Social cognition in people with schizophrenia: A cluster-analytic approach

Background The study aimed to subtype patients with schizophrenia on the basis of social cognition (SC), and to identify cut-offs that best discriminate among subtypes in 809 out-patients recruited in the context of the Italian Network for Research on Psychoses. Method A two-step cluster analysis of The Awareness of Social Inference Test (TASIT), the Facial Emotion Identification Test and Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test scores was performed. Classification and regression tree analysis was used to identify the cut-offs of variables that best discriminated among clusters. Results We identified three clusters, characterized by unimpaired (42%), impaired (50.4%) and very impaired (7.5%) SC. Three theory-of-mind domains were more important for the cluster definition as compared with emotion perception and emotional intelligence. Patients more able to understand simple sarcasm (14 for TASIT-SS) were very likely to belong to the unimpaired SC cluster. Compared with patients in the impaired SC cluster, those in the very impaired SC cluster performed significantly worse in lie scenes (TASIT-LI <10), but not in simple sarcasm. Moreover, functioning, neurocognition, disorganization and SC had a linear relationship across the three clusters, while positive symptoms were significantly lower in patients with unimpaired SC as compared with patients with impaired and very impaired SC. On the other hand, negative symptoms were highest in patients with impaired levels of SC. Conclusions If replicated, the identification of such subtypes in clinical practice may help in tailoring rehabilitation efforts to the person's strengths to gain more benefit to the person

AIRO GORTEC consensus on postoperative radiotherapy (PORT) in low-intermediate risk early stages oral squamous cell cancers (OSCC).

Evidence on the efficacy of postoperative radiotherapy (PORT) in low-intermediate risk squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity (OSCC) remains inconclusive. Members of a task force from two national radio-oncology Associations (AIRO and GORTEC) defined 14 clinically relevant questions to identify "gray areas" pertinent to the indication for PORT in this clinical setting. Consequently, a literature review was performed on the topic. The resulting statements were then rated by an Expert Panel (EP) using a modified Delphi method. Only radiation oncologists were part of the discussion and voting on the scenarios. There was agreement on the 14 statements at the first round of voting. The task force then decided to propose clinical cases for the two more controversial statements that had received a lower agreement to better capture the Experts' attitudes. The clinical cases highlighted a more significant decisional heterogeneity. However, the good level of consensus reached among the two Associations gives relevant support in informing clinical choices while acknowledging general indications cannot fit all clinical situations and do not replace multidisciplinary discussion