Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36291585›Full record

ReviewBiomolecules2022

Radiobiological Aspects of FLASH Radiotherapy.

Eline Hageman, Pei-Pei Che, Max Dahele, Ben J Slotman, Peter Sminia

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biomolecules, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
6.2field-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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Eline HagemanAmsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Radiation Oncology, Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Pei-Pei CheAmsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Radiation Oncology, Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Max DaheleAmsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Radiation Oncology, Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Ben J SlotmanAmsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Radiation Oncology, Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Peter SminiaAmsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Radiation Oncology, Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-9531-5704
Amsterdam University Medical Centers · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Radiotherapy (RT) is one of the primary treatment modalities for cancer patients. The clinical use of RT requires a balance to be struck between tumor effect and the risk of toxicity. Sparing normal tissue is the cornerstone of reducing toxicity. Advances in physical targeting and dose-shaping technology have helped to achieve this. FLASH RT is a promising, novel treatment technique that seeks to exploit a potential normal tissue-sparing effect of ultra-high dose rate irradiation. A significant body of in vitro and in vivo data has highlighted a decrease in acute and late radiation toxicities, while preserving the radiation effect in tumor cells. The underlying biological mechanisms of FLASH RT, however, remain unclear. Three main mechanisms have been hypothesized to account for this differential FLASH RT effect between the tumor and healthy tissue: the oxygen depletion, the DNA damage, and the immune-mediated hypothesis. These hypotheses and molecular mechanisms have been evaluated both in vitro and in vivo. Furthermore, the effect of ultra-high dose rate radiation with extremely short delivery times on the dynamic tumor microenvironment involving circulating blood cells and immune cells in humans is essentially unknown. Therefore, while there is great interest in FLASH RT as a means of targeting tumors with the promise of an increased therapeutic ratio, evidence of a generalized FLASH effect in humans and data to show that FLASH in humans is safe and at least effective against tumors as standard photon RT is currently lacking. FLASH RT needs further preclinical investigation and well-designed in-human studies before it can be introduced into clinical practice.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsRadiation InjuriesHumansOxygenRadiotherapyRadiotherapy DosageTumor MicroenvironmentOxygenFLASHhealthy tissue sparingradiobiologyradiotherapytumor controlultra-high dose rate

Identifiers

PMID36291585
PMCPMC9599153
OpenAlexW4297225700

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.