Trait cheerfulness sensitivity to positive and negative affective states

Recent research suggests that trait cheerfulness triggers larger state cheerfulness variations after facing amusing and sad clips. The present study aimed at replicating and extending these effects. A sample of 80 psychology students (68 women) was selected depending on their scores in trait cheerfulness. Participants watched a set of positive and negative pictures, which was accompanied by statements, and were asked to report their affective states before and after watching them. The results showed that high versus low trait cheerfulness participants reported a larger increase in state cheerfulness, valence, and joy measures after the positive induction and a larger decrease in state cheerfulness after the negative induction. The results replicate and extend previous findings and support the idea that high trait cheerfulness people are more sensitive to the affective environment.

Outcomes Following Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplantation for AML in First Completion Remission Are Comparable between MRD Negative Patients and MRD Positive Patients Receiving Induction Only and Are Superior to MRD Positive Patients Receiving Induction and Additional Therapy

Background: Data suggests that the presence of measurable residual disease (MRD) at the time of transplant for AML portends a poor prognosis. The timing of MRD assessment and transplant relative to the amount of pre-transplant therapy, however, may affect this prognosis. To examine further the question of optimal timing of transplant in the setting of MRD, we reviewed outcomes in AML patients treated with traditional cytotoxic induction at our center who achieved CR1 and proceeded to transplant. Methods: We analyzed outcomes in patients undergoing first transplant for AML in CR1 between January 2014 and March 2018. CR was defined according to 2017 European Leukemia Network (ELN) guidelines. Non-core binding factor patients were included if they underwent initial therapy with 7+3 chemotherapy (+/- adjunctive inhibitor during induction or as post-transplant maintenance). MRD testing modalities included cytogenetics/FISH (performed in 37 patients, positive in 10), flow cytometry performed by Hematologics Inc (performed in 49 patients, positive in 16), and/or mutation specific droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) performed at our center (performed in 33 patients, positive in 16). For three patients, other molecular methods demonstrated MRD. We compared outcomes in three groups: patients who underwent transplant in CR1 with positive MRD after induction only (MRD positive induction only) (n=15), patients who underwent transplant in CR1 with positive MRD after induction and additional therapy (MRD positive induction plus) (n=19), and patients undergoing transplant in CR1 with no MRD (MRD negative) (n=37). Patient details are summarized in Table 1. Results: CI of relapse was higher among MRD positive induction plus patients than MRD positive induction only patients (p=0.042, HR 0.301 (0.094-0.96)) and comparable among MRD positive induction only patients and MRD negative patients (p=0.987, HR 1.011 (0.29-3.58)). CI of transplant related mortality (TRM) was comparable between MRD positive induction plus patients and MRD positive induction only patients (p=0.165, HR 0.23 (95% CI 0.028-1.81)) and comparable among MRD positive induction only patients and MRD negative patients (p=0.871, HR 1.22 (95% CI 0.12-12.87)). Relapse free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were comparable between MRD positive induction only patients and MRD negative patients and significantly better than for MRD positive induction plus patients (RFS (p<0.0001) and OS (p=0.0008)). (Figure 1) On multivariate analysis including MRD positive induction only, MRD positive induction plus, MRD negative, patient age, Sorror comorbidity index, donor source, conditioning regimen, use of adjunctive therapy, and ELN AML risk status, MRD positive induction plus was associated with a significantly higher risk of relapse than MRD positive induction only (p=0.014, HR 0.231 (95% CI 0.072-0.742)). No other factors were statistically significant. Because multiple strategies were used to assess for MRD, we compared MRD positive induction only to MRD positive induction plus patients using flow cytometry performed by Hematologics Inc as the only MRD assessment technique. CI of relapse trended toward lower in the MRD positive induction only group (p=0.10, HR 0.22, (95% CI 0.036-1.34). OS and RFS were significantly improved in the MRD positive induction only patients (p=0.027 and p=0.026 respectively). Conclusions: For patients achieving CR following induction and moving directly to transplant in spite of MRD positivity, outcomes were comparable to patients going to transplant in an MRD negative state and were significantly improved compared to outcomes of patients in an MRD positive state who received additional therapy following induction. Our series is small, and multiple MRD monitoring strategies were used. However, given the paucity of data on this specific question, uncertainty about whether MRD will clear with additional cytotoxic therapy following induction, and the poor prognosis of patients with persistent MRD in the induction plus group, we consider transplant following induction reasonable in this population regardless of MRD status. Larger series are necessary to more definitively answer this question. Disclosures Loken: Hematologics, Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Pollyea:Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celyad: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Diachii Sankyo: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Forty-Seven: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

PAPEL MODERADOR DEL SEXO EN LAS PRÁCTICAS DE CRIANZA / MODERATOR ROLE OF SEX IN REARING PRACTICES

The objective of the study was to analyze possible differences with regard to different rearing behaviors expressed by fathers and mothers on the socialization of sons and daughters during late adolescence and young adulthood. Participants were 193 students from the University of Granada, 149 of them being women and 44 men. They completed the Questionnaire on Rearing Practices (Supple, Peterson & Bush, 2004), which assesses six dimensions of parenting, regarding the father and the mother: Support, Positive Induction, Monitoring (Behavioral Control), Autonomy Granting, Punitiveness and Love Withdrawal. Results indicate that sons and daughters perceived a different parenting style by the father, but only in two of the dimensions evaluated (Positive Induction and Punitiveness). However, they did not perceived in a different way maternal parenting (only Love withdrawal approached the significance). With regard to the possible differences in parenting behaviors by foster parents, mothers performed higher levels of Induction, Monitoring and Support with both sons and daughters. The only dimension of parenting behavior in which father scores were higher than mother’s was Autonomy Granting with male children, but without reaching the statistical significance. Finally, regarding to the use of inappropriate methods of discipline, mothers showed a greater level of Punitiveness with daughters than fathers, while in the case of the male children mothers also scored significantly higher than parents on Love withdrawal.Keywords: Fathers, mothers, parenting practices, sexual differences.Resumen:El objetivo del estudio fue analizar posibles diferencias en diversas conductas de crianza manifestadas por los padres y las madres en la socialización de hijos e hijas durante la adolescencia tardía y la adultez joven. Los participantes fueron 193 estudiantes de la Universidad de Granada, de los que 149 eran mujeres y 44 varones. Cumplimentaron el Cuestionario de Prácticas de Crianza (Supple et al., 2004), que evalúa seis dimensiones de la crianza, tanto del padre como de la madre: Apoyo, Inducción, Monitorización, Garantizar la Autonomía, Punitividad y Retirada del Afecto. Los resultados indican que hijos e hijas percibían una crianza diferencial por parte del padre, aunque sólo en dos de las dimensiones evaluadas (Inducción, Punitividad). Sin embargo, no percibían de modo diferente la crianza materna (únicamente se aproximaba a la significación la Retirada del afecto). En cuanto a las posibles diferencias en conductas de crianza por ambos progenitores, las madres prestaban unos mayores niveles de Apoyo, Inducción y Monitorización tanto con los hijos como con las hijas. La única dimensión de las conductas de crianza en la que las puntuaciones del padre superaban a las de la madre era en la Estimulación de la Autonomía con los hijos varones, aunque sin llegar al nivel de significación estadística. Finalmente, en lo que se refiere al uso de métodos de disciplina inadecuados, las madres mostraban una mayor Punitividad que los padres con las hijas, mientras que en el caso de los hijos las madres también puntuaban significativamente más que los padres en Retirada del Afecto.Palabras clave: Padres, madres, prácticas de crianza, diferencias sexuales.