Tumours of the foot: A 10 years retrospective analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The foot is a complex structure composed of several tissues, each of which can be the origin of the proliferation and development of the tumour. Most lesions about the foot are reactive or inflammatory, but some are true neoplasms. METHOD: This is a retrospective analysis of 4997 patient records treated in the Orthopaedic Oncology Unit of University Malaya Medical Centre, Malaysia, between 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2020. Demographic data of 195 patients with foot tumours were analysed out of 4997 neoplasm patients. RESULTS: There were 195 cases of foot tumours: 148 were benign, and 47 were malignant. 47 were bone tumours, 4 were metastases, and 144 were soft tissue tumours. Six patients succumbed to the disease, two cases of giant cell tumour (GCT) and one patient with synovial sarcoma had a recurrence. Treatment of foot tumours was wide resection in general. However, in metastasis cases, amputation was done. The majority of tumours were in the toes and dorsum of the foot. Soft tissue tumours of the foot occur in the elderly population in contrast to bone tumours, mainly in the second decade of life. The gender distribution was almost equal for foot tumours. Ganglion and Giant Cell Tumour of the bone are the commonest benign soft tissue and bone tumours. The most common malignant soft tissue and bone tumours are malignant melanoma and chondrosarcoma. The amputation rate is 5.64% the recurrence rate is 1.54%. Mortality rate is 3.08%. The MSTS score is 79%, and the TESS score is 76.23%. CONCLUSION: Foot tumours are relatively rare, mostly originating from soft tissue and exhibiting a benign nature. Nonetheless, a noteworthy proportion-approximately a quarter of these tumours-demonstrate malignancy. The surgical interventions undertaken in managing these tumours and associated functional outcomes generally yield acceptable results.

A Cross-Sectional Study on Inequity and Unmet Needs in Conducting Systematic Reviews (SRMA) and Meta-Analysis Among Medical Students and Junior Doctors.

Background: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses allow a transparent, rigorous, and replicable analysis to summarize the results of multiple related studies and are considered top of the evidence-based medicine study hierarchy. The COVID-19 pandemic has shed light on the unmet educational needs of students worldwide, notably those from underprivileged backgrounds. This cross-sectional study aimed to ascertain students' and junior doctors' attitudes on their current knowledge, confidence and preparedness of appraising and conducting systematic reviews and meta-analysis internationally. Methods: A free online webinar was held in May 2021 by the senior author and a pre-event questionnaire was distributed. Responses collected were used for analysis anonymously to ascertain students' knowledge, experience, and confidence in preparing a systematic review and meta-analysis using a 1-5 Likert scale using IBM SPSS 26.0. Associations were examined using Chi-square and crosstabs analysis. Results: Out of 2004 responses from 104 countries included in the analysis, the majority of delegates were from lower middle-income countries and were not familiar with the PRISMA checklist (59.2% and 81.1% respectively of the total number of participants). The majority had never attended any formal training (83%) and felt their medical institute gave them minimal advice (72.5%) in preparing systematic reviews. Among those who had attended formal training, the proportion was significantly higher in those belonging to high and upper middle-income countries combined (20.3%) than lower and lower-middle-income countries combined (15%). Conclusion: This study highlights gaps that need addressing to enhance the knowledge of medical students and junior doctors performing systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Clear disparities are found in country income and the level of education. Future large-scale studies are needed to understand the rationale of working on online research projects and the opportunities available to medical students and junior doctors that may lead to medical curriculum changes.

Enhanced Biomimetics of Three-Dimensional Osteosarcoma Models: A Scoping Review.

This scoping review evaluated 3D osteosarcoma (OS) models' biomimicry, examining their ability to mimic the tumour microenvironment (TME) and their drug sensitivity. Adhering to PRISMA-ScR guidelines, the systematic search revealed 293 studies, with 70 selected for final analysis. Overall, 64% of 3D OS models were scaffold-based, compared to self-generated spheroid models. Scaffolds generated using native matrix were most common (42%) with collagen I/hydroxyapatite predominating. Both scaffold-based and scaffold-free models were used equally for drug screening. The sensitivity of cancer cells in 3D was reported to be lower than that of cells in 2D in ~90% of the drug screening studies. This correlates with the observed upregulation of drug resistance. OS cells cultured in extracellular matrix (ECM)-mimetic scaffolds and native biomaterials were more resistant than cells in 2D. Co-cultures of OS and stromal cells in 3D models enhanced osteogenic differentiation, ECM remodelling, mineralisation, and angiogenesis, suggesting that tumour-stroma crosstalk promotes disease progression. Seven studies demonstrated selective toxicity of chemotherapeutics towards OS cells while sparing stromal cells, providing useful evidence for developing biomimetic tumour-stroma models to test selective drug toxicity. In conclusion, this review highlights the need to enhance biomimicry in 3D OS models for TME recapitulation, especially in testing novel therapeutics. Future research should explore innovative 3D biomimetic models, biomaterials, and advancements in personalised medicine.