Stereotactic Body radiotherapy and pedicLE screw fixatioN During one hospital visit for patients with symptomatic unstable spinal metastases: a randomized trial (BLEND RCT) using the Trials within Cohorts (TwiCs) design.

BACKGROUND: Spinal metastases can lead to unremitting pain and neurological deficits, which substantially impair daily functioning and quality of life. Patients with unstable spinal metastases receive surgical stabilization followed by palliative radiotherapy as soon as wound healing allows. The time between surgery and radiotherapy delays improvement of mobility, radiotherapy-induced pain relief, local tumor control, and restart of systemic oncological therapy. Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) enables delivery of preoperative high-dose radiotherapy while dose-sparing the surgical field, allowing stabilizing surgery within only hours. Patients may experience earlier recovery of mobility, regression of pain, and return to systemic oncological therapy. The BLEND RCT evaluates the effectiveness of SBRT followed by surgery within 24 h for the treatment of symptomatic, unstable spinal metastases. METHODS: This phase III randomized controlled trial is embedded within the PRospective Evaluation of interventional StudiEs on boNe meTastases (PRESENT) cohort. Patients with symptomatic, unstable spinal metastases requiring stabilizing surgery and radiotherapy will be randomized (1:1). The intervention group (n = 50) will be offered same-day SBRT and surgery, which they can accept or refuse. According to the Trial within Cohorts (TwiCs) design, the control group (n = 50) will not be informed and receive standard treatment (surgery followed by conventional radiotherapy after 1-2 weeks when wound healing allows). Baseline characteristics and outcome measures will be captured within PRESENT. The primary outcome is physical functioning (EORTC-QLQ-C15-PAL) 4 weeks after start of treatment. Secondary endpoints include pain response, time until return to systemic oncological therapy, quality of life, local tumor control, and adverse events up to 3 months post-treatment. DISCUSSION: The BLEND RCT evaluates the effect of same-day SBRT and stabilizing surgery for the treatment of symptomatic, unstable spinal metastases compared with standard of care. We expect better functional outcomes, faster pain relief, and continuation of systemic oncological therapy. The TwiCs design enables efficient recruitment within an ongoing cohort, as well as prevention of disappointment bias and drop-out as control patients will not be informed about the trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05575323. Registered on October 11, 2022.

The ethics of embryo donation: what are the moral similarities and differences of surplus embryo donation and double gamete donation?

Over the years, the demand for ART with donated embryos has increased. Treatment can be performed using donated 'surplus embryos' from IVF treatment or with embryos intentionally created through so-called 'double gamete donation'. Embryo donation is particularly sensitive because treatment results in the absence of a genetic link between the parent(s) and the child, creating complex family structures, including full genetic siblings living in another family in the case of surplus embryo donation. In this paper, we explore the ethical acceptability of embryo donation in light of the similarities and differences between surplus embryo donation and double gamete donation. We will argue that no overriding objections to either form of embryo donation exist. First of all, ART with donated embryos respects patients' reproductive autonomy by allowing them to experience gestational parenthood. It also respects IVF patients' reproductive autonomy by providing an additional option to discarding or donating surplus embryos to research. Second, an extensive body of empirical research has shown that a genetic link between parent and child is not a condition for a loving caring relationship between parent(s) and child. Third, the low moral status of a pre-implantation embryo signifies no moral duty for clinics to first use available surplus embryos or to prevent the development of (more) surplus embryos through double gamete donation. Fourth, there is no reason to assume that knowledge of having (full or half) genetically related persons living elsewhere provides an unacceptable impact on the welfare of donor-conceived offspring, existing children of the donors, and their respective families. Thus, patients and clinicians should discuss which form of ART would be suitable in their specific situation. To guarantee ethically sound ART with donated embryos certain conditions have to be met. Counselling of IVF patients should involve a discussion on the destination of potential surplus embryos. When counselling donors and recipient(s) a discussion of the significance of early disclosure of the child's mode of conception, the implications of having children raised in families with whom they share no genetic ties, expectations around information-exchange and contact between donor and recipient families or genetically related siblings is warranted. Importantly, conclusions are mainly drawn from results of empirical studies on single gamete donation families. To evaluate the welfare of families created through surplus embryo donation or double gamete donation additional empirical research on these particular families is warranted.