Article

Gamma Ventral Capsulotomy for Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder: A Randomized Clinical Trial

JAMA Psychiatry (Impact Factor: 12.01). 07/2014; DOI: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2014.1193

ABSTRACT IMPORTANCE Select cases of intractable obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) have
undergone neurosurgical ablation for more than half a century. However, to our knowledge,
there have been no randomized clinical trials of such procedures for the treatment of any
psychiatric disorder.
OBJECTIVE To determine the efficacy and safety of a radiosurgery (gamma ventral
capsulotomy [GVC]) for intractable OCD.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized
clinical trial, 16 patients with intractable OCD were randomized to active (n = 8) or sham
(n = 8) GVC. Blinding was maintained for 12 months. After unblinding, sham-group patients
were offered active GVC.
INTERVENTIONS Patients randomized to active GVC had 2 distinct isocenters on each side
irradiated at the ventral border of the anterior limb of the internal capsule. The patients
randomized to sham GVC received simulated radiosurgery using the same equipment.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Scores on the Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale
(Y-BOCS) and the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I) Scale. Response was
defined as a 35% or greater reduction in Y-BOCS severity and “improved” or “much improved”
CGI-I ratings.
RESULTS Three of 8 patients randomized to active treatment responded at 12 months, while
none of the 8 sham-GVC patients responded (absolute risk reduction, 0.375; 95% CI,
0.04-0.71). At 12 months, OCD symptom improvement was significantly higher in the
active-GVC group than in the sham group (Y-BOCS, P = .046; Dimensional Y-BOCS, P = .01).
At 54 months, 2 additional patients in the active group had become responders. Of the 4
sham-GVC patients who later received active GVC, 2 responded by post-GVC month 12. The
most serious adverse event was an asymptomatic radiation-induced cyst in 1 patient.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Gamma ventral capsulotomy benefitted patients with
otherwise intractable OCD and thus appears to be an alternative to deep-brain stimulation in
selected cases. Given the risks inherent in any psychiatric neurosurgery, such procedures
should be conducted at specialized centers.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Carlos A de B Pereira, Aug 25, 2014
6 Followers
 · 
153 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Approximately 10% of patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) have symptoms that are refractory to pharmacologic and cognitive-behavioral therapies. Neurosurgical interventions can be effective therapeutic options in these patients, but not all individuals respond. The mechanisms underlying this response variability are poorly understood. To identify neuroanatomical characteristics on preoperative imaging that differentiate responders from nonresponders to dorsal anterior cingulotomy, a neurosurgical lesion procedure used to treat refractory OCD. We retrospectively analyzed preoperative T1 and diffusion magnetic resonance imaging sequences from 15 patients (9 men and 6 women) who underwent dorsal anterior cingulotomy. Eight of the 15 patients (53%) responded to the procedure. We used voxel-based morphometry (VBM) and diffusion tensor imaging to identify structural and connectivity variations that could differentiate eventual responders from nonresponders. The VBM and probabilistic tractography metrics were correlated with clinical response to the cingulotomy procedure as measured by changes in the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale score. Voxel-based morphometry analysis revealed a gray matter cluster in the right anterior cingulate cortex, anterior to the eventual lesion, for which signal strength correlated with poor response (P = .017). Decreased gray matter in this region of the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex predicted improved response (mean [SD] gray matter partial volume for responders vs nonresponders, 0.47 [0.03] vs 0.66 [0.03]; corresponding to mean Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale score change, -60% [19] vs -11% [9], respectively). Hemispheric asymmetry in connectivity between the eventual lesion and the caudate (for responders vs nonresponders, mean [SD] group laterality for individual lesion seeds, -0.79 [0.18] vs -0.08 [0.65]; P = .04), putamen (-0.55 [0.35] vs 0.50 [0.33]; P = .001), thalamus (-0.82 [0.19] vs 0.41 [0.24]; P = .001), pallidum (-0.78 [0.18] vs 0.43 [0.48]; P = .001), and hippocampus (-0.66 [0.33] vs 0.33 [0.18]; P = .001) also correlated significantly with clinical response, with increased right-sided connectivity predicting greater response. We identified features of anterior cingulate cortex structure and connectivity that predict clinical response to dorsal anterior cingulotomy for refractory OCD. These results suggest that the variability seen in individual responses to a highly consistent, stereotyped procedure may be due to neuroanatomical variation in the patients. Furthermore, these variations may allow us to predict which patients are most likely to respond to cingulotomy, thereby refining our ability to individualize this treatment for refractory psychiatric disorders.
    JAMA Psychiatry 12/2014; 72(2). DOI:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2014.2216 · 12.01 Impact Factor
  • Source
    JAMA Psychiatry 12/2014; 72(2). DOI:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2014.2552 · 12.01 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In their paper, Baas and colleagues (Baas et al., 2014), take the rather unique opportunity to conduct a human fear conditioning experiment in subjects with stimulation electrodes in the nucleus accumbens and internal capsule. Here, we argue that it might be premature to draw the strong conclusion that deep brain stimulation (DBS) does not impact contextual anxiety. We will elaborate on two aspects of the study that were not thoroughly discussed in the original paper, but that might help explain why no effects were found. Firstly, we will focus on the neuroanatomy and, secondly, on the behavioral procedure.
    Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience 03/2015; 9:69. DOI:10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00069 · 4.16 Impact Factor