| Title |
The risk of transmitting cutaneous malignancy through skin transplantation: a literature-based risk assessment
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cell and Tissue Banking, January 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10561-015-9497-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sarah Bosma, Marja J. Van Wijk, Cornelia D. Richters, Hilde Beele |
| Abstract |
According to the European Union Tissues and Cells Directives donation of tissue is contraindicated in the presence of or a previous history of malignant disease, with the exception of cutaneous basal cell carcinoma. Skin cancer is the most common cancer. Due to ultraviolet light exposure and increasing life expectancy an increasing prevalence of malignant or premalignant skin lesions is observed, which may result in a decline of the availability of skin for transplantation. A risk assessment based on published studies and expert opinion was performed in order to investigate the risk of transmitting malignant or premalignant skin lesions through tissue transplantation, and more particular through skin transplantation. The scarcity of data concerning cancer transmission in tissue transplantation was challenging. Circumstantial evidence, available for organ transplantation, was used to develop the following policy proposal for skin transplantation and cutaneous tumours. Malignant melanoma is an absolute contraindication for the donation of skin and also of other tissues, whereas, non-lesional skin and other tissues of a donor with non-melanoma skin cancer (basal cell and squamous cell carcinoma) or with a premalignant skin lesion can be considered for transplantation. The above mentioned protocol proposal might serve as a prototype for analogous protocols for non-cutaneous malignancies. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 15 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 3 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 13% |
| Researcher | 2 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 7 | 47% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 20% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 13% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 7 | 47% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 September 2016.
All research outputs
#15,316,776
of 22,780,967 outputs
Outputs from Cell and Tissue Banking
#154
of 287 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#210,253
of 353,560 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cell and Tissue Banking
#3
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,780,967 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 287 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 353,560 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.