Language lateralisation measured across linguistic and national boundaries

The visual half-field technique has been shown to be a reliable and valid neuropsychological measurement of language lateralisation, typically showing higher accuracy and faster correct responses for linguistic stimuli presented in the right visual field (RVF) than left visual field (LVF). The RVF advantage corresponds to the well-known dominance of the left hemisphere (LH) in processing language(s). However, clinical and experimental neuroscientists around the globe use different variations of the visual half-field paradigm, making direct comparisons difficult. The current study used a word/non-word visual half-field paradigm with translingual stimuli. In total, 496 participants from seven European countries were investigated: Belgium (64), England (49), Germany (85), Italy (34), The Netherlands (87), Norway (51), and Switzerland (126), covering six international languages (Dutch, English, French, German, Italian, Norwegian). All language groups revealed a significant RVF/LH advantage in accuracy and reaction times that accounted for up to 26.1% of the total variance in performance. We found some variation in the degree of the RVF/LH advantage across language groups, accounting for a maximum of 3.7% of the total variance in performance. The RVF/LH advantage did not differ between subsamples speaking English, French or German as first or second languages or between monolingual and early/late bi/multilinguals. The findings suggest that the translingual lexical decision task (TLDT) is a simple but reliable measurement of language lateralisation that can be applied clinically and experimentally across linguistic and national boundaries

Long-Term Follow-Up of the Response-Adapted Intergroup EORTC/LYSA/FIL H10 Trial for Localized Hodgkin Lymphoma.

JCO The primary analysis of the Early positron emission tomography (ePET) Response-Adapted Treatment in localized Hodgkin Lymphoma H10 Trial demonstrated that in ePET-negative patients, the risk of relapse increased when involved-node radiotherapy (INRT) was omitted and that in ePET-positive patients, switching from doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) to bleomycin, etoposide, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, vincristine, procarbazine, and prednisone (BEACOPPesc) significantly improved 5-year progression-free survival (PFS). Here, we report the final results of a preplanned analysis at a 10-year follow-up. In the favorable (F) ePET-negative group, the 10-year PFS rates were 98.8% versus 85.4% (hazard ratio [HR], 13.2; 95% CI, 3.1 to 55.8; value for noninferiority = .9735; difference test < .0001) in favor of ABVD + INRT; in the unfavorable (U) ePET-negative group, the 10-year PFS rates were 91.4% and 86.5% (HR, 1.52; 95% CI, 0.84 to 2.75; value for noninferiority = .8577; difference test = .1628). In ePET-positive patients, the difference in terms of PFS between standard ABVD and intensified BEACOPPesc was no longer statistically significant (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.37 to 1.20; = .1777). In conclusion, the present long-term analysis confirms that in ePET-negative patients, the omission of INRT is associated with lower 10-year PFS. Instead, in ePET-positive patients, no significant difference between standard and experimental arms emerged although intensification with BEACOPPesc was safe, with no increase in late adverse events, namely, second malignancies