Search

This study describes sound localization and speech-recognition-in-noise abilities of a cochlear-implant user with electro-acoustic stimulation (EAS) in one ear, and a hearing aid in the contralateral ear. This listener had low-frequency, up to 250 Hz, residual hearing within the normal range in both ears. The objective was to determine how hearing devices affect spatial hearing for an individual with substantial unaided low-frequency residual hearing. Sound-localization performance was assessed for three sounds with different bandpass characteristics: low center frequency (100–400 Hz), mid center frequency (500–1,500 Hz) and high frequency broad-band (500–20,000 Hz) noise. Speech recognition was assessed with the Dutch Matrix sentence test presented in noise. Tests were performed while the listener used several on-off combinations of the devices. The listener localized low-center frequency sounds well in all hearing conditions, but mid-center frequency and high frequency broadband sounds were localized well almost exclusively in the completely unaided condition (mid-center frequency sounds were also localized well with the EAS device alone). Speech recognition was best in the fully aided condition with speech presented in the front and noise presented at either side. Furthermore, there was no significant improvement in speech recognition with all devices on, compared to when the listener used her cochlear implant only. Hearing aids and cochlear implant impair high frequency spatial hearing due to improper weighing of interaural time and level difference cues. The results reinforce the notion that hearing symmetry is important for sound localization. The symmetry is perturbed by the hearing devices for higher frequencies. Speech recognition depends mainly on hearing through the cochlear implant and is not significantly improved with the added information from hearing aids. A contralateral hearing aid provides benefit when the noise is spatially separated from the speech. However, this benefit is explained by the head shadow in that ear, rather than by an ability to spatially segregate noise from speech, as sound localization was perturbed with all devices in use.

Background: Addition of deep hyperthermia to radiotherapy results in improved local control (LC) and overall survival compared to radiotherapy alone in cervical carcinoma patients. Based on preclinical data, the time interval between radiotherapy, and hyperthermia is expected to influence treatment outcome. Clinical studies addressing the effect of time interval are sparse. The repercussions for clinical applications are substantial, as the time between radiotherapy and hyperthermia should be kept as short as possible. In this study, we therefore investigated the effect of the time interval between radiotherapy and hyperthermia on treatment outcome.Methods: We analyzed all primary cervical carcinoma patients treated between 1996 and 2016 with thermoradiotherapy at our institute. Data on patients, tumors and treatments were collected, including the thermal dose parameters TRISE and CEM43T90. Follow-up data on tumor status and survival as well as late toxicity were collected. Data was analyzed using Cox proportional hazards analysis and Kaplan Meier analysis.Results: 400 patients were included. Kaplan Meier and univariate Cox analysis showed no effect of the time interval (range 30–230 min) on any clinical outcome measure. Besides known prognostic factors, thermal dose parameters TRISE and CEM43T90 had a significant effect on LC. In multivariate analysis, the thermal dose parameter TRISE (HR 0.649; 95% CI 0.501–0.840) and the use of image guided brachytherapy (HR 0.432; 95% CI 0.214–0.972), but not the time interval, were significant predictors of LC and disease specific survival.Conclusions: The time interval between radiotherapy and hyperthermia, up to 4 h, has no effect on clinical outcome. These results are re-ensuring for our current practice of delivering hyperthermia within maximal 4 h after radiotherapy.

Obesity is a high-risk factor for such comorbidities as cardiovascular disease, several types of cancer, and type 2 diabetes; however not all individuals with obesity have such complications. Approximately 20% of individuals with obesity are metabolically healthy. This study focused on differences between obese individuals with and without type 2 diabetes (T2D+ and T2D–, respectively) on the transcriptome level. Subjects included were 35 T2D– patients with obesity and 35 T2D+ patients with obesity with the same body mass index (BMI). The study was based on the transcription analysis of mRNA and microRNAs (miRs) by RNAseq. In the first step, we performed RNAseq of miRs, in the second step, we analyzed only those mRNA, which appeared targets for significant miRs from the first step. All RNAseq results were validated by qPCR. There were seven miRs differently expressed with adjusted p-value