Background Graves’ orbitopathy (GO) is subject to epidemiological and care-related changes. Aim of the survey was to identify trends in presentation of GO to the European Group On Graves’ Orbitopathy (EUGOGO) tertiary referral centres and initial management over time. Methods Prospective observational multicentre study. All new referrals with diagnosis of GO within September–December 2019 were included. Clinical and demographic characteristics, referral timelines and initial therapeutic decisions were recorded. Data were compared with a similar EUGOGO survey performed in 2012. Results Besides age (mean age: 50.5±13 years vs 47.7±14 years; p 0.007), demographic characteristics of 432 patients studied in 2019 were similar to those in 2012. In 2019, there was a decrease of severe cases (9.8% vs 14.9; p<0.001), but no significant change in proportion of active cases (41.3% vs 36.6%; p 0.217). After first diagnosis of GO, median referral time to an EUGOGO tertiary centre was shorter (2 (0–350) vs 6 (0–552) months; p<0.001) in 2019. At the time of first visit, more patients were already on antithyroid medications (80.2% vs 45.0%; p<0.001) or selenium (22.3% vs 3.0%; p<0.001). In 2019, the initial management plans for GO were similar to 2012, except for lid surgery (2.4% vs 13.9%; p<0.001) and prescription of selenium (28.5% vs 21.0%; p 0.027). Conclusion GO patients are referred to tertiary EUGOGO centres in a less severe stage of the disease than before. We speculate that this might be linked to a broader awareness of the disease and faster and adequate delivered treatment.

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) efforts have established catalogs of mutations relevant to cancer development. However, the clinical utility of this information remains largely unexplored. Here, we present the results of the first eight patients recruited into a clinical whole-genome sequencing (WGS) program in the United Kingdom. We performed PCR-free WGS of fresh frozen tumors and germline DNA at 75× and 30×, respectively, using the HiSeq2500 HTv4. Subtracted tumor VCFs and paired germlines were subjected to comprehensive analysis of coding and noncoding regions, integration of germline with somatically acquired variants, and global mutation signatures and pathway analyses. Results were classified into tiers and presented to a multidisciplinary tumor board. WGS results helped to clarify an uncertain histopathological diagnosis in one case, led to informed or supported prognosis in two cases, leading to de-escalation of therapy in one, and indicated potential treatments in all eight. Overall 26 different tier 1 potentially clinically actionable findings were identified using WGS compared with six SNVs/indels using routine targeted NGS. These initial results demonstrate the potential of WGS to inform future diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment choice in cancer and justify the systematic evaluation of the clinical utility of WGS in larger cohorts of patients with cancer.

Background: We aimed to investigate the effect of compression dressing on edema, ecchymosis, pain, and ocular surface irritation after ptosis surgery. Methods: After ptosis correction [anterior levator reinsertion (and resection) (ALR), if necessary additional blepharoplasty], the eye was randomized for compression dressing or transparent eye shield. Edema and ecchymosis were scored on a four-point rating scale by a blinded observer 1 day (D1), 1 week (D7), and 8 weeks (D56) after surgery; the same was done for scar formation regarding redness and bulging at D7 and D56. Aesthetic outcome was ranked by patient and blinded observer using the Global Aesthetic Improvement Score at D1, D7, and D56. Postoperative pain was scored using a visual analogue scale (0 to 10) at D1. Impairment after surgery by dressing or eye shield was evaluated at D1. Results: Ecchymosis, edema, scar formation, and aesthetic outcome ranked by the patient and blinded observer did not differ between the groups with compression dressing and eye shield at any day of follow-up (P > 0.05). Postoperative pain and impairment were the same in both groups (P > 0.05). One case of corneal erosion occurred in the group with compression dressing at D1 (P = 0.342). At D7, corneal staining was increased in the group without compression dressing (P = 0.930). Conclusions: Compression dressing after ALR does not reduce ecchymosis, edema, or postoperative pain and has no effect on early scar formation or aesthetic results. To prevent corneal erosion caused by the dressing, it can be omitted after ALR without inferiority for the early postoperative results.

Purpose: To investigate the effect of a compression dressing (CD) on edema, ecchymosis, aesthetic outcome, pain, and ocular surface irritation after upper eyelid blepharoplasty. Methods: We conducted a case–control study. Bilateral blepharoplasty was performed on both upper eyelids at the same time in patients with dermatochalasis. One side was randomized for CD. Edema and ecchymosis were scored at a 4-point rating scale by a blinded observer 1 day (D1), 1 week (D7), and 8 weeks (D56) after surgery; the same for scar formation regarding redness and bulging at D7 and D56. Aesthetic outcome was evaluated by the patient and blinded observer using the global aesthetic improvement score at D1, D7, and D56. Postoperative pain was scored by the patients using a visual analogue scale (0 to 10) at D1. At D1 patients had to state which side they felt more comfortable. Results: Edema, scar formation and aesthetic outcome evaluated by the patient and blinded observer did not differ between the 2 sides on any of the survey days (p > 0.05). The median degree of ecchymosis was slightly higher on the lids without CD at D1 (1 [0–2] vs. 1.5 [0–2]; p = 0.495) and D7 (0 [0–2] vs. 0.5 [0–2]; p = 0.183), but not statistically significant. Postoperative pain was similar regardless to the use of CD (p = 0.925). The majority (55%) found the side without CD more comfortable. There was no case of corneal erosion and corneal staining was similar in both groups (p > 0.05). Conclusions: Using a CD after blepharoplasty shows no advantages regarding postoperative edema, ecchymosis, scar formation, or aesthetic results in the early postoperative period. As most patients preferred the noncovered side, CD can be omitted after blepharoplasty without inferiority for the postoperative results. Clinical trial registry: NCT06111170.