No abstract

Skin cancer, including melanoma, basal cell carcinoma and cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma, has one of the highest global incidences of any form of cancer. In 2016 more than 16,000 people were diagnosed with melanoma in the UK. Over the last decade the incidence of melanoma has increased by 50% in the UK, and about one in ten melanomas are diagnosed at a late stage. Among the keratinocyte carcinomas (previously known as non-melanoma skin cancers), basal cell carcinoma is the most common cancer amongst Caucasian populations. The main risk factor for all skin cancer is exposure to ultraviolet radiation-more than 80% are considered preventable. Primary care clinicians have a vital role to play in detecting and managing patients with skin lesions suspected to be skin cancer, as timely diagnosis and treatment can improve patient outcomes, particularly for melanoma. However, detecting skin cancer can be challenging, as common non-malignant skin lesions such as seborrhoeic keratoses share features with less common skin cancers. Given that more than 80% of skin cancers are attributed to ultraviolet (UV) exposure, primary care clinicians can also play an important role in skin cancer prevention. This article is one of a series discussing cancer prevention and detection in primary care. Here we focus on the most common types of skin cancer: melanoma, squamous cell carcinoma and basal cell carcinoma. We describe the main risk factors and prevention advice. We summarise key guidance on the symptoms and signs of skin cancers and their management, including their initial assessment and referral. In addition, we review emerging technologies and diagnostic aids which may become available for use in primary care in the near future, to aid the triage of suspicious skin lesions.

The use of bone scaffolds to replace injured or diseased bone has many advantages over the currently used autologous and allogeneic options in clinical practice. This systematic review evaluates the current evidence for non-cellular scaffolds containing bioactive glass on osteogenesis and angiogenesis in animal bone defect models. Studies that reported results of osteogenesis via micro-CT and results of angiogenesis via Microfil perfusion or immunohistochemistry were included in the review. A literature search of PubMed, EMBASE and Scopus was carried out in November 2019 from which nine studies met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Despite the significant heterogeneity in the composition of the scaffolds used in each study, it could be concluded that scaffolds containing bioactive glass improve bone regeneration in these models, both by osteogenic and angiogenic measures. Incorporation of additional elements into the glass network, using additives, and using biochemical factors generally had a beneficial effect. Comparing the different compositions of non-cellular bioactive glass containing scaffolds is however difficult due to the heterogeneity in bioactive glass compositions, fabrication methods and biochemical additives used.

Five studies in this review used cultured ADMSCs, while four studies used stromal vascular fraction and three used micro-fragmented adipose tissue to deliver ADMSCs. No studies reported serious treatment-related adverse effects and all reported improvements in clinical measures for at least one dose. This was not necessarily reflected in imaging evaluations nor were improvements always maintained. Current low-level evidence is limited due to variability in study methodology but indicates that treatments containing ADMSCs, when used in isolation, are safe and have the potential to reduce pain and improve function. Randomized controlled trials are now needed.

The aim of this PRISMA review was to assess whether the CMI and Actifit scaffolds, when used in clinical practice, improve clinical outcomes and demonstrate the ideal biological and biomechanical properties of scaffolds: being chondroprotective, porous, resorbable, able to mature and promote regeneration of tissue. This was done by only including studies that assessed clinical outcome and used a scale to assess both integrity of the scaffold and its effects on articular cartilage via MRI. A search was performed on PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus and clinicaltrials.gov. 2457 articles were screened, from which eight studies were selected: four used Actifit, three used CMI and one compared the two. All studies reported significant improvement in at least one clinical outcome compared to baseline. Some studies suggested that the scaffolds appeared to show porosity, mature, resorb and/or have possible chondroprotective effects, as assessed by MRI. The evidence for clinical translation is limited by differences in study methodology and small sample sizes, but is promising in terms of improving clinical outcomes in the short to mid-term. Higher level evidence, with MRI and histological evaluation of the scaffold and articular cartilage, is now needed to further determine whether these scaffolds exhibit these useful properties.