This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.
To the Editor.—
During the course of our investigation of the case entitled "Neoplasia Resulting From Grenz Radiation, published in the Archives of Dermatology in March, 1968, we investigated as thoroughly as possible under the circumstances of such an event, exactly the type, quality and other factors of the radiation given to this patient. It is true that the dermatologist who administered the grenz radiation has both a grenz ray machine and a combination grenz and x-ray machine in his office. In spite of the fact that the inadvertent use of x-radiation in this patient is entirely denied by the office of this physician and this denial is based on many extra safety features which were installed in the machine along with the standard safety features, one cannot deny that it is within the realm of possibility that an error was made and x-radiation was administered instead of grenz radiation.
Bleiberg J, Brodkin RH. REPLY. Arch Dermatol. 1968;98(3):313. doi:10.1001/archderm.1968.01610150099020
Coronavirus Resource Center
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: