Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35963397›Full record

ReviewRadiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology2022

Treatment planning considerations for the development of FLASH proton therapy.

Bethany Rothwell, Matthew Lowe, Erik Traneus, Miriam Krieger, Jan Schuemann

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. In response to Yu and Chen: Proton FLASH-Arc Therapy: Bridging feasibility to clinical utility.Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology · 2025
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Proton FLASH-arc therapy (PFAT): A feasibility study for meeting FLASH dose-rate requirements in the clinic.Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology · 2025
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

5 authors.

Bethany RothwellDivision of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom. Electronic address: bethany.rothwell@postgrad.manchester.ac.uk.
Matthew LoweChristie Medical Physics and Engineering, The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom; Division of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Erik TraneusRaySearch Laboratories AB, Stockholm, Sweden.
Miriam KriegerVarian Medical Systems Particle Therapy GmbH & Co. KG, Troisdorf, Germany.
Jan SchuemannDivision of Physics, Dept. of Radiation Oncology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.

Funding

Dose-Rate Variations for Patient Treatments in Flash and conventional radiation therapyR21CA252562 · NCI · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI SCHUEMANN, JAN PATRICK OSCAR · 2021 to 2022
$416k
Cancer Research UKNCI NIH HHS R21 CA252562
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With increasing focus on the translation of the observed FLASH effect into clinical practice, this paper presents treatment planning considerations for its development using proton therapy. Potential requirements to induce a FLASH effect are discussed along with the properties of existing proton therapy delivery systems and the changes in planning and delivery approaches required to satisfy these prerequisites. For the exploration of treatment planning approaches for FLASH, developments in treatment planning systems are needed. Flexibility in adapting to new information will be important in such an evolving area. Variations in definitions, threshold values and assumptions can make it difficult to compare different published studies and to interpret previous studies in the context of new information. Together with the fact that much is left to be understood about the underlying mechanism behind the FLASH effect, a systematic and comprehensive approach to information storage is encouraged. Collecting and retaining more detailed information on planned and realised dose delivery as well as reporting the assumptions made in planning studies creates the potential for research to be revisited and re-evaluated in the light of future improvements in understanding. Forward thinking at the time of study development can help facilitate retrospective analysis. This, we hope, will increase the available evidence and accelerate the translation of the FLASH effect into clinical benefit.

Indexed as

Proton TherapyHumansRadiotherapy DosageRetrospective StudiesFlash radiotherapyProton therapyTreatment planning

Identifiers

PMID35963397
PMCPMC10268866

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.