19:812–20.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Hutchinson AD, Hosking JR, Kichenadasse G, Mattiske JK, Wilson C. Objective and subjective cognitive impairment following chemotherapy for cancer: a systematic review. Cancer Treat Rev. 2012;38:926–34.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Mayo S, Messner HA, Rourke SB, Howell D, Victor JC, Kuruvilla J, et al. Relationship between neurocognitive functioning and medication management ability over the first 6 months following allogeneic stem cell transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2016;51:841–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Cool VA. Long-term neuropsychological risks in pediatric bone marrow transplant: What do we know? Bone Marrow Transplant. 1996;18:S45–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Shah AJ, Epport K, Azen C, Killen R, Wilson K, De Clerck D, et al. Progressive declines in neurocognitive function among survivors of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for pediatric hematologic malignancies. J Pediatr Hematol/Oncol. 2008;30: 411–8.

    Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Kramer JH, Crittenden MR, DeSantes K, Cowan MJ. Cognitive and adaptive behavior 1 and 3 years following bone marrow transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant. 1997;19:607–13.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Kupst MJ, Penati B, Debban B, Camitta B, Pietryga D, Margolis D, et al. Cognitive and psychosocial functioning of pediatric hematopoietic stem cell transplant patients: a prospective longitudinal study. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2002;30:609–17.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Phipps S, Dunavant M, Srivastava DK, Bowman L, Mulhern RK. Cognitive and academic functioning in survivors of pediatric bone marrow transplantation. J Clin Oncol: Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2000;18:1004–11.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Simms S, Kazak AE, Golomb V, Goldwein J, Bunin N. Cognitive, behavioral, and social outcome in survivors of childhood stem cell transplantation. J Pediatr Hematol/Oncol. 2002;24:115–9.

    Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Phipps S, Rai SN, Leung WH, Lensing S, Dunavant M. Cognitive and academic consequences of stem-cell transplantation in children. J Clin Oncol: Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2008;26: 2027–33.

    Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Barrera M, Atenafu E. Cognitive, educational, psychosocial adjustment and quality of life of children who survive hematopoietic SCT and their siblings. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2008;42: 15–21.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Barrera M, Atenafu E, Andrews GS, Saunders F. Factors related to changes in cognitive, educational and visual motor integration in children who undergo hematopoietic stem cell transplant. J Pediatr Psychol. 2008;33:536–46.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Hiniker SM, Agarwal R, Modlin LA, Gray CC, Harris JP, Million L, et al. Survival and neurocognitive outcomes after cranial or craniospinal irradiation plus total-body irradiation before stem cell transplantation in pediatric leukemia patients with central nervous system involvement. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014;89:67–74.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Perkins JL, Kunin-Batson AS, Youngren NM, Ness KK, Ulrich KJ, Hansen MJ, et al. Long-term follow-up of children who underwent hematopoeitic cell transplant (HCT) for AML or ALL at less than 3 years of age. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2007;49: 958–63.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Phipps S, Brenner M, Heslop H, Krance R, Jayawardene D, Mulhern R. Psychological effects of bone marrow transplantation on children and adolescents: preliminary report of a longitudinal study. Bone Marrow Transplant. 1995;15:829–35.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Smedler AC, Bolme P. Neuropsychological deficits in very young bone marrow transplant recipients. Acta Paediatr (Oslo, Nor: 1992). 1995;84:429–33.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Notteghem P, Soler C, Dellatolas G, Kieffer-Renaux V, Valteau-Couanet D, Raimondo G, et al. Neuropsychological outcome in long-term survivors of a childhood extracranial solid tumor who have undergone autologous bone marrow transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2003;31:599–606.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Armstrong FD. Acute and long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes in children following bone marrow transplantation. Front Biosci. 2001;6:G6–12.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Clift RA, Buckner CD, Appelbaum FR, Bearman SI, Petersen FB, Fisher LD, et al. Allogeneic marrow transplantation in patients with acute myeloid leukemia in first remission: a randomized trial of two irradiation regimens. Blood. 1990;76: 1867–71.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Clift RA, Buckner CD, Appelbaum FR, Bryant E, Bearman SI, Petersen FB, et al. Allogeneic marrow transplantation in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia in the chronic phase: a randomized trial of two irradiation regimens. Blood. 1991;77:1660–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Schulz-Kindermann F, Mehnert A, Scherwath A, Schirmer B, Schleimer B, Zander AR, et al. Cognitive function in the acute course of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for hematological malignancies. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2007;39: 789–99.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Smedler AC, Nilsson C, Bolme P. Total body irradiation: a neuropsychological risk factor in pediatric bone marrow transplant recipients. Acta Paediatr. 1995;84:325–30.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Itzhaki RF, Wozniak MA. Viral infection and cognitive decline. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2007;55:131.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Bollard CM, Heslop HE. T cells for viral infections after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant. Blood. 2016;127: 3331–40.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Sittinger H, Muller M, Schweizer I, Merkelbach S. Mild cognitive impairment after viral meningitis in adults. J Neurol. 2002;249:554–60.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    delaTorre JC, Mallory M, Brot M, Gold L, Koob G, Oldstone MB, et al. Viral persistence in neurons alters synaptic plasticity and cognitive functions without destruction of brain cells. Virology. 1996;220:508–15.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Titman P, Pink E, Skucek E, O’Hanlon K, Cole TJ, Gaspar J, et al. Cognitive and behavioral abnormalities in children after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for severe congenital immunodeficiencies. Blood. 2008;112:3907–13.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Lin M, Epport K, Azen C, Parkman R, Kohn DB, Shah AJ. Long-term neurocognitive function of pediatric patients with severe combined immune deficiency (SCID): pre- and post-hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT). J Clin Immunol. 2009;29:231–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Allewelt H, El-Khorazaty J, Mendizabal A, Taskindoust M, Martin PL, Prasad V, et al. Late effects after umbilical cord blood transplantation in very young children after busulfan-based, myeloablative conditioning. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant: J Am Soc Blood Marrow Transplant. 2016;22:1627–35.

    Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Smith A. Viral infections, immune responses and cognitive performance. Int J Neurosci. 1990;51:355–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Braamse AMJ, Yi JC, Visser OJ, Heymans MW, van Meijel B, Dekker J, et al. Developing a Risk Prediction Model for Long-Term Physical and Psychological Functioning after Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2016;22:549–56.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Menefee LA, Frank ED, Crerand C, Jalali S, Park J, Sarschagrin K, et al. The effects of transdermal fentanyl on driving, cognitive performance, and balance in patients with chronic nonmalignant pain conditions. Pain Med (Malden, Mass). 2004;5:42–9.

    Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Lim J, Dinges DF. A meta-analysis of the impact of short-term sleep deprivation on cognitive variables. Psychol Bull. 2010;136:375–89.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Gruber SA, Silveri MM, Yurgelun-Todd DA. Neuropsychological consequences of opiate use. Neuropsychol Rev. 2007;17: 299–315.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Albers CA, Grieve AJ, Test Review, Bayley N. . Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development–Third Edition. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment. J Psychoeduc Assess. 2007;25:180–90.

    Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Cohen MJ. Children’s Memory Scale. In: Kreutzer JS, DeLuca J, Caplan B, editors. Encyclopedia of clinical neuropsychology. New York, NY: Springer New York; 2011. p. 556–9.

    Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    Conners CK, Epstein JN, Angold A, Klaric J. Continuous performance test performance in a normative epidemiological sample. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2003;31:555–62.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Wechsler D. WISC-III: Wechsler intelligence scale for children: Manual. Psychological Corporation; San Antonio, TX, 1991.

  66. 66.

    Gioia GA, Isquith PK, Guy SC, Kenworthy L, Baron IS. Test review: Behavior rating inventory of executive function. Child Neuropsychol. 2000;6:235–8.

    Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Delis DC, Freeland J, Kramer JH, Kaplan E. Integrating clinical assessment with cognitive neuroscience: construct validation of the California Verbal Learning Test. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1988;56:123–30.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Cullen B, O’Neill B, Evans JJ, Coen RF, Lawlor BA. A review of screening tests for cognitive impairment. J Neurol, Neurosurg & Psychiatry. 2007;78:790–9.

    Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    Teng EL, Chui HC. The Modified Mini-Mental State (3MS) examination. J Clin Psychiatry. 1987;48:314–8.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Teng EL, Hasegawa K, Homma A, Imai Y, Larson E, Graves A, et al. The Cognitive Abilities Screening Instrument (CASI): a practical test for cross-cultural epidemiological studies of dementia. Int Psychogeriatr. 1994;6:45–58.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. 71.

    Robbins TW, James M, Owen A, Shakian BJ, McInnes L, Rabbit PMv. Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery (CANTAB): a factor analytic study of a large sample of normal elderly volunteers. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 1994;5:266–81.

  72. 72.

    Randolph C, Tierney MC, Mohr E, Chase TN. The repeatable battery for the assessment of neuropsychological status (RBANS): Preliminary clinical validity. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 1998;20:310–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. 73.

    Golden CJ, Freshwater SM. Stroop color and word test; Stoelting Co., Chicago, IL, USA, 1978.

  74. 74.

    Heaton RK. Wisconsin card sorting test: computer version 2. Odessa: Psychological Assessment Resources; 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  75. 75.

    Tombaugh TN. Trail Making Test A and B: Normative data stratified by age and education. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2004;19:203–14.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. 76.

    Benedict RHB, Schretlen D, Groninger L, Brandt J. Hopkins Verbal Learning Test Revised: Normative data and analysis of inter-form and test-retest reliability. Clin Neuropsychol. 1998;12:43–55.

    Google Scholar 

  77. 77.

    Fastenau PS, Denburg NL, Hufford BJ. Adult norms for the Rey-Osterrieth complex figure test and for supplemental recognition and matching trials from the extended complex figure test. Clin Neuropsychol. 1999;13:30–47.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. 78.

    Ruff RM, Parker SB. Gender-and age-specific changes in motor speed and eye-hand coordination in adults: normative values for the Finger Tapping and Grooved Pegboard Tests. Percept Mot Skills. 1993;76:1219–30.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. 79.

    Drachman DA, Swearer JM, Kane K, Osgood D, Otoole C, Moonis M. The Cognitive Assessment Screening Test (CAST) for dementia. J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol. 1996;9:200–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. 80.

    Denlinger CS, Ligibel JA, Are M, Baker KS, Denmark-Wahnefried W, Friedman DL, et al. Survivorship: cognitive function, version 1.2014. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw: Jnccn. 2014;12:976–86.

    Google Scholar 

  81. 81.

    Jacobs SR, Small BJ, Booth-Jones M, Jacobsen PB, Fields KK. Changes in cognitive functioning in the year after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Cancer. 2007;110:1560–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. 82.

    Atherton PJ, Sloan JA. Rising importance of patient-reported outcomes. Lancet Oncol. 2006;7:883–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. 83.

    Kenzik KM, Huang IC, Brinkman TM, Baughman B, Ness KK, Shenkman EA, et al. The Childhood Cancer Survivor Study-Neurocognitive Questionnaire (CCSS-NCQ) revised: item response analysis and concurrent validity. Neuropsychology. 2015;29:31–44.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. 84.

    Dyson GJ, Thompson K, Palmer S, Thomas DM, Schofield P. The relationship between unmet needs and distress amongst young people with cancer. Support Care Cancer. 2012;20:75–85.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. 85.

    Gordijn MS, van Litsenburg RR, Gemke RJ, Huisman J, Bierings MB, Hoogerbrugge PM, et al. Sleep, fatigue, depression, and quality of life in survivors of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2013;60:479–85.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. 86.

    Grulke N, Albani C, Bailer H. Quality of life in patients before and after haematopoietic stem cell transplantation measured with the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Core Questionnaire QLQ-C30. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2012;47:473–82.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. 87.

    Kanellopoulos A, Hamre HM, Dahl AA, Fossa SD, Ruud E. Factors associated with poor quality of life in survivors of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia and lymphoma. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2013;60:849–55.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. 88.

    Khan AG, Irfan M, Shamsi TS, Hussain M. Psychiatric disorders in bone marrow transplant patients. J Coll Physicians Surg--Pak: Jcpsp. 2007;17:98–100.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. 89.

    Langeveld NE, Stam H, Grootenhuis MA, Last BF. Quality of life in young adult survivors of childhood cancer. Support Care Cancer. 2002;10:579–600.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. 90.

    Masule MS, Arbabi M, Ghaeli P, Hadjibabaie M, Torkamandi H. Assessing cognition, depression and anxiety in hospitalized patients during pre and post-Bone Marrow Transplantation. Iran J Psychiatry. 2014;9:64.

    Google Scholar 

  91. 91.

    Artherholt SB, Hong F, Berry DL, Fann JR. Risk factors for depression in patients undergoing hematopoietic cell transplantation. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant: J Am Soc Blood Marrow Transplant. 2014;20:946–50.

    Google Scholar 

  92. 92.

    Cohen MZ, Rozmus CL, Mendoza TR, Padhye NS, Neumann J, Gning I, et al. Symptoms and quality of life in diverse patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2012;44:168–80.

    Google Scholar 

  93. 93.

    van de Pol M, Twijnstra A, ten Velde GPM, Menheere PPCA. Neuron-specific enolase as a marker of brain metastasis in patients with small-cell lung carcinoma. J Neurooncol. 1994;19: 149–54.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. 94.

    Jacot W, Quantin X, Boher JM, Andre F, Moreau L, Gainet M, et al. Brain metastases at the time of presentation of non-small cell lung cancer: a multi-centric AERIO analysis of prognostic factors. Br J Cancer. 2001;84:903–9.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  95. 95.

    Foerch C, du Mesnil de Rochemont R, Singer O, Neumann-Haefelin T, Buchkremer M, Zanella FE, et al. S100B as a surrogate marker for successful clot lysis in hyperacute middle cerebral artery occlusion. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2003;74:322–5.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  96. 96.

    Vogelbaum MA, Masaryk T, Mazzone P, Mekhail T, Fazio V, McCartney S, et al. S100beta as a predictor of brain metastases: brain versus cerebrovascular damage. Cancer. 2005;104:817–24.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. 97.

    Kaskel P, Berking C, Sander S, Volkenandt M, Peter RU, Krahn G. S-100 protein in peripheral blood: a marker for melanoma metastases: a prospective 2-center study of 570 patients with melanoma. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1999;41:962–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. 98.

    Wick W, Platten M, Meisner C, Felsberg J, Tabatabai G, Simon M, et al. Temozolomide chemotherapy alone versus radiotherapy alone for malignant astrocytoma in the elderly: the NOA-08 randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13:707–15.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. 99.

    Kaiser E, Kuzmits R, Pregant P, Burghuber O, Worofka W. Clinical biochemistry of neuron specific enolase. Clin Chim Acta. 1989;183:13–31.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. 100.

    Kanner AA, Marchi N, Fazio V, Mayberg MR, Koltz MT, Siomin V, et al. Serum s100 beta - A noninvasive marker of blood-brain barrier function and brain lesions. Cancer. 2003;97:2806–13.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  101. 101.

    Castillo J, Davalos A, Noya M. Progression of ischaemic stroke and excitotoxic aminoacids. Lancet (Lond, Engl). 1997;349: 79–83.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  102. 102.

    Serena J, Leira R, Castillo J, Pumar JM, Castellanos M, Davalos A. Neurological deterioration in acute lacunar infarctions: the role of excitatory and inhibitory neurotransmitters. Stroke. 2001;32:1154–61.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. 103.

    Hong JH, Chiang CS, Campbell IL, Sun JR, Withers HR, McBride WH. Induction of acute phase gene expression by brain irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1995;33:619–26.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. 104.

    Wickremesekera JK, Chen W, Cannan RJ, Stubbs RS. Serum proinflammatory cytokine response in patients with advanced liver tumors following selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT) with (90)Yttrium microspheres. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2001;49:1015–21.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. 105.

    Castellanos M, Castillo J, Garcia MM, Leira R, Serena J, Chamorro A, et al. Inflammation-mediated damage in progressing lacunar infarctions: a potential therapeutic target. Stroke. 2002;33:982–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. 106.

    Vila N, Castillo J, Davalos A, Chamorro A. Proinflammatory cytokines and early neurological worsening in ischemic stroke. Stroke. 2000;31:2325–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. 107.

    Patel SK, Wong AL, Wong FL, Breen EC, Hurria A, Smith M, et al. Inflammatory biomarkers, comorbidity, and neurocognition in women with newly diagnosed breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015;107:djv131.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  108. 108.

    Caron JE, Krull KR, Hockenberry M, Jain N, Kaemingk K, Moore IM. Oxidative stress and executive function in children receiving chemotherapy for acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2009;53:551–6.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  109. 109.

    Sharafeldin N, Bosworth A, Chen Y, Patel SK, Singh P, Wang X, et al. Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with cognitive impairment in patients treated with hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT): A Longitudinal Study. Am Soc Hematology. 2016;128:824.

  110. 110.

    Cao Y, Tsien CI, Sundgren PC, Nagesh V, Normille D, Buchtel H, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging as a biomarker for prediction of radiation-induced neurocognitive dysfunction. Clin Cancer Res: Off J Am Assoc Cancer Res. 2009;15:1747–54.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  111. 111.

    Zeller B, Tamnes CK, Kanellopoulos A, Amlien IK, Andersson S, Due-Tonnessen P, et al. Reduced neuroanatomic volumes in long-term survivors of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia. J Clin Oncol: Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2013;31:2078–85.

    Google Scholar 

  112. 112.

    Correa DD, Root JC, Baser R, Moore D, Peck KK, Lis E, et al. A prospective evaluation of changes in brain structure and cognitive functions in adult stem cell transplant recipients. Brain Imaging Behav. 2013;7:478–90.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  113. 113.

    Lyon DE, Cohen R, Chen H, Kelly DL, Starkweather A, Ahn HC, et al. The relationship of cognitive performance to concurrent symptoms, cancer- and cancer-treatment-related variables in women with early-stage breast cancer: a 2-year longitudinal study. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2016;142:1461–74.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  114. 114.

    Chou RH, Wong GB, Kramer JH, Wara WM, Cowan MJ. Toxicities of total-body irradiation for pediatric bone marrow transplantation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1996;34:843–51.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  115. 115.

    Kramer JH, Crittenden MR, Halberg FE, Wara WM, Cowan MJ. A prospective study of cognitive functioning following low-dose cranial radiation for bone marrow transplantation. Pediatrics. 1992;90:447–50.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  116. 116.

    Siegal D, Keller A, Xu W, Bhuta S, Kim DH, Kuruvilla J, et al. Central nervous system complications after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: incidence, manifestations, and clinical significance. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant: J Am Soc Blood Marrow Transplant. 2007;13:1369–79.

    Google Scholar 

  117. 117.

    Schmidt V, Prell T, Treschl A, Klink A, Hochhaus A, Sayer HG. Clinical management of posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: A case series and review of the literature. Acta Haematol. 2016;135:1–10.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  118. 118.

    Moskowitz A, Nolan C, Lis E, Castro-Malaspina H, Perales MA. Posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome due to sirolimus. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2007;39:653–4.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  119. 119.

    Jodele S, Zhang K, Zou F, Laskin B, Dandoy CE, Myers KC, et al. The genetic fingerprint of susceptibility for transplant-associated thrombotic microangiopathy. Blood. 2016;127:989–96.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  120. 120.

    de Fontbrune FS, Galambrun C, Sirvent A, Huynh A, Faguer S, Nguyen S, et al. Use of Eculizumab in Patients With Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplant-Associated Thrombotic Microangiopathy: A Study From the SFGM-TC. Transplantation. 2015;99:1953–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  121. 121.

    Butler RW, Fairclough DL, Mulhern RK, Katz ER, Kazak AE, Noll RB, et al. A multicenter, randomized clinical trial of a Cognitive Remediation Program for childhood survivors of a pediatric malignancy. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2008;76:367–78.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  122. 122.

    Castellino SM, Ullrich NJ, Whelen MJ, Lange BJ. Developing interventions for cancer-related cognitive dysfunction in childhood cancer survivors. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014;106:dju186.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  123. 123.

    Patel SK, Katz ER, Richardson R, Rimmer M, Kilian S. Cognitive and problem solving training in children with cancer: a pilot project. J Pediatr Hematol/Oncol. 2009;31:670–7.

    Google Scholar 

  124. 124.

    Conklin HM, Ogg RJ, Ashford JM, Scoggins MA, Zou P, Clark KN, et al. Computerized Cognitive Training for Amelioration of Cognitive Late Effects Among Childhood Cancer Survivors: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:3894.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  125. 125.

    Hardy KK, Willard VW, Bonner MJ. Computerized cognitive training in survivors of childhood cancer: A pilot study. J Pediatr Oncol Nurs. 2011;28:27–33.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  126. 126.

    Campbell KL, Kam JW, Neil-Sztramko SE, Liu Ambrose T, Handy TC, Lim HJ, et al. Effect of aerobic exercise on cancer-associated cognitive impairment: A proof-of-concept RCT. Psycho-oncology. 2017.

  127. 127.

    Thompson SJ, Leigh L, Christensen R, Xiong X, Kun LE, Heideman RL, et al. Immediate neurocognitive effects of methylphenidate on learning-impaired survivors of childhood cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19:1802–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  128. 128.

    Netson KL, Conklin HM, Ashford JM, Kahalley LS, Wu S, Xiong X. Parent and teacher ratings of attention during a year-long methylphenidate trial in children treated for cancer. J Pediatr Psychol. 2011;36:438–50.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  129. 129.

    Shaw EG, Rosdhal R, D’Agostino RB, Lovato J, Naughton MJ, Robbins ME, et al. Phase II study of donepezil in irradiated brain tumor patients: Effect on cognitive function, mood, and quality of life. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:1415–20.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  130. 130.

    Kohli S, Fisher SG, Tra Y, Adams MJ, Mapstone ME, Wesnes KA, et al. The effect of modafinil on cognitive function in breast cancer survivors. Cancer . 2009;115:2605–16.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  131. 131.

    Huisman J, Aukema EJ, Deijen JB, van Coeverden SC, Kaspers GJ, van der pal HJ, et al. The usefulness of growth hormone treatment for psychological status in young adult survivors of childhood leukaemia: an open-label study. BMC Pediatr. 2008;8:8.

    Google Scholar 

  132. 132.

    Vakil E. Neuropsychological assessment: Principles, rationale, and challenges. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2012;34:135–50.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  133. 133.

    Manly T, Fish J, Mattingley JB. Adult neuropsychology: visuo-spatial and attentional disorders. Wiley, Chichester, UK; 2012.

  134. 134.

    Evans JJ. Disorders of memory. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, UK; 2012.

  135. 135.

    Burgess PW, Alderman N. Executive dysfunction. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, UK; 2012.

  136. 136.

    Johnson DW, Cagnoni PJ, Schossau TM, Stemmer SM, Grayeb DE, Baron AE, et al. Optic disc and retinal microvasculopathy after high-dose chemotherapy and autologous hematopoietic progenitor cell support. Bone Marrow Transplant. 1999;24:785–92.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  137. 137.

    Burger PC, Kamenar E, Schold SC, Fay JW, Phillips GL, Herzig GP. Encephalomyelopathy following high dose BCNU therapy. Cancer. 1981;48:1318–27.

    Google Scholar 

  138. 138.

    Baker WJ, Royer GL, Weiss RB. Cytarabine and neurologic toxicit. J Clin Oncol. 1991;9:679–93.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  139. 139.

    Leff RS, Thompson JM, Daly MB, Johnson DB, Harden EA, Mercier RJ, et al. Acute neurologic dysfunction after high-dose etoposide therapy for malignant glioma. Cancer. 1988;62:32–35.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  140. 140.

    Pratt CB, Goren MP, Meyer WH, Singh B, Dodge RK. Ifosfamide neurotoxicity is related to previous cisplatin treatment for pediatric solid tumors. J Clin Oncol: Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 1990;8:1399–401.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  141. 141.

    DiMaggio JR, Brown R, Baile WF, Schapira D. Hallucinations and ifosfamide-induced neurotoxicity. Cancer. 1994;73: 1509–14.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  142. 142.

    McKinney AM, Short J, Truwit CL, McKinney CJ, Kozak OS, SantaCruz KS, et al. Posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome: Incidence of atypical regions of involvement and imaging findings. Am J Roentgenol. 2007;189:904–12.

    Google Scholar 

  143. 143.

    Schwartz RB, Bravo SM, Klufas RA, Hsu L, Barnes PD, Robson CD, et al. Cyclosporine neurotoxicity and its relationship to hypertensive encephalopathy: CT and MR findings in 16 cases. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1995;165:627–31.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  144. 144.

    Hinchey J, Chaves C, Appignani B, Breen J, Pao L, Wang A, et al. A reversible posterior leukoencephalopathy syndrome. N Engl J Med. 1996;334:494–500.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  145. 145.

    Yoshikawa T. Human herpesvirus-6 and-7 infections in transplantation. Pediatr Transplant. 2003;7:11–17.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  146. 146.

    Gorniak RJT, Young GS, Wiese DE, Marty FM, Schwartz RB. MR imaging of human herpesvirus-6-associated encephalitis in 4 patients with anterograde amnesia after allogeneic hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation. Am J Neuroradiol. 2006;27:887–91.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references


CIBMTR Support List

The CIBMTR is supported primarily by Public Health Service Grant/Cooperative Agreement 5U24-CA076518 from the National Cancer Institute (NCI), the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID); a Grant/Cooperative Agreement 5U10HL069294 from NHLBI and NCI; a contract HHSH250201200016C with Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA/DHHS); two Grants N00014-15-1-0848 and N00014-16-1-2020 from the Office of Naval Research; and grants from *Actinium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Alexion; *Amgen, Inc.; Anonymous donation to the Medical College of Wisconsin; Astellas Pharma US; AstraZeneca; Atara Biotherapeutics, Inc.; Be the Match Foundation; *Bluebird Bio, Inc.; *Bristol Myers Squibb Oncology; *Celgene Corporation; Cellular Dynamics International, Inc.; Cerus Corporation; *Chimerix, Inc.; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center; Gamida Cell Ltd.; Genentech, Inc.; Genzyme Corporation; Gilead Sciences, Inc.; Health Research, Inc. Roswell Park Cancer Institute; HistoGenetics, Inc.; Incyte Corporation; Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC; *Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Jeff Gordon Children’s Foundation; The Leukemia and Lymphoma Society; Medac, GmbH; MedImmune; The Medical College of Wisconsin; *Merck and Co, Inc.; *Mesoblast; MesoScale Diagnostics, Inc.; *Miltenyi Biotec, Inc.; National Marrow Donor Program; Neovii Biotech NA, Inc.; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation; Onyx Pharmaceuticals; Optum Healthcare Solutions, Inc.; Otsuka America Pharmaceutical, Inc.; Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co, Ltd.—Japan; PCORI; Perkin Elmer, Inc.; Pfizer, Inc; *Sanofi US; *Seattle Genetics; *Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; St. Baldrick’s Foundation; *Sunesis Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Swedish Orphan Biovitrum, Inc.; Takeda Oncology; Telomere Diagnostics, Inc.; University of Minnesota; and *Wellpoint, Inc. The views expressed in this article do not reflect the official policy or position of the National Institute of Health, the Department of the Navy, the Department of Defense, Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) or any other agency of the U.S. Government.

*Corporate Members

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Buchbinder.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

David Buchbinder and Debra Lynch Kelly contributed equally to this work.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Buchbinder, D., Kelly, D.L., Duarte, R.F. et al. Neurocognitive dysfunction in hematopoietic cell transplant recipients: expert review from the late effects and Quality of Life Working Committee of the CIBMTR and complications and Quality of Life Working Party of the EBMT. Bone Marrow Transplant 53, 535–555 (2018).

Download citation

Further reading


Quick links