Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37131769›Full record

ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2023

Dosimetric and biologic intercomparison between electron and proton FLASH beams.

A Almeida, M Togno, P Ballesteros-Zebadua, J Franco-Perez, R Geyer, R Schaefer, B Petit, V Grilj, D Meer, S Safai and 5 more

Abstract readPreprint
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

A AlmeidaLaboratory of Radiation Oncology/Radiation Oncology Service/Department of Oncology/CHUV, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
M TognoCenter for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, 5323 Villigen PSI, Switzerland.
P Ballesteros-ZebaduaLaboratory of Radiation Oncology/Radiation Oncology Service/Department of Oncology/CHUV, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
J Franco-PerezLaboratory of Radiation Oncology/Radiation Oncology Service/Department of Oncology/CHUV, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
R GeyerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, lnselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Switzerland.
R SchaeferCenter for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, 5323 Villigen PSI, Switzerland.
B PetitLaboratory of Radiation Oncology/Radiation Oncology Service/Department of Oncology/CHUV, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
V GriljInstitute of Radiation Physics (IRA)/CHUV, Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland.
D MeerCenter for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, 5323 Villigen PSI, Switzerland.
S SafaiCenter for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, 5323 Villigen PSI, Switzerland.
T LomaxCenter for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, 5323 Villigen PSI, Switzerland.
D C WeberCenter for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, 5323 Villigen PSI, Switzerland.
C BailatInstitute of Radiation Physics (IRA)/CHUV, Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland.
S PsoroulasCenter for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, 5323 Villigen PSI, Switzerland.
M C VozeninLaboratory of Radiation Oncology/Radiation Oncology Service/Department of Oncology/CHUV, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.

Funding

Project 4: Mechanistic Basics of FLASH Effect: Role of O2P01CA244091 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-IRVINE · PI LIMOLI, CHARLES · 2020 to 2024
$9.6M
NCI NIH HHS P01 CA244091
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and purpose: The FLASH effect has been validated in different preclinical experiments with electrons (eFLASH) and protons (pFLASH) operating at a mean dose rate above 40 Gy/s. However, no systematic intercomparison of the FLASH effect produced by e Materials and methods: The electron eRT6/Oriatron/CHUV/5.5 MeV and proton Gantry1/PSI/170 MeV were used to deliver conventional (0.1 Gy/s eCONV and pCONV) and FLASH (≥100 Gy/s eFLASH and pFLASH) irradiation. Protons were delivered in transmission. Dosimetric and biologic intercomparisons were performed with previously validated models. Results: Doses measured at Gantry1 were in agreement (± 2.5%) with reference dosimeters calibrated at CHUV/IRA. The neurocognitive capacity of e and pFLASH irradiated mice was indistinguishable from the control while both e and pCONV irradiated cohorts showed cognitive decrements. Complete tumor response was obtained with the two beams and was similar between e and pFLASH Conclusion: Despite major differences in the temporal microstructure, this study shows that dosimetric standards can be established. The sparing of brain function and tumor control produced by the two beams were similar, suggesting that the most important physical parameter driving the FLASH effect is the overall time of exposure which should be in the range of hundreds of milliseconds for WBI in mice. In addition, we observed that immunological memory response is similar between electron and proton beams and is independent off the dose rate.

Identifiers

PMID37131769
PMCPMC10153243

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.