Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37105403›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics2023

Clinical Linear Accelerator-Based Electron FLASH: Pathway for Practical Translation to FLASH Clinical Trials.

Hyunsoo Joshua No, Yufan Fred Wu, Michael Louis Dworkin, Rakesh Manjappa, Lawrie Skinner, M Ramish Ashraf, Brianna Lau, Stavros Melemenidis, Vignesh Viswanathan, Amy Shu-Jung Yu and 5 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics, 2023. 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
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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

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

15 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Hyunsoo Joshua NoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.
Yufan Fred WuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.
Michael Louis DworkinDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.
Rakesh ManjappaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.
Lawrie SkinnerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.
M Ramish AshrafDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.
Brianna LauDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.
Stavros MelemenidisDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.
Vignesh ViswanathanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.
Amy Shu-Jung YuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.
Murat SurucuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.
Emil SchülerDepartment of Radiation Physics, Division of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Edward Elliot GravesDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California; Stanford Cancer Institute, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.
Peter Gregor MaximDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Irvine, Orange, California.
Billy W LooDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California; Stanford Cancer Institute, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California. Electronic address: bwloo@stanford.edu.
Stanford University · USStanford Medicine · USThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · USUniversity of California, Irvine · US

Funding

Project 4: Mechanistic Basics of FLASH Effect: Role of O2P01CA244091 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-IRVINE · PI LIMOLI, CHARLES · 2020 to 2024
$9.6M
Research Supplements to Promote Diversity in Health-Related Research: Preclinical optimization of ultra-high dose rate (FLASH) radiotherapy parameters for translational relevanceR01CA266673 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI SCHUELER, EMIL · 2022 to 2025
$3.5M
NCI NIH HHS P01 CA244091NCI NIH HHS R01 CA266673
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeUltrahigh-dose-rate (UHDR) radiation therapy (RT) has produced the FLASH effect in preclinical models: reduced toxicity with comparable tumor control compared with conventional-dose-rate RT. Early clinical trials focused on UHDR RT feasibility using specialized devices. We explore the technical feasibility of practical electron UHDR RT on a standard clinical linear accelerator (LINAC). METHODS AND MATERIALS: We tuned the program board of a decommissioned electron energy for UHDR electron delivery on a clinical LINAC without hardware modification. Pulse delivery was controlled using the respiratory gating interface. A short source-to-surface distance (SSD) electron setup with a standard scattering foil was configured and tested on an anthropomorphic phantom using circular blocks with 3- to 20-cm field sizes. Dosimetry was evaluated using radiochromic film and an ion chamber profiler.

resultsUHDR open-field mean dose rates at 100, 80, 70, and 59 cm SSD were 36.82, 59.52, 82.01, and 112.83 Gy/s, respectively. At 80 cm SSD, mean dose rate was ∼60 Gy/s for all collimated field sizes, with an R80 depth of 6.1 cm corresponding to an energy of 17.5 MeV. Heterogeneity was <5.0% with asymmetry of 2.2% to 6.2%. The short SSD setup was feasible under realistic treatment conditions simulating broad clinical indications on an anthropomorphic phantom.

conclusionsShort SSD and tuning for high electron beam current on a standard clinical LINAC can deliver flat, homogenous UHDR electrons over a broad, clinically relevant range of field sizes and depths with practical working distances in a configuration easily reversible to standard clinical use.

Indexed as

ElectronsNeoplasmsHumansParticle AcceleratorsRadiometryRadiotherapy DosageRadiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted

Identifiers

PMID37105403
PMCPMC12359654
OpenAlexW4366977648

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.