Vulvar melanoma is the second most common vulvar cancer. Patients with vulvar melanoma usually present with the disease at a late stage and have a poor prognosis. The prognostic predictors reported in the literature are not unequivocal and the role of lichen sclerosus and c-KIT mutations in the aetiology of vulvar melanoma is unclear. Breslow staging currently seems to be the most adequate predictor of prognosis. We thus performed a clinicopathological and literature review to identify suitable predictors of prognosis and survival and investigated the expression of c-KIT (by immunohistochemistry) in patients with vulvar melanoma (n=33) from the Gynaecological Cancer Centres of the Royal Hospital for Women (Sydney, Australia) and John Hunter Hospital (Newcastle, Australia). Our series of 33 patients fitted the expected clinical profile of older women: delayed presentation, high stage, limited response to treatment and poor prognosis. We identified 3 patients (9.1%) with lichen sclerosus associated with melanoma in situ, although no lichen sclerosus was found in the areas of invasive melanoma. No patient had vulvar nevi. We identified a) Breslow’s depth, b) an absence of any of the pathological risk factors, such as satellitosis, in-transit metastasis, lymphovascular space invasion (LVSI) and dermal mitosis, c) removal of inguino-femoral lymph nodes, d) lateral margin of >1 cm, and e) c-KIT expression as valuable prognostic predictors for disease-free survival. We conclude that c-KIT expression is, apart from Breslow’s depth, another valuable predictor of prognosis and survival. Lichen sclerosus may be associated with vulvar melanoma.

The novel coronavirus SARS-CoV2 emerged in December 2019 and is now pandemic. Initial analysis suggests that 5% of infected patients will require critical care, and that respiratory failure requiring intubation is associated with high mortality.Sick patients are geographically dispersed: most patients will remain in situ until they are in need of critical care. Additionally, there are likely to be patients who require retrieval for other reasons but who are co-incidentally infected with SARS-CoV-2 or shedding virus.The COVID-19 pandemic therefore poses a challenge to critical care retrieval systems, which often depend on small teams of specialists who live and work together closely. The infection or quarantining of a small absolute number of these staff could catastrophically compromise service delivery.Avoiding occupational exposure to COVID-19, and thereby ensuring service continuity, is the primary objective of aeromedical retrieval services during the pandemic. In this discussion paper we collaborated with helicopter emergency medical services(HEMS) worldwide to identify risks in retrieving COVID-19 patients, and develop strategies to mitigate these.Simulation involving the whole aeromedical retrieval team ensures that safety concerns can be addressed during the development of a standard operating procedure. Some services tested personal protective equipment and protocols in the aeromedical environment with simulation. We also incorporated experiences, standard operating procedures and approaches across several HEMS services internationally.As a result of this collaboration, we outline an approach to the safe aeromedical retrieval of a COVID-19 patient, and describe how this framework can be used to develop a local standard operating procedure.

y The SNAP-2: EPICCS collaborators are listed in Supplementary material. AbstractBackground: Decisions to admit high-risk postoperative patients to critical care may be affected by resource availability. We aimed to quantify adult ICU/high-dependency unit (ICU/HDU) capacity in hospitals from the UK, Australia, and New Zealand (NZ), and to identify and describe additional 'high-acuity' beds capable of managing high-risk patients outside the ICU/HDU environment. Methods: We used a modified Delphi consensus method to design a survey that was disseminated via investigator networks in the UK, Australia, and NZ. Hospital-and ward-level data were collected, including bed numbers, tertiary services offered, presence of an emergency department, ward staffing levels, and the availability of critical care facilities. Results: We received responses from 257 UK (response rate: 97.7%), 35 Australian (response rate: 32.7%), and 17 NZ (response rate: 94.4%) hospitals (total 309). Of these hospitals, 91.6% reported on-site ICU or HDU facilities. UK hospitals