ClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT00945828Updated Mar 8, 2012

Assessing the Effectiveness of Individual Education Plans for Childhood Cancer Survivors

An interventional study of Annual Intervention Group and Quarterly Monitoring of IEP in Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia, Central Nervous System Tumors and Lymphoma, sponsored by University of Miami. Completed at 1 site in United States. Open to participants aged 6 Years to 12 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2012-03-08.

Sponsored by University of Miami · Not applicable, Interventional, and Supportive care

Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
62
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
6 Years to 12 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

Neurodevelopmental outcomes in children treated for cancer involving the central nervous system (CNS) provide educators with new challenges with regards to classification, monitoring, and intervention in the regular or special education classroom setting. Recommendations resulting from serial neurodevelopmental evaluations for these children often do not overlap with traditional special education recommendations commonly included in Individual Education Plans (IEPs) for children with congenital or genetic learning problems. The investigators currently do not know whether or not school-based treatment for learning problems, based on the child's IEP, incorporates recommendations made based on a neurodevelopmental evaluation appropriately. In addition, it is not clear whether or not the recommendations that are included in a child's IEP have any beneficial outcome on the child's learning and academic achievement over time. The purpose of this project is to examine the relationship between neurodevelopmental outcomes, recommendations for intervention, special education services and accommodations included in a child's school IEP, and outcome for the child following implementation of the IEP. The study has two major specific aims:

  1. To quantify the clinical and educational contributions of recommendations resulting from neurodevelopmental evaluations and the subsequent development of IEPs.

    Hypothesis 1.1: Higher concordance between recommendations made based on neurodevelopmental evaluations and criteria written into children's IEPs will be associated with more positive academic outcomes (i.e. maintenance or improvement in academic skills).

    Hypothesis 1.2: Children who have higher concordance between criteria written into their IEPs and academic services actually received will show more positive academic outcomes than children whose IEP criteria and academic services are less concordant.

  2. To evaluate an intervention that will improve academic outcomes for children treated for cancer.

Hypothesis 2.1: Children whose IEPs are monitored more frequently will show more positive academic outcomes than their peers whose IEPs are monitored less frequently.

Read the detailed description

For years, researchers have examined the effects of cancer and its treatment on children's neurodevelopment. This body of research has identified a number of specific threats to children's cognitive functioning and academic achievement, due to both acute effects and late effects of cancer and its treatment. These often translate into difficulties in the academic setting. Specifically, areas of cognitive and behavioral development are frequently affected, leading to concomitant difficulties in academic achievement and social interaction. Previous research has indicated that such developmental effects and concomitant difficulties are particularly notable in children treated for brain tumors and for leukemias with central nervous system (CNS) involvement. Neurodevelopmental assessments conducted as part of clinical evaluations serve to identify individual strengths and weaknesses of each child treated. Results of these assessments are used to formulate recommendations targeted at compensating for weaknesses by accentuating strengths of each child. Child Study Team meetings are scheduled, at the parent's request, at the child's school in order to use these recommendations in developing Individual Educational Plans (IEPs) to best meet the special needs of the student. At present, no formal follow-up procedure exists to ensure that the IEPs are implemented appropriately, nor that they are effective in meeting the identified special needs of the children.

The present study proposes to 1) evaluate the IEP implementation process for children with cancer, 2) evaluate the effectiveness of IEPs in helping to improve academic outcomes for children with cancer, and 3) to evaluate the influence on academic outcomes of a high-monitoring follow-up intervention for children with cancer. To address these objectives, school-aged children with central nervous system tumors, acute lymphoblastic leukemia, or lymphoma will be administered a neurodevelopmental assessment to measure any specific educational needs they may have. The results of the neurodevelopmental assessment are provided to the parent in a feedback session where any questions or concerns regarding the evaluation can be addressed. At the time of the feedback session, parents are informed of the IEP process and are requested to contact the school to request that a Child Study Team Meeting take place. The study personnel offer to attend the meeting with the parent. Results of the assessments will be used to help guide recommendations made for academic placement and accommodations as per the school's guidelines.

Children with cancer will be assigned to either a quarterly follow-up or annual follow-up group. For those children in the quarterly follow-up group, parents and primary teacher (the primary teacher is identified by the parent/guardian as the teacher who has the most contact with the child and/or knows the child best) will be asked to provide information at the end of each grading period (4 times/year) regarding the child's performance, progress, and adherence to the IEP developed. For children in the yearly follow-up group, this information will only be collected at the end of each academic year. Children in the quarterly and annual follow-up groups will be re-assessed annually for a total of 3 years to evaluate any changes in neurodevelopmental functioning and academic achievement.

Children in the two experimental groups will be administered a neurodevelopmental evaluation, and, in addition, will receive academic follow-up on either a quarterly or annual basis, depending upon to which group they are randomized. Enrollment is on an ongoing basis and each participant will be followed for 3 years after enrollment, receiving a neurodevelopmental evaluation each year with a final endpoint evaluation at year 4 (a total of 4 neurodevelopmental evaluations).

02

Conditions studied

  • Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia
  • Central Nervous System Tumors
  • Lymphoma

Keywords

  • pediatric cancer, neurocognitive outcomes for pediatric cancer
  • acute lymphoblastic leukemia
  • central nervous system tumors
  • lymphoma
03

In context

Precursor Cell Lymphoblastic Leukemia-Lymphoma

2,121 studies on the registry are indexed under Precursor Cell Lymphoblastic Leukemia-Lymphoma; 492 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 62 is above the median of 40 across 1,691 interventional studies indexed under Precursor Cell Lymphoblastic Leukemia-Lymphoma.

Browse Precursor Cell Lymphoblastic Leukemia-Lymphoma studies →

Lead sponsor

University of Miami is the lead sponsor of 838 studies on the registry; 164 are open to participants now.

Of its 114 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 96 (84%) have results posted.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
6 Years to 12 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.

Inclusion criteria

  • Children, ages 6-12 years, who are within 2-5 years of diagnosis for either central nervous system tumor or acute lymphocytic leukemia, or lymphoma at time of enrollment

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Children who have been diagnosed with any type of cancer other than a central nervous system tumor, lymphoma, or leukemia.
  • Children who are not between the ages of 6-12 years and who were not diagnosed within the past 2-5 years with central nervous system tumor, lymphoma, or leukemia.
  • Children who are monolingual in a language other than English or Spanish
  • Parent or caregiver of the child is not fluent in English or Spanish
  • Child has been diagnosed with a significant mental health disorder that is not responsive to behavioral or medical management. This includes severe depression, schizophrenia, or bipolar disorder. Children whose mental health problem is effectively treated are eligible for participation.
05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Supportive care
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
None (open label)
Enrollment
62 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    Annual Monitoring of IEP

    Parents/caregivers and the teacher of participants will be asked to evaluate the effectiveness of the child's IEP once per academic calendar year. The evaluation is done through the use of an IEP Questionnaire developed for this study.

    Behavioral: Annual Intervention Group

  • Experimental
    Quarterly Monitoring of IEP

    Parents/caregivers and the teacher of participants will be asked to evaluate the effectiveness of the child's IEP four times per academic calendar year. The evaluation is done through the use of an IEP Questionnaire developed for this study.

    Behavioral: Quarterly Monitoring of IEP

Interventions

  • BehavioralAnnual Intervention Group

    Parents/caregivers and the teacher of participants will be asked to evaluate the effectiveness of the child's IEP once per academic calendar year. The evaluation is done through the use of an IEP Questionnaire developed for this study. This questionnaire addresses the child's academic performance, progress, and adherence to the IEP developed.

  • BehavioralQuarterly Monitoring of IEP

    Parents/caregivers and the teacher of participants will be asked to evaluate the effectiveness of the child's IEP four times per academic calendar year. The evaluation is done through the use of an IEP Questionnaire developed for this study. This questionnaire addresses the child's academic performance, progress, and adherence to the IEP developed.

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Academic achievement as measured by the Woodcock Johnson Tests of Achievement, Third Edition

    Time frame: Measured at Year 1, Year 2 and 3

07

Study locations

1 site
  • Mailman Center for Child Development University of Miami Miller School of Medicine
    Miami, Florida 33136, United States
08

Timeline

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
Not marked actual or estimatedDates not marked actual or estimated

The record gives a start of Jan 2003, a primary completion of Oct 2010 and a completion of Oct 2010. It does not say whether these dates are actual or estimated.

How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.

Registered
Jul 22, 2009
First posted
Jul 24, 2009
Start
Jan 2003
Primary completionActual
Oct 2010
CompletionActual
Oct 2010
Last update
Mar 8, 2012
What these dates mean
Start.
When the first participant enrolled; while estimated, when the study expects to open to recruitment.
Primary completion.
When the last participant was examined or treated to collect data for the study's main question, its primary outcome. A study that stopped early gives the date its data collection stopped.
Completion.
When the last participant's last visit took place, for every outcome, secondary ones and side effects included: the end of the study. Often later than primary completion, sometimes the same day.
Actual and Est.
Actual means the registry says the date has happened. Est. (estimated) is a date the sponsor plans or expects. It can still move, and the sponsor is expected to change it to actual once it has passed.
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Mar 8, 2012, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
09

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT00945828
Collaborators
American Cancer Society, Inc.
Responsible party
Maria L. Goldman (Co-Investigator, University of Miami) — Principal investigator
First posted
Jul 24, 2009
Start date
Jan 2003
Primary completion
Oct 2010
Completion
Oct 2010
Last update
Mar 8, 2012

Study contacts

Daniel Armstrong, PhD
principal investigator · University of Miami
Maria L Goldman, PsyD
study director · University of Miami

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Mar 2012. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion