1,721,140 research outputs found

    Epithelial-myoepithelial carcinoma of the parotid gland: Clinicopathological aspect, diagnosis and surgical consideration

    No full text
    The present paper describes the clinical and pathological features of epithelial-myoepithelial carcinoma (EMC) of the parotid gland. This rare tumor represents <1\% of all salivary gland tumors and arises most commonly in the parotid gland, but it has also been described in the submandibular gland, minor salivary glands and palate. EMC is considered to be a low-grade malignant tumor that may commonly recur locally after resection in 23-50\% of cases. The complex and varied morphological expression of this neoplasm has attracted numerous investigators, who have presented valuable but often contradictory data. After an in-depth analysis of the clinicopathological aspects of EMC, we speculate that adequate resection with negative soft-tissue margins is the minimum recommended and necessary therapy

    Risks of combining immunosuppressive and biological treatments in inflammatory bowel disease - in reply

    Full text link
    We thank Roblin and Phelip for their comment on a timely issue. The recent report of the rare hepatosplenic T-cell lymphoma (HSTCL) in young patients with CD treated with both infliximab and azathioprine or steroids has rightly unleashed a series of doubts regarding the optimal use of biological agents in this and other conditions. How these observations may directly relate to the design of our study—as implied by Roblin and Phelip—is unclear though. While azathioprine by itself has been linked to lymphoma development including HSTCL, recent studies have shown that neither infliximab nor methotrexate, which was used in our study, alone or in combination in CD or in rheumatoid arthritis, appear to be associated with an increased risk of developing lymphomas. In addition, methotrexate alone has never been associated thus far with HSTCL in CD

    Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis

    Full text link
    The present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
    corecore