79 1 strictly from animal data, 2 have any further on that? 8 CDR. CONARD: and not from human data. Do you The lesions as they were when we last saw them showed no signs of development of true chronic radio dermatitis. That is, the usual signs of Alderson Reporting Company Washington, D. C. atrophy and so forth that you normally observe in chronic ARC 7 radio dermatitis were not apparent. 8 changes. 9 of theepithelium forming papule stroatures which Dr. Wood nt Departmen’ cf Hyperkeratosis was developing, and some overgrowth 10 seemed to think might account for the large peel like 11 appearance af 12} along with hyperpigmentation of the skin. 13 changes have any significance to prognosis, 14 know. 15 report on histopathology, he may give us 146 of his ideas in that direction. 17 DR. DUNHAM: I the skins which we noted as a later development Whether these I really don't think that when Dr. Wood comes thragh with his final some more evidence It is really a little early, because 18 we don't know how normal this skin will get. 19 more normal than it is nox 20 doubts as to optimistic prognosis. 21 normal in the next six months or so, 22 very optimistic again. 23 leads eventually to malignant degeneration,the tissues 24 themselves do not pass through a thoroughly normal appearing nd . There were some other If it gets then I think there are grave If it gets more then I think one can get I believe radiation damage that stage microscopically ever. ae Th eorey¥ HistormalaSs Bt pets 2sckT Ta ria Ca crc? am, Baty