Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36092986›Full record

ArticleAdvances in radiation oncology

Comparable Long-Term Tumor Control for Hypofractionated FLASH Versus Conventional Radiation Therapy in an Immunocompetent Rat Glioma Model.

Elise Konradsson, Emma Liljedahl, Emma Gustafsson, Gabriel Adrian, Sarah Beyer, Suhayb Ehsaan Ilaahi, Kristoffer Petersson, Crister Ceberg, Henrietta Nittby Redebrandt

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

Article in Advances in radiation oncology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Microenvironmental remodeling in FLASH radiotherapy.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2026
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. 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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Elise KonradssonMedical Radiation Physics, Department of Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Emma LiljedahlRausing Laboratory, Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Emma GustafssonRausing Laboratory, Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Gabriel AdrianDivision of Oncology and Pathology, Department of Clinical Sciences, Skåne University Hospital, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Sarah BeyerDivision of Oncology and Pathology, Department of Clinical Sciences, Skåne University Hospital, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Suhayb Ehsaan IlaahiRausing Laboratory, Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Kristoffer PeterssonDepartment of Hematology, Oncology and Radiation Physics, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden.
Crister CebergMedical Radiation Physics, Department of Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Henrietta Nittby RedebrandtRausing Laboratory, Division of Neurosurgery, Department of Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Lund University · SEUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 28736Medical Research Council MR/X006611/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: To ensure a clinical translation of FLASH radiation therapy (FLASH-RT) for a specific tumor type, studies on tumor control and toxicity within the same biological system are needed. In this study, our objective was to evaluate tumor control and toxicity for hypofractionated FLASH-RT and conventional radiation therapy (CONV-RT) in an immunocompetent rat glioma model. Methods and Materials: Fisher 344 rats (N = 68) were inoculated subcutaneously with NS1 glioma cells and randomized into groups (n = 9-10 per group). CONV-RT (∼8 Gy/min) or FLASH-RT (70-90 Gy/s) was administered in 3 fractions of either 8 Gy, 12.5 Gy, or 15 Gy using a 10-MeV electron beam. The maximum tumor diameter was measured weekly, and overall survival was determined until day 100. Long-term tumor control was defined as no evident tumor on day 100. Animals were evaluated for acute dermal side effects at 2 to 5 weeks after completed RT and for late dermal side effects at 3 months after initiation of treatment. Results: Survival was significantly increased in all irradiated groups compared with control animals ( Conclusions: This study shows that hypofractionated FLASH-RT results in long-term tumor control rates similar to those of CONV-RT for the treatment of large subcutaneous glioblastomas in immunocompetent rats. Neither treatment technique induced severe skin toxic effects. Consequently, no significant difference in toxicity could be resolved, suggesting that higher doses may be required to detect a FLASH sparing of skin.

Identifiers

PMID36092986
PMCPMC9449779
OpenAlexW4283773408

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.