Le traumatisme psychique constitue une blessure du langage par atteinte des réseaux de significations

ObjectivesTrauma appears within the discourse of mentally injured people, materializing what we have recently defined as “post traumatic psycholinguistic syndrome” (SPLIT). Translating unspeakability, revival, and dissociation, this clinical entity associates three significant disturbances : traumatic anomia (missing words, reduction of the elocutionary flow, deictic gestures, etc.); linguistic repetitions (of words and phrases, verbal intrusions, echophrasias, etc.); and phrasal and discursive disorganization (incomplete sentences, tense discordance, dysfluence, lack of logical connectors, etc.). What are the causes of these semiological and psycholinguistic expressions? What are their psychological and/or neuropsychological processes? It is time to come up with a new concept intended to go beyond the previous models in order to better identify people suffering from post-traumatic mental disorders, to better organize and evaluate psychotherapeutic care, and also to help practitioners collaborate more effectively on these first two goals. But how to evoke, affirm, or speak out about the consequences of unspeakability? Nothing is more apparently contradictory than wanting to define the language void. How to account for the fractures of psychic trauma in discourse? Nothing is more uncertain than to try to organize the upheavals, the disorders caused by dissociation in language. Finally, how to specify the reiteration of the trauma using words and sentences without this modeling being dissociative or repetitive? Today, thanks to a psycholinguistic reading, essential dimensions of post-traumatic suffering, hitherto hidden, can be clarified. Why exactly does an event cause trauma in the life of a subject at a given moment in her/his existence? Why is a latency phase structured between the traumatic event and the return of reviviscences under the influence of a re-triggering factor? How to differentiate the notion of dissociation as a normal phenomenon from the so-called traumatic dissociation? How to explain the multiple clinical forms of post-traumatic psychological disorders?MethodsFrom Pierre's clinical history, we chronologically detail the structuring and the consequences of the signified reflection that are constitutive of the psychic trauma: the psycholinguistic tools here help to formulate a new etiopathogenic conception of trauma and its psychological consequences. Then, thanks to Jean's testimony, taking up the retrospective meaning of the clinical analysis from chronic repetition syndrome, we discover the phases of tension regarding signified knowledge, up to the network prior to the traumatic confrontation. Finally, illustrated by Karima's disorder, beyond depersonalization, we explain that the analysis of the disturbances of a singular signified network, and also of an attack on its familial and societal bases, testifies to individual and collective subjectivities.ResultsComing from the real world, and therefore also from the body, the stimuli made up of signals picked up by our senses combine to compose an event that can be objectified by its temporal, spatial, biological, and physico-chemical coordinates. These elements combine into a unit, which is then interpreted by the mind, which attributes meaning to this event, which has become subjective reality. But when the subject is not sufficiently prepared to be confronted with this meaning that appears to be in extreme contradiction with her/his previous cardinal networks of significations, it makes “too much sense:” this irreconcilable hyper-signified (that we call the traumatic signified) results in post-traumatic dissociation. In other words, it is an impossibility of concordance of a signified with certain systems of prior significations that constitutes the pathogenesis of the trauma; and a situation runs a greater risk of being traumatic when it contradicts, or, moreso, endangers some or all of the subject's cardinal meanings. This unbearable signified reflexively blocks the capacities of significations immediately pre- and post-trauma, then dissociates the psychic functions to varying degrees and intensities. The traumatic signified, rejected, becomes unattainable: the stimuli that led to its formation find themselves confined to the state of reviviscences, each replication of which attempts to cross the barrier of inconceivability. Limiting sensory compounds to their raw states without the possibility of representational integration, associative pathways remain blocked. The signifier is referred to a hypo-signifier confined to the infra-linguistic by its confusion with the referent, the “objective and material” components of the traumatic event. Dissociation is therefore only a symptomatic reaction, secondary to the trauma, which it reinforces once again by limiting any possibility of representing the trauma. This dissociation does not involve forgetting the traumatic signified but “protects” the adjacent networks of meanings from it as much as it “keeps” this hypersignified intact, therefore ultimately “protecting” it as well. The traumatic signified persists somewhere, and even ends up being found everywhere: when the networks of meanings turn out to be globally disturbed, the tightest links remain those of the traumatic hypersignified that ultimately governs all the networks of meanings.DiscussionOur insufficient knowledge prevents us from precisely qualifying the architecture of the signified idiosyncratic networks and their evolutionary capacities; we cannot predict, beforehand, the reaction of an individual confronted with a potentially psychotraumatic situation. For most clinical situations, we affirm that the psychological trauma occurs in a psychically healthy subject, that is, not suffering from any psychiatric illness or any obvious psychopathological conflict. Psychotherapy will make it possible to discover the signified, sometimes ancient, origins of a trauma occurring in a singular subject. How was this subjectivity constructed? Beyond individual subjectivity, the intensity of certain confrontations such as serious attacks or macrosocial catastrophes such as genocide, would seem to lead to psychological wounds in any individual, even at the scale of a population. While, throughout existence, each subject produces a system of significations in connection with a unique psychic construction, the latter persists – resulting from, and often remaining overseen by, the community essence of a base of signifying networks, which we call “societal subjectivity.” Here, the psychological trauma can correspond to an individual and “common” injury as a failure of a sharing, or of ancestral beliefs anchored in the collective memory, defining the culture. By the collapse of acquired certainties, the cognitive patterns transmitted by education, language, and everything that establishes one's belonging to a society, trauma shakes the networks of individual and group meanings. Horror has a higher traumatogenic risk, because it defeats the fundamentals of humankind, the foundations of a signified network common to a culture, or even to all cultures, to the human condition. This is the case with murder, rape, torture, wars, genocides. Testifying to an instinct for survival stemming from the biological foundations of every living being, the impossibility of “living death” appears to be anchored in our networks of meanings and is manifested by indescribability, traumatic as such: being deserted by the language collides with the condition of speaking. And yet, it remains possible to say something about it... As a path of progressive desocialization, the occasional loss of the community of language, followed by its lasting traumatic ravages, can be appeased by the reestablishment of a speech link, either within the mind of the subject alone, or promoted by the exchange with others, in a psychotherapeutic setting, for example.ConclusionWhere theoretical discourses have sometimes proved divisive, going beyond the symptoms of indescribability and dissociation, psychodynamic practice today offers to unite. Thanks to psycholinguistic listening, phenomena that have never been explained take on meaning: the singularity of traumatic perception, the chronology of disorders including the latency phase, factors that trigger reviviscences, and the diversity of chronic clinical forms. All these post-traumatic symptoms are consequential to a linguistic wound, a difficulty in accessing meaning, the undermining of two dimensions characterizing and constructing the human being. As much as it integrates extralinguistic determinants, if the traumatic signified is undoubtedly not only speech, language appears the optimal way to identify it as such, while in the same movement appeasing it. The traumatic hypersignified is discovered through clinical analysis and psychotherapy, through deferred action, through the attribution of meaning, through the retrospective reconstruction of an unstable “real,” through a changing narration eternally distancing itself from reviviscences. But what precisely are the mechanisms of effective therapies ? What are the intersubjective links called for in the discussion between patient and practitioner? Could the operations that we call “psychotherapy” be made up of mobilizations of the networks of meanings by speech acts?     

Drezotomía en el tratamiento del dolor por desaferentización: revisión de resultados y análisis de factores predictores de éxito

Background and objectivesThe treatment of deafferentation pain by spinal DREZotomy is a proven therapeutic option in the literature. In recent years, use of DREZotomy has been relegated to second place due to the emergence of neuromodulation therapies. The objectives of this study are to demonstrate that DREZotomy continues to be an effective and safe treatment and to analyse predictive factors for success.Patients and methodsA retrospective study was conducted of all patients treated in our department with spinal DREZotomy from 1998 to 2018. Bulbar DREZotomy procedures were excluded. A visual analogue scale (VAS) and the reduction of routine medication were used as outcome variables. Demographic, clinical and operative variables were analysed as predictive factors for success.ResultsA total of 27 patients (51.9% female) with a mean age of 53.7 years underwent DREZotomy. The main cause of pain was brachial plexus injury (BPI) (55.6%) followed by neoplasms (18.5%). The mean time of pain evolution was 8.4 years with a mean intensity of 8.7 according to the VAS, even though 63% of the patients had previously received neurostimulation therapy. Favourable outcome (≥ 50% pain reduction in the VAS) was observed in 77.8% of patients during the postoperative period and remained in 59.3% of patients after 22 months average follow-up (mean reduction of 4.9 points). This allowed for a reduction in routine analgesic treatment in 70.4% of them. DREZotomy in BPI-related pain presented a significantly higher success rate (93%) than the other pathologies (41.7%) (p = .001). No association was observed between outcome and age, gender, DREZ technique, duration of pain or previous neurostimulation therapies. There were six neurological complications, four post-operative transient neurological deficits and two permanent deficits.ConclusionDorsal root entry zone surgery is effective and safe for treating patients with deafferentation pain, especially after brachial plexus injury. It can be considered an alternative treatment after failed neurostimulation techniques for pain control. However, its indication should be considered as the first therapeutic option after medical therapy failure due to its good long-term results.     

Breast cancer management pathways during the COVID-19 pandemic: outcomes from the UK ‘Alert Level 4’ phase of the B-MaP-C study

Background The B-MaP-C study aimed to determine alterations to breast cancer (BC) management during the peak transmission period of the UK COVID-19 pandemic and the potential impact of these treatment decisions.Methods This was a national cohort study of patients with early BC undergoing multidisciplinary team (MDT)-guided treatment recommendations during the pandemic, designated ‘standard’ or ‘COVID-altered’, in the preoperative, operative and post-operative setting.Findings Of 3776 patients (from 64 UK units) in the study, 2246 (59%) had ‘COVID-altered’ management. ‘Bridging’ endocrine therapy was used (n = 951) where theatre capacity was reduced. There was increasing access to COVID-19 low-risk theatres during the study period (59%). In line with national guidance, immediate breast reconstruction was avoided (n = 299). Where adjuvant chemotherapy was omitted (n = 81), the median benefit was only 3% (IQR 2–9%) using ‘NHS Predict’. There was the rapid adoption of new evidence-based hypofractionated radiotherapy (n = 781, from 46 units). Only 14 patients (1%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during their treatment journey.Conclusions The majority of ‘COVID-altered’ management decisions were largely in line with pre-COVID evidence-based guidelines, implying that breast cancer survival outcomes are unlikely to be negatively impacted by the pandemic. However, in this study, the potential impact of delays to BC presentation or diagnosis remains unknown.Subject terms: Breast cancer, Surgical oncology, Health care economics, Quality of life, Health policy     

Fibroblast growth factor receptors in cancer: genetic alterations,diagnostics, therapeutic targets and mechanisms of resistance

Fibroblast growth factor receptors (FGFRs) are aberrantly activated through single-nucleotide variants, gene fusions and copy number amplifications in 5–10% of all human cancers, although this frequency increases to 10–30% in urothelial carcinoma and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. We begin this review by highlighting the diversity of FGFR genomic alterations identified in human cancers and the current challenges associated with the development of clinical-grade molecular diagnostic tests to accurately detect these alterations in the tissue and blood of patients. The past decade has seen significant advancements in the development of FGFR-targeted therapies, which include selective, non-selective and covalent small-molecule inhibitors, as well as monoclonal antibodies against the receptors. We describe the expanding landscape of anti-FGFR therapies that are being assessed in early phase and randomised controlled clinical trials, such as erdafitinib and pemigatinib, which are approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of FGFR3-mutated urothelial carcinoma and FGFR2-fusion cholangiocarcinoma, respectively. However, despite initial sensitivity to FGFR inhibition, acquired drug resistance leading to cancer progression develops in most patients. This phenomenon underscores the need to clearly delineate tumour-intrinsic and tumour-extrinsic mechanisms of resistance to facilitate the development of second-generation FGFR inhibitors and novel treatment strategies beyond progression on targeted therapy.Subject terms: Cancer, Cancer