Deep brain stimulation of the anterior nucleus of the thalamus for drug-resistant epilepsy.

Despite the use of first-choice anti-epileptic drugs and satisfactory seizure outcome rates after resective epilepsy surgery, a considerable percentage of patients do not become seizure free. ANT-DBS may provide for an alternative treatment option in these patients. This literature review discusses the rationale, mechanism of action, clinical efficacy, safety, and tolerability of ANT-DBS in drug-resistant epilepsy patients. A review using systematic methods of the available literature was performed using relevant databases including Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library pertaining to the different aspects ANT-DBS. ANT-DBS for drug-resistant epilepsy is a safe, effective and well-tolerated therapy, where a special emphasis must be given to monitoring and neuropsychological assessment of both depression and memory function. Three patterns of seizure control by ANT-DBS are recognized, of which a delayed stimulation effect may account for an improved long-term response rate. ANT-DBS remotely modulates neuronal network excitability through overriding pathological electrical activity, decrease neuronal cell loss, through immune response inhibition or modulation of neuronal energy metabolism. ANT-DBS is an efficacious treatment modality, even when curative procedures or lesser invasive neuromodulative techniques failed. When compared to VNS, ANT-DBS shows slightly superior treatment response, which urges for direct comparative trials. Based on the available evidence ANT-DBS and VNS therapies are currently both superior compared to non-invasive neuromodulation techniques such as t-VNS and rTMS. Additional in-vivo research is necessary in order to gain more insight into the mechanism of action of ANT-DBS in localization-related epilepsy which will allow for treatment optimization. Randomized clinical studies in search of the optimal target in well-defined epilepsy patient populations, will ultimately allow for optimal patient stratification when applying DBS for drug-resistant patients with epilepsy.

Toward a holistic approach in the presentation of benefits and risks of medical radiation.

Frequently messages are conveyed about benefit and risk in medical imaging or in imaging-guided medical intervention that are quite different from the intended communication. This is because communication is not merely the words used to express an idea. The message involves many personal factors on the part of the communicator and on the part of the audience. The intent of this article is to disclose some of the underlying factors that disproportionately bias communication of benefit and risk. Suggestions on how to develop a holistic communication of benefits and risks are presented. It is recommended that communication about the application of radiation to patients be disassociated from standard radiation protection concepts. The medical profession should develop unique communication tools to deliver a message that focuses on benefit/risk as a holistic entity, not benefit or risk as separate entities.

The effects of cancer-related pain and fatigue on functioning of older adult, long-term cancer survivors.

This research examines the fatigue and pain reported by a sample of long-term (5 years), older adult (>or=60 years) survivors of breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer. It also examines the importance of cancer and age-related factors as correlates of pain and fatigue as well as the relationship between pain and fatigue and functional difficulty. Data were derived from 321 in-person interviews with a sample of survivors randomly selected from a tumor registry at a comprehensive cancer center. The results of multivariate analysis indicate that the pain, energy level, and weakness reported by older adult cancer survivors are more strongly related to age-related factors than they are to cancer-related factors. Age-related factors accounted for 14% of the variance in pain compared with 2% for cancer-related factors. For energy level, age-related factors explained 4% of the variance, whereas cancer-related factors account for 2%. Age-related factors accounted for 9% of the variance in weakness compared with 6% for cancer-related factors. Furthermore, pain, energy, and weakness are all statistically significant predictors of functional difficulties (beta = .20, -.16, and .11, respectively). Age-related factors explained 21% of the total variance, whereas cancer-related factors contributed 6%. This research points to the fact that both cancer and age-related factors contribute to the pain and fatigue of older adult survivors, although factors such as comorbidities and noncancer symptoms appear to be relatively more important. Because it is not unusual for those providing health care to older adults to be unaware of their cancer history and treatments, the role that cancer may play in symptoms such pain and fatigue may go unassessed and unadressed.