Search

Beef cattle producers rely on each of their cows to produce a marketable calf each year to maintain a sustainable operation. Within the first month of gestation, pregnancy failures have been recorded to be upwards of 40–50%. From fertilisation to birth, there are numerous factors contributing to pregnancy failure. From the beginning of gestation oocyte competence is often a large factor impacting fertility as the dam contributes all mRNA for initial embryo development. Other factors contributing to early embryonic infertility include hormonal concentration and heat stress. After the embryo enters the uterus, it becomes critical for the uterus to be receptive to the developing conceptus. The embryo then begins to elongate and secrete interferon-tau to initiate maternal recognition of pregnancy; a requirement to establish and maintain bovine pregnancies. After a pregnancy completes these steps, placentation actively begins around day 22 of pregnancy and lasts until organogenesis. The fetal phase follows the embryonic phase where disease and/or toxins are often the cause of pregnancy failure at this period. However, fetal mortality has been reported to occur in less than 10% of pregnancies. Understanding of the many factors influencing infertility needs to be further investigated to increase pregnancy success in beef cattle. Pregnancy failure has been reported to occur in all species, and the lowered fertility associated with these failures has previously appeared to be a never ending battle. Pregnancy losses in beef cattle are of special interest to the authors as the global economic loss has been found to be greater than US$1 billion each year. Better temporal understanding of beef cattle pregnancy failures could allow for the better inclusion of animal models studying the improval of human reproduction medicine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) has suggested using the ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (MCBS) to grade the magnitude of clinical benefit of cancer therapies. This approach has not been applied to radiation therapy (RT) yet. We applied the ESMO-MCBS to experiences describing the use of RT to assess (1) the 'scoreability' of the data, (2) evaluate the reasonableness of the grades for clinical benefit and (3) identify potential shortcomings in the current version of the ESMO-MCBS in its applicability to RT., Materials and Methods: We applied the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 to a selection of studies in radiotherapy that had been identified as references in the development of American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) evidence-based guidelines on whole breast radiation. Of the 112 cited references, we identified a subset of 16 studies that are amenable to grading using the ESMO-MCBS., Results: Of the 16 studies reviewed, 3/16 were scoreable with the ESMO tool. Six of 16 studies could not be scored because of shortcomings in the ESMO-MCBS v1.1: (1) in 'non-inferiority studies', there is no credit for improved patient convenience, reduced patient burden or improved cosmesis; (2) in 'superiority studies' evaluating local control as a primary endpoint, there is no credit for the clinical benefit such as reduced need for further interventions. In 7/16 studies, methodological deficiencies in the conduct and reporting were identified., Conclusions: This study represents a first step in determining the utility of the ESMO-MCBS in the evaluation of clinical benefit in radiotherapy. Important shortcomings were identified that would need to be addressed in developing a version of the ESMO-MCBS that can be robustly applied to radiotherapy treatments. Optimization of the ESMO-MCBS instrument will proceed to enable assessment of value in radiotherapy., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)