@article{AbboudAsendorfHeinrichetal.2021,
  author    = {Abboud, Tammam and Asendorf, Thomas and Heinrich, Jutta and Faust, Katharina and Krieg, Sandro M. and Seidel, Kathleen and Mielke, Dorothee and Matthies, Cordola and Ringel, Florian and Rohde, Veit and Szel{\´e}nyi, Andrea},
  title     = {Transcranial versus direct cortical stimulation for motor-evoked potentials during resection of supratentorial tumors under general anesthesia (the TRANSEKT-trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial},
  series = {Biomedicines},
  volume    = {9},
  journal   = {Biomedicines},
  number    = {10},
  issn      = {2227-9059},
  doi       = {10.3390/biomedicines9101490},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-248513},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Background: Monitoring of motor function during surgery for supratentorial tumors under general anesthesia applies either transcranial electrical stimulation (TES) or direct cortical stimulation (DCS) to elicit motor-evoked potentials. To date, there is no guideline that favor one method over the other. Therefore, we designed this randomized study to compare between both methods regarding the prediction of postoperative motor deficits and extent of tumor resection. Methods: This is a multicenter (six centers in Germany and one in Switzerland), double blind, parallel group, exploratory, randomized controlled clinical trial. Patients without or with mild paresis, who are scheduled for surgical resection of motor-eloquent brain tumors under general anesthesia will be randomized to surgical resection under TES or surgical resection under DCS. The primary endpoint is sensitivity and specificity in prognosis of motor function 7 days after surgery. The main secondary endpoint is the extent of tumor resection. The study is planned to include 120 patients within 2 years. Discussion: The present exploratory study should compare TES and DCS regarding sensitivity and specificity in predicting postoperative motor deficit and extent of tumor resection to calculate the required number of patients in a confirmatory trial to test the superiority of one method over the other.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{FroehlichSassenrathNadjiOhletal.2022,
  author    = {Fr{\"o}hlich, Ellen and Sassenrath, Claudia and Nadji-Ohl, Minou and Unteroberd{\"o}rster, Meike and R{\"u}ckriegel, Stefan and Brelie, Christian von der and Roder, Constantin and Forster, Marie-Therese and Schommer, Stephan and L{\"o}hr, Mario and Pala, Andrej and Goebel, Simone and Mielke, Dorothee and Gerlach, R{\"u}diger and Renovanz, Mirjam and Wirtz, Christian Rainer and Onken, Julia and Czabanka, Marcus and Tatagiba, Marcos Soares and Rohde, Veit and Ernestus, Ralf-Ingo and Vajkoczy, Peter and Gansland, Oliver and Coburger, Jan},
  title     = {Resilience in lower grade glioma patients},
  series = {Cancers},
  volume    = {14},
  journal   = {Cancers},
  number    = {21},
  issn      = {2072-6694},
  doi       = {10.3390/cancers14215410},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-297518},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {Current data show that resilience is an important factor in cancer patients' well-being. We aim to explore the resilience of patients with lower grade glioma (LGG) and the potentially influencing factors. We performed a cross-sectional assessment of adult patients with LGG who were enrolled in the LoG-Glio registry. By phone interview, we administered the following measures: Resilience Scale (RS-13), distress thermometer, Montreal Cognitive Assessment Test for visually impaired patients (MoCA-Blind), internalized stigmatization by brain tumor (ISBI), Eastern Cooperative Oncological Group performance status (ECOG), patients' perspective questionnaire (PPQ) and typical clinical parameters. We calculated correlations and multivariate regression models. Of 74 patients who were assessed, 38\% of those showed a low level of resilience. Our results revealed significant correlations of resilience with distress (p < 0.001, -0.49), MOCA (p = 0.003, 0.342), ECOG (p < 0.001, -0.602), stigmatization (p < 0.001, -0.558), pain (p < 0.001, -0.524), and occupation (p = 0.007, 0.329). In multivariate analyses, resilience was negatively associated with elevated ECOG (p = 0.020, β = -0.383) and stigmatization levels (p = 0.008, β = -0.350). Occupation showed a tendency towards a significant association with resilience (p = 0.088, β = -0.254). Overall, low resilience affected more than one third of our cohort. Low functional status is a specific risk factor for low resilience. The relevant influence of stigmatization on resilience is a novel finding for patients suffering from a glioma and should be routinely identified and targeted in clinical routine.},
  language  = {en}
}