Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35640166›Full record

ArticleRadiation research2022

Oxygen Monitoring in Model Solutions and In Vivo in Mice During Proton Irradiation at Conventional and FLASH Dose Rates.

Alexander L Van Slyke, Mirna El Khatib, Anastasia Velalopoulou, Eric Diffenderfer, Khayrullo Shoniyozov, Michele M Kim, Ilias V Karagounis, Theresa M Busch, Sergei A Vinogradov, Cameron J Koch and 1 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Radiation research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.9field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Timescale of FLASH Sparing Effect Determined by Varying Temporal Split of Dose Delivery in Mice.International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Mechanisms of the FLASH effect: current insights and advances.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2025
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Alexander L Van SlykeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Mirna El KhatibDepartment of Biochemistry and Biophysics, Perelman School of Medicine, and Department of Chemistry, School of Arts and Sciences, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Anastasia VelalopoulouDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Eric DiffenderferDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Khayrullo ShoniyozovDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Michele M KimDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Ilias V KaragounisDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Theresa M BuschDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Sergei A VinogradovDepartment of Biochemistry and Biophysics, Perelman School of Medicine, and Department of Chemistry, School of Arts and Sciences, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Cameron J KochDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Rodney D WiersmaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
University of Pennsylvania · US

Funding

Translational Studies in FLASH Particle RadiotherapyP01CA257904 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI Amir Abdollahi · 2022 to 2026
$14.2M
Oxygen imaging by phosphorescence quenchingU24EB028941 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI VINOGRADOV, SERGEI · 2019 to 2023
$1.6M
Membrane Anchored-Probes for Sensing Analytes at the Cell SurfaceK25HL145092 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI EL KHATIB, MIRNA · 2019 to 2023
$745k
A molecular probe for high-resolution dual imaging of temperature and oxygen in vivoR21EB027397 · NIBIB · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI VINOGRADOV, SERGEI · 2018 to 2019
$464k
NCI NIH HHS P01 CA257904NHLBI NIH HHS K25 HL145092NIBIB NIH HHS R21 EB027397NIBIB NIH HHS U24 EB028941
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

FLASH is a high-dose-rate form of radiation therapy that has the reported ability, compared with conventional dose rates, to spare normal tissues while being equipotent in tumor control, thereby increasing the therapeutic ratio. The mechanism underlying this normal tissue sparing effect is currently unknown, however one possibility is radiochemical oxygen depletion (ROD) during dose delivery in tissue at FLASH dose rates. In order to investigate this possibility, we used the phosphorescence quenching method to measure oxygen partial pressure before, during and after proton radiation delivery in model solutions and in normal muscle and sarcoma tumors in mice, at both conventional (Conv) (∼0.5 Gy/s) and FLASH (∼100 Gy/s) dose rates. Radiation dosimetry was determined by Advanced Markus Chamber and EBT-XL film. For solutions contained in sealed glass vials, phosphorescent probe Oxyphor PtG4 (1 µM) was dissolved in a buffer (10 mM HEPES) containing glycerol (1 M), glucose (5 mM) and glutathione (5 mM), designed to mimic the reducing and free radical-scavenging nature of the intracellular environment. In vivo oxygen measurements were performed 24 h after injection of PtG4 into the interstitial space of either normal thigh muscle or subcutaneous sarcoma tumors in mice. The "g-value" for ROD is reported in mmHg/Gy, which represents a slight modification of the more standard chemical definition (µM/Gy). In solutions, proton irradiation at conventional dose rates resulted in a g-value for ROD of up to 0.55 mmHg/Gy, consistent with earlier studies using X or gamma rays. At FLASH dose rates, the g-value for ROD was ∼25% lower, 0.37 mmHg/Gy. pO2 levels were stable after each dose delivery. For normal muscle in vivo, oxygen depletion during irradiation was counterbalanced by resupply from the vasculature. This process was fast enough to maintain tissue pO2 virtually unchanged at Conv dose rates. However, during FLASH irradiation there was a stepwise decrease in pO2 (g-value ∼0.28 mmHg/Gy), followed by a rebound to the initial level after ∼8 s. The g-values were smaller and recovery times longer in tumor tissue when compared to muscle and may be related to the lower initial endogenous pO2 levels in the former. Considering that the FLASH effect is seen in vivo even at doses as low as 10 Gy, it is difficult to reconcile the amount of protection seen by oxygen depletion alone. However, the phosphorescence probe in our experiments was confined to the extracellular space, and it remains possible that intracellular oxygen depletion was greater than observed herein. In cell-mimicking solutions the oxygen depletion g-vales were indeed significantly higher than observed in vivo.

Indexed as

ProtonsSarcomaAnimalsGamma RaysMiceOxygenRadiometryRadiotherapy DosageOxygenProtons

Identifiers

PMID35640166
PMCPMC10176203
OpenAlexW4281772163

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.