Modelling responses to spatially fractionated radiation fields using preclinical image-guided radiotherapy

OBJECTIVES: Radiotherapy is planned to achieve the optimal physical dose distribution to the target tumour volume whilst minimising dose to the surrounding normal tissue. Recent in vitro experimental evidence has demonstrated an important role for intercellular communication in radiobiological responses following non-uniform exposures. This study aimed to model the impact of these effects in the context of techniques involving highly modulated radiation fields or spatially fractionated treatments such as GRID therapy.

METHODS: Using the small animal radiotherapy research platform (SARRP) as a key enabling technology to deliver precision imaged-guided radiotherapy, it is possible to achieve spatially modulated dose distributions that model typical clinical scenarios. In this work, we planned uniform and spatially fractionated dose distributions using multiple isocentres with beam sizes of 0.5 - 5 mm to obtain 50% volume coverage in a subcutaneous murine tumour model, and applied a model of cellular response that incorporates intercellular communication to assess the potential impact of signalling effects with different ranges.

RESULTS: Models of GRID treatment plans which incorporate intercellular signalling showed increased cell killing within the low dose region. This results in an increase in the Equivalent Uniform Dose (EUD) for GRID exposures compared to standard models, with some GRID exposures being predicted to be more effective than uniform delivery of the same physical dose.

CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the potential impact of radiation induced signalling on tumour cell response for spatially fractionated therapies and identifies key experiments to validate this model and quantify these effects in vivo.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This study highlights the unique opportunities now possible using advanced preclinical techniques to develop a foundation for biophysical optimisation in radiotherapy treatment planning.

Midwifery-led antenatal care models: mapping a systematic review to an evidence-based quality framework to identify key components and characteristics of care

Background: Implementing effective antenatal care models is a key global policy goal. However, the mechanisms of action of these multi-faceted models that would allow widespread implementation are seldom examined and poorly understood. In existing care model analyses there is little distinction between what is done, how it is done, and who does it. A new evidence-informed quality maternal and newborn care (QMNC) framework identifies key characteristics of quality care. This offers the opportunity to identify systematically the characteristics of care delivery that may be generalizable across contexts, thereby enhancing implementation. Our objective was to map the characteristics of antenatal care models tested in Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) to a new evidence-based framework for quality maternal and newborn care; thus facilitating the identification of characteristics of effective care.

Methods: A systematic review of RCTs of midwifery-led antenatal care models. Mapping and evaluation of these models’ characteristics to the QMNC framework using data extraction and scoring forms derived from the five framework components. Paired team members independently extracted data and conducted quality assessment using the QMNC framework and standard RCT criteria.

Results: From 13,050 citations initially retrieved we identified 17 RCTs of midwifery-led antenatal care models from Australia (7), the UK (4), China (2), and Sweden, Ireland, Mexico and Canada (1 each). QMNC framework scores ranged from 9 to 25 (possible range 0–32), with most models reporting fewer than half the characteristics associated with quality maternity care. Description of care model characteristics was lacking in many studies, but was better reported for the intervention arms. Organisation of care was the best-described component. Underlying values and philosophy of care were poorly reported.

Conclusions: The QMNC framework facilitates assessment of the characteristics of antenatal care models. It is vital to understand all the characteristics of multi-faceted interventions such as care models; not only what is done but why it is done, by whom, and how this differed from the standard care package. By applying the QMNC framework we have established a foundation for future reports of intervention studies so that the characteristics of individual models can be evaluated, and the impact of any differences appraised.