Randomized trial on the effects of an EMDR intervention on traumatic and obsessive symptoms during the COVID-19 quarantine: a psychometric study.

Introduction: It has been suggested that the COVID-19 pandemic was a potentially traumatic occurrence that may have induced generalized anxiety and discomfort, particularly in susceptible populations like individuals with mental illnesses. The therapeutic approach known as eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) has been shown to be successful in helping patients process traumatic events and restore wellbeing. Nevertheless, little is known about the precise processes through which EMDR fosters symptom recovery. Methods: In order to disentangle these issues, we conducted a randomized controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT06110702) with 107 participants who were selected from university hospitals as a sample of investigation. Random assignments were applied to the participants in order to assign them to the experimental and control groups. The experimental group, but not the control group, underwent an 8-week EMDR intervention. Body perception, disgust, and emotions of guilt and shame, as well as mental contamination and posttraumatic and obsessive-compulsive symptoms, were investigated before and after the EMDR intervention. Results: The EMDR intervention was able to improve all of the variables investigated. Path analysis showed that body perception was able to predict both disgust and emotions of guilt and shame. Disgust was able to predict both mental contamination and obsessive-compulsive symptoms, while guilt and shame were able to predict post-traumatic symptoms. Conclusions: EMDR is an effective therapy for the treatment of post-traumatic and obsessive symptoms that acts through the promotion of improvement of the emotions of guilt/shame and disgust, respectively. Implications for clinical practice are examined. Clinical trial registration: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov, identifier NCT06110702.

REDISCOVER guidelines for borderline-resectable and locally advanced pancreatic cancer: management algorithm, unanswered questions, and future perspectives.

The REDISCOVER guidelines present 34 recommendations for the selection and perioperative care of borderline-resectable (BR-PDAC) and locally advanced ductal adenocarcinoma of the pancreas (LA-PDAC). These guidelines represent a significant shift from previous approaches, prioritizing tumor biology over anatomical features as the primary indication for resection. Condensed herein, they provide a practical management algorithm for clinical practice. However, the guidelines also highlight the need to redefine LA-PDAC to align with modern treatment strategies and to solve some contradictions within the current definition, such as grouping "difficult" and "impossible" to resect tumors together. Furthermore, the REDISCOVER guidelines highlight several areas requiring urgent research. These include the resection of the superior mesenteric artery, the management strategies for patients with LA-PDAC who are fit for surgery but unable to receive multi-agent neoadjuvant chemotherapy, the approach to patients with LA-PDAC who are fit for surgery but demonstrate high serum Ca 19.9 levels even after neoadjuvant treatment, and the optimal timing and number of chemotherapy cycles prior to surgery. Additionally, the role of primary chemoradiotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in LA-PDAC, the timing of surgical resection post-neoadjuvant/primary chemoradiotherapy, the efficacy of ablation therapies, and the management of oligometastasis in patients with LA-PDAC warrant investigation. Given the limited evidence for many issues, refining existing management strategies is imperative. The establishment of the REDISCOVER registry ( https://rediscover.unipi.it/ ) offers promise of a unified research platform to advance understanding and improve the management of BR-PDAC and LA-PDAC.

Validation of the Italian version of the Neuroception of Psychological Safety Scale (NPSS).

Research on the neuroscience of fear in both humans and non-humans has suggested that a lack of acquisition of safety cues might be a biological hallmark of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Danger perception, and in particular, feeling as one's own life is in danger, is thought to represent a major predictor of PTSD. Persistent danger perception is concurrently associated with a persistence of lack of safety. However, despite several research efforts, no validated psychometric tools exist regarding psychological safety as a unique core construct in the domain of a soothing-contentment system. By including social, compassionate, and bodily components, the Neuroception of Psychological Safety Scale (NPSS), neurophysiologically rooted in the polyvagal theory, aims to specifically assess psychological safety. Originally developed in English, we employed a rather large non clinical sample to validate our Italian translation of the NPSS (n = 338) and the scale was found to retain a three-factor structure. In light of its positive moderate correlations with the Unconditional Self-Kindness Scale (ρ = 0.376) and the Self-Compassion Scale-Short-Form (ρ = 0.481), good convergent validity and robust psychometric properties were shown by the NPSS. The Subjective Traumatic Outlook Questionnaire (ρ = -0.283) and the three subscales of the Body Perception Questionnaire-22-Body Awareness (ρ = -0.103), Supradiaphragmatic Reactivity (ρ = -0.234), and Body Awareness/Subdiaphragmatic Reactivity (ρ = -0.146)-were found to have weak negative correlations with the NPSS, which further demonstrated its good discriminant validity. Eventually, the NPSS was found to show good test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.922; three-week time interval), and its usage is fostered in clinical and research contexts where the evaluation of psychological safety is of relevance.

REDISCOVER International Guidelines on the Perioperative Care of Surgical Patients With Borderline-resectable and Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: The REDISCOVER consensus conference aimed at developing and validating guidelines on the perioperative care of patients with borderline-resectable (BR-) and locally advanced (LA) pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). BACKGROUND: Coupled with improvements in chemotherapy and radiation, the contemporary approach to pancreatic surgery supports the resection of BR-PDAC and, to a lesser extent, LA-PDAC. Guidelines outlining the selection and perioperative care for these patients are lacking. METHODS: The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) methodology was used to develop the REDISCOVER guidelines and create recommendations. The Delphi approach was used to reach a consensus (agreement ≥80%) among experts. Recommendations were approved after a debate and vote among international experts in pancreatic surgery and pancreatic cancer management. A Validation Committee used the AGREE II-GRS tool to assess the methodological quality of the guidelines. Moreover, an independent multidisciplinary advisory group revised the statements to ensure adherence to nonsurgical guidelines. RESULTS: Overall, 34 recommendations were created targeting centralization, training, staging, patient selection for surgery, possibility of surgery in uncommon scenarios, timing of surgery, avoidance of vascular reconstruction, details of vascular resection/reconstruction, arterial divestment, frozen section histology of perivascular tissue, extent of lymphadenectomy, anticoagulation prophylaxis, and role of minimally invasive surgery. The level of evidence was however low for 29 of 34 clinical questions. Participants agreed that the most conducive means to promptly advance our understanding in this field is to establish an international registry addressing this patient population ( https://rediscover.unipi.it/ ). CONCLUSIONS: The REDISCOVER guidelines provide clinical recommendations pertaining to pancreatectomy with vascular resection for patients with BR-PDAC and LA-PDAC, and serve as the basis of a new international registry for this patient population.

Accuracy of Radiomics in Predicting IDH Mutation Status in Diffuse Gliomas: A Bivariate Meta-Analysis.

Purpose To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the predictive accuracy of radiomics in the noninvasive determination of isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) status in grade 4 and lower-grade diffuse gliomas. Materials and Methods A systematic search was performed in the PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases for relevant articles published between January 1, 2010, and July 7, 2021. Pooled sensitivity and specificity across studies were estimated. Risk of bias was evaluated using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2, and methods were evaluated using the radiomics quality score (RQS). Additional subgroup analyses were performed according to tumor grade, RQS, and number of sequences used (PROSPERO ID: CRD42021268958). Results Twenty-six studies that included 3280 patients were included for analysis. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of radiomics for the detection of IDH mutation were 79% (95% CI: 76, 83) and 80% (95% CI: 76, 83), respectively. Low RQS scores were found overall for the included works. Subgroup analyses showed lower false-positive rates in very low RQS studies (RQS < 6) (meta-regression, z = -1.9; P = .02) compared with adequate RQS studies. No substantial differences were found in pooled sensitivity and specificity for the pure grade 4 gliomas group compared with the all-grade gliomas group (81% and 86% vs 79% and 79%, respectively) and for studies using single versus multiple sequences (80% and 77% vs 79% and 82%, respectively). Conclusion The pooled data showed that radiomics achieved good accuracy performance in distinguishing IDH mutation status in patients with grade 4 and lower-grade diffuse gliomas. The overall methodologic quality (RQS) was low and introduced potential bias. Keywords: Neuro-Oncology, Radiomics, Integration, Application Domain, Glioblastoma, IDH Mutation, Radiomics Quality Scoring Supplemental material is available for this article. Published under a CC BY 4.0 license.

The Hidden Impact of Covid-19 on Memory: Disclosing Subjective Complaints.

Objective: A significant body of research has suggested that the contraction of SARS-CoV-2 may cause memory impairment, even in the months following recovery. In this regard, studies suggest that COVID-19 predominantly targets structures and cortices within the temporal lobe, and the hippocampus, a critical brain structure for memory and spatial navigation.The purpose of this study was to investigate the potential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on subjective memory complaints, which represent an individual's perception of subtle changes in memory in the absence of an objective memory impairment. Method: to explore how the COVID-19 pandemic may affect subjective memory complaints, we incorporated ad hoc self-reported measures of subjective memory complaints, the "Subjective Memory Complaints Questionnaire" (SMCQ) and the "Prospective and Retrospective Memory Questionnaire" (PRMQ), in our cross-sectional study. Both measures referred to two periods: the pre-pandemic period (T0) and the moment of survey administration (T1) (December 28th, 2021, to February 6th, 2022). Results: 207 Italian participants accessed the survey, out of which 189 participants were included in the final sample. The majority of the participants were females, and their age ranged from 55 to 65 years. The study revealed a significant increase in the total PRMQ score at T1 compared to T0 (p = 0.02). However, no significant differences were found between PRMQ and SMCQ scores of COVID-19-negative individuals and those who tested positive for COVID-19 in the last 12 months from the date of completing the survey. McNemar's test showed a statistically significant increase in the score of item 1 ("Do you think that you have a memory problem?" (p = 0.016) and item 10 ("Do you lose objects more often than you did previously") (0.019) of the SMCQ, while for the PRMQ, significant increases were found in several individual items. Conclusions: our study suggests that subjective memory complaints increased during the pandemic, potentially due to the compound effects of stress and social isolation, rather than solely due to COVID-19 infection. Although a marginal association between COVID-19 and reported prospective memory issues was detected, further investigation is warranted to understand its persistent effects.