Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35853933›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2022

Long-term anti-tumor effects following both conventional radiotherapy and FLASH in fully immunocompetent animals with glioblastoma.

Emma Liljedahl, Elise Konradsson, Emma Gustafsson, Karolina Förnvik Jonsson, Jill K Olofsson, Crister Ceberg, Henrietta Nittby Redebrandt

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
7.0field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Timing matters: how mechanism-guided sequencing shapes the efficacy of radiotherapy-immunotherapy combinations : A systematic review.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2026
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Microenvironmental remodeling in FLASH radiotherapy.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2026
    Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. FLASH Radiotherapy: Expectations, Challenges, and Current Knowledge.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Emma LiljedahlThe Rausing Laboratory, Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Elise KonradssonMedical Radiation Physics, Department of Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Emma GustafssonThe Rausing Laboratory, Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Karolina Förnvik JonssonThe Rausing Laboratory, Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Jill K OlofssonDepartment for Geosciences and Natural Resource Management, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Crister CebergMedical Radiation Physics, Department of Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Henrietta Nittby RedebrandtThe Rausing Laboratory, Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Lund, Sweden. Henrietta.Nittby@med.lu.se.
Lund University · SEUniversity of Copenhagen · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Radiotherapy can induce an immunological response. One limiting factor is side effects on normal tissue. Using FLASH radiotherapy, side effects could possibly be reduced. The efficacy of FLASH in relation to conventional radiotherapy (CONV-RT) has not been extensively explored in fully immunocompetent animals. Fully immunocompetent Fischer 344 rats were inoculated with NS1 glioblastoma cells subcutaneously or intracranially. Radiotherapy was delivered with FLASH or CONV-RT at 8 Gy × 2 (subcutaneous tumors) and 12.5 Gy × 2 (intracranial tumors). Cured animals were re-challenged in order to explore long-term anti-tumor immunity. Serum analytes and gene expression were explored. The majority of animals with subcutaneous tumors were cured when treated with FLASH or CONV-RT at 8 Gy × 2. Cured animals could reject tumor re-challenge. TIMP-1 in serum was reduced in animals treated with FLASH 8 Gy × 2 compared to control animals. Animals with intracranial tumors survived longer when treated with FLASH or CONV-RT at 12.5 Gy × 2, but cure was not reached. CONV-RT and FLASH were equally effective in fully immunocompetent animals with glioblastoma. Radiotherapy was highly efficient in the subcutaneous setting, leading to cure and long-term immunity in the majority of the animals.

Indexed as

Brain NeoplasmsGlioblastomaAnimalsRadiotherapyRadiotherapy DosageRats

Identifiers

PMID35853933
PMCPMC9296533
OpenAlexW4285798399

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.