An ultrasonographic monitoring of skin condition in patients receiving radiotherapy for head and neck cancers

Radiodermatitis is one of the commonest side effects of radiotherapy. They are usually assessed by semi‐quantitative clinical scores, which are not validated and may be subject to inter‐observer variability. A few previous studies suggested that high‐frequency ultrasonography (HF‐USG) is useful in the assessment of the acute phase of radiation dermatitis in breast cancer patients. (a) To monitor skin changes by HF‐USG during the course of radiotherapy due to head and neck cancers, and (b) to determine whether there is any connection between skin sonograms and the skin scoring criteria. This prospective, observational study includes patients diagnosed with head and neck cancers, treated with radiotherapy or concomitant chemoradiation. The final analysis includes six patients. In every patient, the HF‐USG as well as dermatological assessment (target lesion score—TLS and CACE v. 4.0) were performed 4×: before, in the middle, day after, and 3 months after radiotherapy. There were significant differences between non‐irradiated skin thickness and thickness of skin with clinically obvious radiodermatitis (TLS grade 1‐4; P < .0001), as well as between irradiated, unchanged skin thickness (TLS grade 0) and thickness of skin with clinically obvious radiodermatitis (TLS grade 1‐4; P = .0002). There was no significant difference between non‐irradiated and irradiated, unchanged skin thickness (TLS grade 0; P = .9318). In four patients, we demonstrated subepidermal low echogenic band (SLEB). HF‐USG can be useful tool to noninvasive and objective assessment of skin changes during radiotherapy.     

A comparison of the academic impact of plastic surgery units in the United Kingdom and Ireland using bibliometric analysis

Academic output is just one aspect of a successful career as a plastic surgeon. However, for those with a strong interest in academia, the academic output of a department will likely be a key factor when deciding how to rank jobs. The aim of this study was to quantify and rank the academic output of plastic surgery units across the UK and Ireland. The Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Web of Science Bibliometric analysis tool was used to collate cumulative (1950–2016), 10 year (2006–2016) and 3 years (2013–2015) research output data for plastic surgery units in the UK and Ireland. Sixty-six plastic surgery units were identified. Departments were ranked for each time period according to the number of papers produced, number of citations (Nc) and h-index (a measure of the impact of scientific output). The top 3 departments for number of papers in the last 10 years were The Royal Free Hospital, London (226) Broomfield Hospital, Chelmsford (218), and Morriston Hospital and Swansea (188). The top 3 for h-number were The Royal Free Hospital (21) Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester (18) and Morriston Hospital (17). Academic output varies across plastic surgery units in the UK and Ireland. A number of departments have consistently maintained high academic outputs across the years and will be of interest to surgeons hoping to pursue a career in academia.     

The case for allele‐specific recognition by the TCR

There is a sharp difference in how one views TCR structure–function–behaviour dependent on whether its recognition of major histocompatibility complex‐encoded restriction elements (R) is germline selected or somatically generated. The generally accepted or Standard model is built on the assumption that recognition of R is by the V regions of the αβ TCR, which is not driven by allele specificity, whereas the competing model posits that recognition of R is allele‐specific. The establishing of allele‐specific recognition of R by the TCR would rule out the Standard model and clear the road to a consideration of a competing construct, the Tritope model. Here, the case for allele‐specific recognition (germline selected) is detailed making it obvious that the Standard model is untenable.