Multidisciplinary Management of Phyllodes Tumours and Breast Sarcoma: A Cross-sectional Survey of Clinical Practice across the UK and Ireland.

AIMS: Phyllodes tumours and breast sarcomas are uncommon tumours and their rarity poses significant challenges in diagnosis and management. This cross-sectional study was conducted to evaluate the multidisciplinary clinical practice for these tumours across the UK and Ireland, with the aim of identifying gaps in knowledge and providing direction for establishing national guidelines. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An international survey was adapted and circulated to breast and/or sarcoma surgeons and oncologists in the UK and Ireland through national organisations. Multidisciplinary team (MDT) responses were analysed anonymously. RESULTS: Twenty-eight MDTs participated in this study, predominately from high-volume units (85.5%). Although only 43% of the surveyed units were part of a trust that holds a sarcoma MDT, 68% of units managed malignant phyllodes and angiosarcoma, whereas 64.5% managed soft-tissue sarcoma of the breast. Across all subtypes, axillary surgery was recommended by 14-21% of the MDTs and the most recommended resection margins for breast surgery were 'no tumour on ink' in benign phyllodes (39%) and 10 mm in the remaining subtypes (25-29%). Immediate breast reconstruction was supported by 11-18% of MDTs for breast sarcoma subtypes, whereas 36% and 32% advocated this approach in benign and borderline phyllodes tumours, respectively. Adjuvant radiotherapy and chemotherapy were recommended by up to 29% and 11% of the MDTs, respectively. CONCLUSION: The results of this study demonstrate a wide variation in clinical practice across the surveyed MDTs. As only 28 MDTs participated in our study, with under-representation from low-volume units, our results might be an underestimation of the variability in practice across the UK and Ireland. This multi-institutional study sheds light on controversial aspects in the management of phyllodes tumours and breast sarcoma, identifies the need for national guidelines to inform best practice, and calls for the centralisation of the management of breast sarcoma within specialist centres.

Different Score Systems to Predict Mortality in Living Donor Liver Transplantation: Which Is the Winner? The Experience of an Egyptian Center for Living Donor Liver Transplantation.

INTRODUCTION: Many scoring systems have been proposed to predict the outcome of deceased donor liver transplantation. However, their impact on the outcome in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has not yet been elucidated. This study sought to assess performance of preoperative Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score in predicting postoperative mortality in LDLT and to compare it with other scores: MELDNa, United Kingdom End-Stage Liver Disease (UKELD), MELD to serum sodium ratio (MESO), updated MELD, donor age-MELD (D-MELD) and integrated MELD (iMELD). METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed data from 86 adult Egyptian patients who underwent LDLT in a single center. Preoperative MELD, MELDNa, MESO, UKELD, updated MELD, D-MELD, and iMELD were calculated. Receiver-operator characteristic (ROC) curves and area under the curve (AUC) were used to assess the performance of MELD and other scores in predicting postoperative mortality at 3 months (early) and 12 months. RESULTS: Among the 86 patients, mean age 48 ± 7 years, 76 (88%) were of male sex and 27 (31.4%) had died. Preoperative MELD failed to predict early mortality (AUC = 0.63; P = .066). Comparing preoperative MELD with other scores, all other scores had better predictive ability (P < .05), with D-MELD on the top of the list (AUC = 0.68, P = .016), followed closely by UKELD (AUC = 0.67, P = .025). After that were iMELD, MESO, and MELDNa with the same predictive performance (AUC = 0.65; P < .05); updated MELD had the lowest prediction (AUC = 0.640; P = .04). Moreover, all scores failed to predict mortality at 12 months (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative MELD failed to predict either early or 1-year mortality after LDLT. D-MELD, UKELD, MELDNa, iMELD, and MESO could be used as better predictors of early mortality than MELD; however, we need to develop an effective score system to predict mortality after LDLT.