This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

The resorufin- and PI-based assays are suitable for routine and high-throughput drug screening, whereas resazurin-based assays are not. These assays constitute a major advance in the current protocols as demonstrated by a successful screen for new antitrichomonal lead compounds.

Evidence before this study: Acute appendicitis is the most common general surgical emergency in children. Its diagnosis remains challenging and children presenting with acute right iliac fossa (RIF) pain may be admitted for clinical observation or undergo normal appendicectomy (removal of a histologically normal appendix). A search for external validation studies of risk prediction models for acute appendicitis in children was performed on MEDLINE and Web of Science on 12 January 2017 using the search terms ["appendicitis" OR "appendectomy" OR "appendicectomy"] AND ["score" OR "model" OR "nomogram" OR "scoring"]. Studies validating prediction models aimed at differentiating acute appendicitis from all other causes of RIF pain were included. No date restrictions were applied. Validation studies were most commonly performed for the Alvarado, Appendicitis Inflammatory Response Score (AIRS), and Paediatric Appendicitis Score (PAS) models. Most validation studies were based on retrospective, single centre, or small cohorts, and findings regarding model performance were inconsistent. There was no high quality evidence to guide selection of the optimum model and threshold cutoff for identification of low-risk children in the UK and Ireland. Added value of this study: Most children admitted to hospital with RIF pain do not undergo surgery. When children do undergo appendicectomy, removal of a normal appendix (normal appendicectomy) is common, occurring in around 1 in 6 children. The Shera score is able to identify a large low-risk group of children who present with acute RIF pain but do not have acute appendicitis (specificity 44%). This low-risk group has an overall 1 in 30 risk of acute appendicitis and a 1 in 270 risk of perforated appendicitis. The Shera score is unable to achieve a sufficiently high positive predictive value to select a high-risk group who should proceed directly to surgery. Current diagnostic performance of ultrasound is also too poor to select children for surgery. Implications of all the available evidence: Routine pre-operative risk scoring could inform shared decision making by doctors, children, and parents by supporting safe selection of lowrisk patients for ambulatory management, reducing unnecessary admissions and normal appendicectomy. Hospitals should ensure seven-day-a-week availability of ultrasound for medium and high-risk patients. Ultrasound should be performed by operators trained to assess for acute appendicitis in children. For children in whom diagnostic uncertainty remains following ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or low-dose computed tomography (CT) are second-line investigations.

Background Circulating markers of the systemic inflammatory response are prognostic in several cancers, but their role in operable breast cancer is unclear. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature was carried out. Methods A search of electronic databases up to August 2020 identified studies that examined the prognostic value of preoperative circulating markers of the systemic inflammatory response in primary operable breast cancer. A meta-analysis was carried out for each marker with more than three studies, reporting a HR and 95 per cent confidence interval for disease-free survival (DFS), breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) or overall survival (OS). Results In total, 57 studies were reviewed and 42 were suitable for meta-analysis. Higher neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) was associated with worse overall survival (OS) (pooled HR 1.75, 95 per cent c.i. 1.52 to 2.00; P < 0.001), disease-free survival (DFS) (HR 1.67, 1.50 to 1.87; P < 0.001), and breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) (HR 1.89, 1.35 to 2.63; P < 0.001). This effect was also seen with an arithmetically-derived NLR (dNLR). Higher platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) was associated with worse OS (HR 1.29, 1.10 to 1.50; P = 0.001) and DFS (HR 1.58, 1.33 to 1.88; P < 0.001). Higher lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio (LMR) was associated with improved DFS (HR 0.65, 0.51 to 0.82; P < 0.001), and higher C-reactive protein (CRP) level was associated with worse BCSS (HR 1.22, 1.07 to 1.39; P = 0.002) and OS (HR 1.24, 1.14 to 1.35; P = 0.002). Conclusion Current evidence suggests a role for preoperative NLR, dNLR, LMR, PLR, and CRP as prognostic markers in primary operable breast cancer. Further work should define their role in clinical practice, particularly reproducible thresholds and molecular subtypes for which these may be of most value.

Introduction: Extreme Oncoplastic Breast Conservation Surgery (EOBCS) is offered in selected patients with multifocal or multicentric breast cancer (MFMC). Recent evidence has suggested that EOBCS may be a valuable resource for patients with MFMC who may avoid the risk associated with mastectomy in favour of the benefits of breast conservation without risking their oncological outcomes. Our study examined the practice of EOBCS in two regional breast units in Glasgow, United Kingdom. Materials and Methods: A prospectively collected database of 50 patients treated with EOBC in two breast units in Glasgow between 2007 and 2018 were evaluated, and clinical outcomes were observed. Results: Fifty patients (median age 55) underwent EOBCS, of which 43 (86%) had invasive disease. Median tumour size was 55mm (50-90) and multifocal disease was identified in 22 (44%) patients. Nine patients (18%) were found to have positive margins and underwent a second procedure, with 6 (12%) proceeding to mastectomy. Five-year disease free survival rate was 91.5%, while cancer-specific survival was 95.7%. Conclusion: EOBCS is oncologically safe in short-term follow-up. Large scale studies are required to confirm these preliminary results, in order to offer EOBCS as a valid option to patients with advanced or multifocal breast cancer.