Glioma, MalignantFREEDOMENCT06468176
Efficacy of a Mixed Distancial Neuropsychological Rehabilitation Program in Patients With Grade 2 or 3 Diffuse Glioma
A study testing Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) neuropsychologist in people with Glioma, Malignant, run by Institut du Cancer de Montpellier - Val d'Aurelle at 8 sites in France.
Trial summary
Diffuse low-grade glioma are rare brain tumors affecting young subjects (median age at diagnosis 38 years for grade 2 and 49 years for grade 3). Cognitive symptoms are common in these patients, including memory, attention and executive function disorders. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Glioma, Malignant
- What is being tested?
- Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) neuropsychologist
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 187 participants
- Where
- 8 sitesFrance
- Study dates
- 5 Jul 2024to 15 Dec 2027
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Not yet: the study is under way
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Age ≥18 years old, no age limit;
- Histo-molecular diagnosis of grade 2 or 3 diffuse glioma according to World Health Organization (WHO) Classification 2016, regardless of oncological treatments previously received;
- Patient in satisfactory general condition for the study, defined by a WHO performance index ≤ 2 (ECOG-Performance Status (PS) ≤ 2);
- Neurosurgical excision (excluding biopsy) performed ≥ 12 months previously;
- In the case of oncological treatment, patient who has completed his sessions (radiotherapy, chemotherapy) for ≥ 6 months;
- Patient presenting a cognitive complaint defined as a response rated at least "Fairly" to at least one of the 2 items (n°20 and 25) assessing cognitive complaint in the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire (i.e., defined as a score on the "Cognitive Functioning" scale ≤ 66.67);
Show all 10Show fewer
- Fluent in French;
- Affiliation to the French Social Security System;
- Possible regular use of a digital tool with Internet access;
- Signature of informed consent prior to any study procedure.
Who cannot join
- Visual or auditory deficit not corrected to normal and/or preventing use of computer tools (i.e., homonymous lateral hemianopia is not a criterion for non-inclusion) ;
- Concurrent participation in a study with cognition as primary endpoint (e.g., "POLCA", " POLO " clinical trials) ;
- Legal incapacity or physical, psychological, social or geographical conditions preventing the patient from signing the consent form or completing the study ;
- Unstable or uncontrolled psychiatric syndrome (i.e., psychotropic treatments are not a criterion for non-inclusion if doses are stable) ;
- Known severe cognitive impairment (e.g., neurodegenerative disease, sequelae of head trauma, etc.) or defined by a score ≤ 20 on the MoCA test or impacting the ability to use digital tools at home ;
- Oncological treatment (radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy and/or surgery) planned within 4 months of inclusion. Targeted anti-Isocitrate DeHydrogenase (IDH) therapies are authorized.
Trial locations and contacts
8 sites in 1 country. Contact the study team or a site near you to ask about taking part.
8 sites in 1 country
France8 sites, 8 recruiting
- Not yet recruiting
CHU Amiens
Amiens
Mathieu BOONE, MD
- Not yet recruiting
CHU Bordeaux
Bordeaux
Charlotte BRONNIMANN, MD
- Not yet recruiting
CHU Lyon
Lyon
François DUCRAY, MD
- Not yet recruiting
Hôpital de la Timone
Marseille
Emeline TABOURET, MD
- Recruiting
Institut régional du Cancer de Montpellier
Montpellier, Hérault, 34298
Amélie DARLIX, MD, 4 67 61 25 57 ext. +33, amelie.darlix@icm.unicancer.fr
Amelie DARLIX, MD
- Not yet recruiting
CHU Nancy
Nancy
Luc TAILLANDIER, MD
- Not yet recruiting
CHU Nîmes
Nîmes
Jean-Sébastien GUILLAMO, MD
- Not yet recruiting
Institut Claudius Régaud
Toulouse, 31059
Delphine LARRIEU-CIRON, MD
About this study
Official title: Efficacy of a Mixed Distancial Neuropsychological Rehabilitation Program in Patients With Grade 2 or 3 Diffuse Glioma : a Randomized Controlled Trial
Diffuse low-grade glioma are rare brain tumors affecting young subjects (median age at diagnosis 38 years for grade 2 and 49 years for grade 3). Cognitive symptoms are common in these patients, including memory, attention and executive function disorders. These disorders may have a deleterious impact on patients' professional, family and social lives, and have a negative impact on their quality of life. The benefits of cognitive rehabilitation have been demonstrated in other neurological pathologies. Furthermore, due to limited access to rehabilitation by neuropsychologists, some studies have evaluated the impact of digital cognitive rehabilitation programs. However, it cannot replace human support.
Read the detailed description
Diffuse Low-Grade Gliomas (DLGG) are rare tumors that affect young subjects (median age at diagnosis 38 years for grade 2 and 49 for grade 3). Overall survival varies from 5 to 15 years. Cognitive symptoms are common in these patients, notably impaired memory, attention and executive functions. For examples, in a prospective study conducted by our team, 40-53% of patients with grade 2 DLGG starting first-line chemotherapy had a cognitive complaint. These findings are in line with a recent meta-analysis based on 11 studies involving 313 glioma patients. These cognitive disorders can have a deleterious impact on patients' professional, family and social lives, and have a negative impact on their quality of life. The value of cognitive rehabilitation has been demonstrated in other neurological pathologies. Randomized controlled trials in DLGG are promising, but are ultimately few in number and/or have significant limitations (e.g. small number of patients, sample heterogeneity, questionable matching criteria, lack of control group). Furthermore, due to limited access to rehabilitation by neuropsychologists, some studies have evaluated the impact of digital cognitive rehabilitation programs. Although this type of tool seems particularly well suited to this young patient population, it cannot replace human accompaniment by a neuropsychologist. Indeed, we know the importance of the patient's human therapeutic alliance for adherence to a program. Moreover, certain psychopathological variables (e.g. anxiety, depression) have a significant impact on both neurocognitive abilities and complaints, justifying the intervention of a neuropsychologist specialized in oncology.
- Conditions
- Glioma, Malignant
- Being tested
- Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) neuropsychologist
- Keywords
- Oncology, Neurologic Disorder, Neuropsychological rehabilitation, Diffuse Glioma
- Medical subject headings
- Glioma, Neoplasms, Nervous System Diseases
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) neuropsychologistOther
Also called digital program
- CBT: at least 3 teleconsultations by the neuropsychologist (up to 1/week maximum)
- Brain Head Quarters (BrainHQ) Digital program: 4 sessions of 40 minutes / week
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Intervention group | Experimental | Study therapy will include a mixed intervention by a neuropsychologist and a program based on a digital tool Receives: Other: Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) neuropsychologist |
| Control group | No intervention | Usual management of the cognitive complaint according to the habits of center |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Score in the Perceived Cognitive Impairment (PCI) subscale of Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Cognitive Function (FACT-Cog) questionnaire
The FACT-Cog is a self-assessment questionnaire to estimate memory, attention, concentration, language, and thinking abilities of patients before, during, and after chemotherapy. This questionnaire, composed of 37 items consists of four subscales: cognitive impairments perceived by the patient (20 items), comments from others (4 items), cognitive abilities perceived by the patient (9items), and impact on quality of life (4 items). The Perceived Cognitive Impairments and the Comments from Others subscales are rated on 5-point Likert-type scale (from 0 = "Never" to 4 = "Several times a day"). An intensity 5-point Likert-type scale (from 0 "Not at all" to 4 "Very much") is used to rate perceived cognitive abilities and the impact on quality of life. For all subscales, a higher score represents better cognitive functioning or quality of life
Measured: 4 months
Secondary outcomes (24)
Score in the PCI subscale of FACT-Cog questionnaire
The FACT-Cog is a self-assessment questionnaire to estimate memory, attention, concentration, language, and thinking abilities of patients before, during, and after chemotherapy. This questionnaire, composed of 37 items consists of four subscales: cognitive impairments perceived by the patient (20 items), comments from others (4 items), cognitive abilities perceived by the patient (9items), and impact on quality of life (4 items). The Perceived Cognitive Impairments and the Comments from Others subscales are rated on 5-point Likert-type scale (from 0 = "Never" to 4 = "Several times a day"). An intensity 5-point Likert-type scale (from 0 "Not at all" to 4 "Very much") is used to rate perceived cognitive abilities and the impact on quality of life. For all subscales, a higher score represents better cognitive functioning or quality of life.
Measured: 6, 12 and 18 months
Score in the " Comments from the others " subscale of the FACT-Cog
The FACT-Cog is a self-assessment questionnaire to estimate memory, attention, concentration, language, and thinking abilities of patients before, during, and after chemotherapy. This questionnaire, composed of 37 items consists of four subscales including comments from other (4 items). This subscale is rated on 5-point Likert-type scale (from 0 = "Never" to 4 = "Several times a day"). A higher score represents better cognitive functioning or quality of life.
Measured: At baseline, 4, 6, 12 and 18 months
Score in the " Cognitive abilities perceived by the patient " subscale of the FACT-Cog
The FACT-Cog is a self-assessment questionnaire to estimate memory, attention, concentration, language, and thinking abilities of patients before, during, and after chemotherapy. This questionnaire, composed of 37 items consists of four subscales including cognitive abilities perceived by the patient (9 items). An intensity 5-point Likert-type scale (from 0 "Not at all" to 4 "Very much") is used to rate perceived cognitive abilities. A higher score represents better cognitive functioning or quality of life.
Measured: At baseline, 4 months, 6 months, 12 months, 18 months
Score in the " Impact on quality of life " subscale of the FACT-Cog
The FACT-Cog is a self-assessment questionnaire to estimate memory, attention, concentration, language, and thinking abilities of patients before, during, and after chemotherapy. This questionnaire, composed of 37 items consists of four subscales including impact on quality of life (4 items). An intensity 5-point Likert-type scale (from 0 "Not at all" to 4 "Very much") is used to rate the impact on quality of life. A higher score represents better cognitive functioning or quality of life.
Measured: At baseline, 4 months, 6 months, 12 months, 18 months
FACT-Cog cognitive complaints questionnaire and the main neurocognitive domains
Correlations between scores on the 4 subscales of the FACT-Cog cognitive complaints questionnaire and the main neurocognitive domains (score on global functioning, executive functions, language, working memory, processing speed and social cognition).
Measured: At baseline, 4 months and 12 months
Score in the 2 scales of Prospective and Retrospective Memory Questionnaire (PRMQ) for patient and family caregiver
The Prospective and Retrospective Memory Questionnaire (PRMQ) is one of the most commonly used scales to assess both retrospective memory (RM) and prospective memory (PM) complaints. The PRMQ is a 16-item, self-report measure of prospective and retrospective failures in everyday life. 8 items enquire about PM and 8 enquire about RM. The items were also designed to contain an equal number of items concerned with either self-cued memory or environmentally-cued memory, and with short-term versus long-term memory.
Measured: At baseline, 4 months, 6 months, 12 months, 18 months
Difference in score on psychopathological distress via Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS)
The HADS is a 14 items questionnaire: 7 items related to anxiety and 7 items related to depression scored on a scale. Scores for items in each subscale of the HADS are summed to produce an anxiety score (HADS-A) or a depression score (HADS-D), or can be added to produce a total score corresponding to emotional distress (HADS-T). Each item is rated on a 4-point Likert scale (1 = "not at all", 2 = "a little", 3 = "quite a bit", and 4 = "very much"), for a total score ranging from 0-21 for each subscale. The entire scale (emotional distress) range from 0 to 42, with higher scores indicating more distress
Measured: At baseline, 4 months, 6 months, 12 months, 18 months
Difference in score on quality of life questionnaire Quality of Life Questionnaire - Core (30EORTC QLQ-C30)
Developed by the EORTC, this self-reported questionnaire assesses the health-related quality of life of cancer patients in clinical trials. The questionnaire includes five functional scales (physical, everyday activity, cognitive, emotional, and social), three symptom scales (fatigue, pain, nausea and vomiting), a health/quality of life overall scale, and a number of additional elements assessing common symptoms (including dyspnea, loss of appetite, insomnia, constipation, and diarrhea), as well as, the perceived financial impact of the disease. All of the scales and single-item measures range in score from 0 to 100. A high scale score represents a higher response level.
Measured: At baseline, 4 months, 6 months, 12 months, 18 months
Difference in score on quality of life questionnaire Quality of Life Questionnaire - Brain Neoplasm (EORTC QLQ-BN20)
This EORTC brain cancer specific questionnaire is intended to supplement the QLQ-C30. The QLQ-BN20 contains 20 items organized into four scales (three items each: future uncertainty, visual disorder, motor dysfunction, and communication deficit), and seven single items (headaches, seizures, drowsiness, hair loss, itchy skin, weakness of legs, and bladder control). All items are rated on a four-point Likert-type scale (1 = "not at all", 2 = "a little", 3 = "quite a bit", and 4 = "very much"), and are linearly transformed to a 0-100 scale, with higher scores indicating more severe symptoms.
Measured: At baseline, 4 months, 6 months, 12 months, 18 months
Difference in score on fatigue via Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI-20)
The MFI-20 is a 20-item scale designed to evaluate five dimensions of fatigue: general fatigue, physical fatigue, reduced motivation, reduced activity, and mental fatigue. The patient positions himself on a 5-point scale, according to the fatigue he felt the days before the assessment. The " strongly agree " position is worth 5 points, and the " strongly disagree " position is worth 1 point. The score is calculated by adding up the points on the scale. The higher is the score, the more severe is the the fatigue.
Measured: At baseline, 4 months, 6 months, 12 months, 18 months
Compliance of intervention
Patient adherence to the intervention defined as completion of at least 25 hours of the digital program out of the recommended 40 hours (calculated automatically by the software), and completion of the 3 neuropsycho-oncology (tele)consultations
Measured: 4 months
Difference in score on neurocognitive test via Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA)
Lasting 10 to 15 minutes, the test assesses mild to moderate cognitive dysfunction, evaluating the following functions: attention, concentration, executive functions, memory, language, visuo-constructive abilities, abstraction skills, calculation, orientation.
Measured: At baseline and 4 and 12 months, respectively
2 scores on the Prospective and Retrospective Memory Questionnaire (PRMQ) and the main cognitive domains
Correlations between the 2 scores on the PRMQ and the main cognitive domains (score for global functioning, executive functions, language, working memory, processing speed and social cognition)
Measured: At baseline, 4 months and 12 months
Proportion of patients returning to work
Proportion of patients returning to work or increasing their working hours
Measured: At baseline, 4 months, 6 months, 12 months, 18 months
Difference in score on depression via Beck Depression Inventory II (BDI-II)
The Beck Depression Inventory is used to detect depression and its severity. It is a self-assessment test with 21-items and 4 types of response. These range from 0 to 3 and describe the extent to which we identify the reality described. 0 means not identifying at all and 3 describes a fact which identify almost 100%. Four basic categories are established according to the results obtained : 0-13 = low depression, 14-19 = mild depression, 20-28 = moderate depression and 29-63 = severe depression.
Measured: At baseline, 4 months, 6 months, 12 months, 18 months
Difference in score on anxiety via State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-Y)
The STAI-Y is a test designed to assess momentary and habitual anxiety. It comprises 2 scales of 20 items each: anxiety-state scale assesses the feelings of apprehension, tension, nervousness and concerns that the subject feels at the time of the consultation. It is an indicator of transient changes in anxiety caused by therapeutic or aversive situations.
The anxiety-trait scale assesses the feelings of apprehension, tension, nervousness and concerns that the subject usually experiences. The purpose of this scale is to identify anxiety as a stable disposition. It thus forms the starting point for therapeutic action.
The STAI-Y is also used to study the effect of anxiety on memory, learning performance or adjustment to stressful situations
Measured: At baseline, 4 months, 6 months, 12 months, 18 months
Difference in score on irritability via Brief Irritability Test (BIT) for patient and family caregiver
The Brief Irritability Test is a brief, reliable, and valid self-report measure of irritability with 5-items. The answers are rated from never to always.
Measured: At baseline, 4 months, 6 months, 12 months, 18 months
Difference in score on insomnia via Insomnia Severity Index (ISI)
The ISI is a 7-item self-report questionnaire assessing the nature, severity, and impact of insomnia. The usual recall period is the "last month" and the dimensions evaluated are: severity of sleep onset, sleep maintenance, and early morning awakening problems, sleep dissatisfaction, interference of sleep difficulties with daytime functioning, noticeability of sleep problems by others, and distress caused by the sleep difficulties. A 5-point Likert scale is used to rate each item (e.g., 0 = no problem; 4 = very severe problem), yielding a total score ranging from 0 to 28. The total score is interpreted as follows: absence of insomnia (0-7); sub-threshold insomnia (8-14); moderate insomnia (15-21); and severe insomnia (22-28).
Measured: At baseline, 4 months, 6 months, 12 months, 18 months
Difference in score on cognitive abilities index via Wechsler Adult Intelligent Scale (WAIS-IV)
This test assesses cognitive abilities across various domains. It comprises 10 core subtests that yield four factor index scores (i.e., Verbal Comprehension: measures language use and long-term memory, Perceptual Reasoning: assesses logical reasoning and visual-spatial abilities, Working Memory: evaluates short-term memory, and Processing Speed: gauges processing speed) as well as the full-scale IQ. There are also five supplemental subtests that can be used as an alternative to the core subtests. In the FREEDOME study, the following sub-tests will be used:
- Digit Symbol Substitution Test
- Code test
- Verbal Digit-span test
- Arithmetic
Measured: At Baseline, 4 months, 12 months
Difference in score on verbal learning and memory via Hopkins Verbal Learning Test (HVLT)
This test provides a measure of verbal learning and memory. Following each administration, subjects were asked for an immediate free recall. Twenty minutes later, used for intercurrent tasks, subjects were asked for a delayed free recall, which was immediately followed by a recognition memory task. In this task, subjects listened to a list of 24 words, 12 belonging to the studied list and 12 were distractors; the subjects were asked to recognize the 12 studied words.
Measured: At Baseline, 4 months, 12 months
Difference in score on processing speed and executive function via Stroop Delis-Kaplan test
The Delis-Kaplan Executive Function System (D-KEFS) Color-Word-Interference Test (CWIT; AKA Stroop test) is a widely used measure of processing speed and executive function. The Stroop test assesses the interference between color and word reading. Participants are presented with a list of color names (e.g., "red," "blue," "green") printed in incongruent colors (e.g., the word "red" printed in blue ink). The task requires individuals to name the color of the ink while inhibiting the automatic response to read the word itself. The interference effect occurs because our brains process the meaning of the word faster than the color information.
Measured: At Baseline, 4 months, 12 months
Difference in score on verbal fluency via verbal fluency test
Two kinds of verbal fluency (VF) can be differentiated: phonemic fluency refers to the ability to name words with a given first letter (such as "S" or "P"), while in semantic VF words belonging to certain categories such as animals or fruits have to be enumerated. VF is an integral part of many neuropsychological test batteries
Measured: At Baseline, 4 months, 12 months
Difference in score on visual attention via Trail Making Test (TMT)
The Trail Making Test is a neuropsychological test of visual attention and task switching. It comprises two parts in which the subject must connect a set of 25 points as quickly as possible while maintaining accuracy, i.e. avoiding making mistakes. The test provides information on visual search speed, visual exploration, information processing speed, mental flexibility and executive functioning.
Measured: At Baseline, 4 months, 12 months
Difference in score on Theory of Mind via Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test (RMET)
The Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test (RMET) is a common measure of the Theory of Mind.
In the RMET, participants are presented with pictures of the eye regions of a face and required to select the word that best matches the model's complex mental state such as desire and goal.
It presents thirty-six photographs of the eye part of the face, each expressing complex mental states of the individuals pictured.
Measured: At Baseline, 4 months, 12 months
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted21 Jun 2024
- Study start5 Jul 2024
- Primary completion15 Oct 2027 (estimated)
- Study completion15 Dec 2027 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (1)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Glioma, MalignantStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Institut du Cancer de Montpellier - Val d'AurelleThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Supportive care
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 187 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Amelie DARLIX, MD, Study chair, Institut de Cancérologie de Montpellier (ICM)Estelle GUERDOUX, PHD, Principal investigator, Institut de Cancérologie de Montpellier (ICM)
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06468176
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- PROICM 2023-06 FRE
- Acronym
- FREEDOME
- Status last verified
- Dec 2025
- First submitted
- 17 May 2024
- Last updated
- 19 Dec 2025
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
Publications
Guerdoux E, Coutant L, Gourgou S, Mollevi C, Duc MS, Salasc F, Duffau H, Darlix A. Efficacy of hybrid remote neuropsychological rehabilitation on cognitive complaints in post-therapeutic lower-grade glioma: the FREEDOME randomized study protocol. Front Psychol. 2025 Sep 23;16:1650861. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1650861. eCollection 2025.
PubMed 41064168
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 19 Dec 2025. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Efficacy of a Mixed Distancial Neuropsychological Rehabilitation Program in Patients With Grade 2 or 3 Diffuse Glioma : a Randomized Controlled Trial
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06468176
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- FREEDOME / PROICM 2023-06 FRE
- Conditions
- Glioma, Malignant
- Keywords
- Oncology, Neurologic Disorder, Neuropsychological rehabilitation, Diffuse Glioma
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Recruiting
- Enrolment
- 187 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Institut du Cancer de Montpellier - Val d'AurelleUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 5 Jul 2024 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 15 Oct 2027 (estimated)
- Study completion
- 15 Dec 2027 (estimated)
- First posted
- 21 Jun 2024 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Diffuse low-grade glioma are rare brain tumors affecting young subjects (median age at diagnosis 38 years for grade 2 and 49 years for grade 3). Cognitive symptoms are common in these patients, including memory, attention and executive function disorders. These disorders may have a deleterious impact on patients' professional, family and social lives, and have a negative impact on their quality of life. The benefits of cognitive rehabilitation have been demonstrated in other neurological pathologies. Furthermore, due to limited access to rehabilitation by neuropsychologists, some studies have evaluated the impact of digital cognitive rehabilitation programs. However, it cannot replace human support.
Detailed description
Diffuse Low-Grade Gliomas (DLGG) are rare tumors that affect young subjects (median age at diagnosis 38 years for grade 2 and 49 for grade 3). Overall survival varies from 5 to 15 years. Cognitive symptoms are common in these patients, notably impaired memory, attention and executive functions. For examples, in a prospective study conducted by our team, 40-53% of patients with grade 2 DLGG starting first-line chemotherapy had a cognitive complaint. These findings are in line with a recent meta-analysis based on 11 studies involving 313 glioma patients. These cognitive disorders can have a deleterious impact on patients' professional, family and social lives, and have a negative impact on their quality of life. The value of cognitive rehabilitation has been demonstrated in other neurological pathologies. Randomized controlled trials in DLGG are promising, but are ultimately few in number and/or have significant limitations (e.g. small number of patients, sample heterogeneity, questionable matching criteria, lack of control group). Furthermore, due to limited access to rehabilitation by neuropsychologists, some studies have evaluated the impact of digital cognitive rehabilitation programs. Although this type of tool seems particularly well suited to this young patient population, it cannot replace human accompaniment by a neuropsychologist. Indeed, we know the importance of the patient's human therapeutic alliance for adherence to a program. Moreover, certain psychopathological variables (e.g. anxiety, depression) have a significant impact on both neurocognitive abilities and complaints, justifying the intervention of a neuropsychologist specialized in oncology.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Supportive care
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Intervention group | Experimental | Other: Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) neuropsychologistStudy therapy will include a mixed intervention by a neuropsychologist and a program based on a digital tool |
| Control group | No intervention | –Usual management of the cognitive complaint according to the habits of center |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (10 listed)
- Age ≥18 years old, no age limit;
- Histo-molecular diagnosis of grade 2 or 3 diffuse glioma according to World Health Organization (WHO) Classification 2016, regardless of oncological treatments previously received;
- Patient in satisfactory general condition for the study, defined by a WHO performance index ≤ 2 (ECOG-Performance Status (PS) ≤ 2);
- Neurosurgical excision (excluding biopsy) performed ≥ 12 months previously;
- In the case of oncological treatment, patient who has completed his sessions (radiotherapy, chemotherapy) for ≥ 6 months;
Key exclusion criteria (6 listed)
- Visual or auditory deficit not corrected to normal and/or preventing use of computer tools (i.e., homonymous lateral hemianopia is not a criterion for non-inclusion) ;
- Concurrent participation in a study with cognition as primary endpoint (e.g., "POLCA", " POLO " clinical trials) ;
- Legal incapacity or physical, psychological, social or geographical conditions preventing the patient from signing the consent form or completing the study ;
- Unstable or uncontrolled psychiatric syndrome (i.e., psychotropic treatments are not a criterion for non-inclusion if doses are stable) ;
- Known severe cognitive impairment (e.g., neurodegenerative disease, sequelae of head trauma, etc.) or defined by a score ≤ 20 on the MoCA test or impacting the ability to use digital tools at home ;
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) neuropsychologistAlso: digital program* CBT: at least 3 teleconsultations by the neuropsychologist (up to 1/week maximum) * Brain Head Quarters (BrainHQ) Digital program: 4 sessions of 40 minutes / week | Other | Intervention group |
Primary outcome
Score in the Perceived Cognitive Impairment (PCI) subscale of Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Cognitive Function (FACT-Cog) questionnaire
Time frame: 4 months
The FACT-Cog is a self-assessment questionnaire to estimate memory, attention, concentration, language, and thinking abilities of patients before, during, and after chemotherapy. This questionnaire, composed of 37 items consists of four subscales: cognitive impairments perceived by the patient (20 items), comments from others (4 items), cognitive abilities perceived by the patient (9items), and impact on quality of life (4 items). The Perceived Cognitive Impairments and the Comments from Others subscales are rated on 5-point Likert-type scale (from 0 = "Never" to 4 = "Several times a day"). An intensity 5-point Likert-type scale (from 0 "Not at all" to 4 "Very much") is used to rate perceived cognitive abilities and the impact on quality of life. For all subscales, a higher score represents better cognitive functioning or quality of life
24 secondary outcomes
Score in the PCI subscale of FACT-Cog questionnaire
Time frame: 6, 12 and 18 months
Score in the " Comments from the others " subscale of the FACT-Cog
Time frame: At baseline, 4, 6, 12 and 18 months
Score in the " Cognitive abilities perceived by the patient " subscale of the FACT-Cog
Time frame: At baseline, 4 months, 6 months, 12 months, 18 months
Score in the " Impact on quality of life " subscale of the FACT-Cog
Time frame: At baseline, 4 months, 6 months, 12 months, 18 months
FACT-Cog cognitive complaints questionnaire and the main neurocognitive domains
Time frame: At baseline, 4 months and 12 months
Score in the 2 scales of Prospective and Retrospective Memory Questionnaire (PRMQ) for patient and family caregiver
Time frame: At baseline, 4 months, 6 months, 12 months, 18 months
Difference in score on psychopathological distress via Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS)
Time frame: At baseline, 4 months, 6 months, 12 months, 18 months
Difference in score on quality of life questionnaire Quality of Life Questionnaire - Core (30EORTC QLQ-C30)
Time frame: At baseline, 4 months, 6 months, 12 months, 18 months
Difference in score on quality of life questionnaire Quality of Life Questionnaire - Brain Neoplasm (EORTC QLQ-BN20)
Time frame: At baseline, 4 months, 6 months, 12 months, 18 months
Difference in score on fatigue via Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI-20)
Time frame: At baseline, 4 months, 6 months, 12 months, 18 months
Compliance of intervention
Time frame: 4 months
Difference in score on neurocognitive test via Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA)
Time frame: At baseline and 4 and 12 months, respectively
2 scores on the Prospective and Retrospective Memory Questionnaire (PRMQ) and the main cognitive domains
Time frame: At baseline, 4 months and 12 months
Proportion of patients returning to work
Time frame: At baseline, 4 months, 6 months, 12 months, 18 months
Difference in score on depression via Beck Depression Inventory II (BDI-II)
Time frame: At baseline, 4 months, 6 months, 12 months, 18 months
Difference in score on anxiety via State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-Y)
Time frame: At baseline, 4 months, 6 months, 12 months, 18 months
Difference in score on irritability via Brief Irritability Test (BIT) for patient and family caregiver
Time frame: At baseline, 4 months, 6 months, 12 months, 18 months
Difference in score on insomnia via Insomnia Severity Index (ISI)
Time frame: At baseline, 4 months, 6 months, 12 months, 18 months
Difference in score on cognitive abilities index via Wechsler Adult Intelligent Scale (WAIS-IV)
Time frame: At Baseline, 4 months, 12 months
Difference in score on verbal learning and memory via Hopkins Verbal Learning Test (HVLT)
Time frame: At Baseline, 4 months, 12 months
Difference in score on processing speed and executive function via Stroop Delis-Kaplan test
Time frame: At Baseline, 4 months, 12 months
Difference in score on verbal fluency via verbal fluency test
Time frame: At Baseline, 4 months, 12 months
Difference in score on visual attention via Trail Making Test (TMT)
Time frame: At Baseline, 4 months, 12 months
Difference in score on Theory of Mind via Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test (RMET)
Time frame: At Baseline, 4 months, 12 months
Results and safety
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 19 Dec 2025.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 41064168Guerdoux E, Coutant L, Gourgou S, Mollevi C, Duc MS, Salasc F, Duffau H, Darlix A. Efficacy of hybrid remote neuropsychological rehabilitation on cognitive complaints in post-therapeutic lower-grade glioma: the FREEDOME randomized study protocol. Front Psychol. 2025 Sep 23;16:1650861. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1650861. eCollection 2025.
Related trials for Glioma, Malignant
RecruitingPhase 1
A Phase 1 Safety and Dose Finding Study of GLIX1 in Adults With Recurrent or Progressive High-grade Glioma
Glioblastoma Multiforme of Brain, Glioma
RecruitingEarly Phase 1
Intratumoral Extracellular Metabolic Impact of DFMO and AMXT 1501 in Patients With Diffuse or High Grade Glioma
Diffuse Glioma, Malignant Glioma
Active, not recruitingPhase 1
Genetically Modified T-cells in Treating Patients With Recurrent or Refractory Malignant Glioma
Recurrent Glioblastoma, Recurrent Malignant Glioma
Active, not recruitingPhase 1/2
A Study of the Drug Selinexor With Radiation Therapy in Patients With Newly-Diagnosed Diffuse Intrinsic Pontine (DIPG) Glioma and High-Grade Glioma (HGG)
Malignant Glioma
RecruitingPhase 2
Entrectinib as a Single Agent in Upfront Therapy for Children <3 Years of Age With NTRK1/2/3 or ROS1-FUSED CNS Tumors
High Grade Glioma, CNS Tumor
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part.
Amelie DARLIX, MD study chair
Institut de Cancérologie de Montpellier (ICM)
Estelle GUERDOUX, PHD principal investigator
Institut de Cancérologie de Montpellier (ICM)
8 sites in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) neuropsychologist in people with Glioma, Malignant, run by Institut du Cancer de Montpellier - Val d'Aurelle at 8 sites in France.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 10 inclusion and 6 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: looking for participants now, as of the sponsor's last update on 19 Dec 2025. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 8 sites in France. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
Contact Aurore MOUSSION (467612446 ext. +33, Aurore.Moussion@icm.unicancer.fr), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Score in the Perceived Cognitive Impairment (PCI) subscale of Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - Cognitive Function (FACT-Cog) questionnaire (time frame: 4 months). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT06468176, which also lists 1 linked publication.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 19 Dec 2025.