ArticleRadiation research2023
Comparison of Tumor Control and Skin Damage in a Mouse Model after Ultra-High Dose Rate Irradiation and Conventional Irradiation.
Article in Radiation research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Unraveling the molecular landscape of chronic radiation injury: From oxidative stress signaling to translational modeling (Review).International journal of molecular medicine · 2026Review
- Systematic tissue oxygen variation shows the modulation of murine skin radiation toxicity at ultra-high dose rates.Physics in medicine and biology · 2026Article
- Timescale of FLASH Sparing Effect Determined by Varying Temporal Split of Dose Delivery in Mice.International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics · 2026Article
- Systematic analysis of biological endpoint variability and implications for quantitative modeling of the FLASH sparing effect.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026Review
- FLASH effect is diminished by daily fractionation of electron RT in mouse skin.Physics in medicine and biology · 2025Article
- Factors Influencing the Biological Effects of FLASH Irradiation.Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Intermediate tissue oxygen level is required to observe murine FLASH skin sparing.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Medical physics dataset article: A database of FLASH murine in vivo studies.Medical physics · 2025Article
- Anesthetic Oxygen Use and Sex Are Critical Factors in the FLASH Sparing Effect.Advances in radiation oncology · 2024Article
- Major contributors to FLASH sparing efficacy emerge from murine skin studies: dose rate, total dose per fraction, anesthesia and oxygenation.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Review
- Review of optical reporters of radiation effectsJournal of biomedical optics · 2023Review
- Towards Clinical Translation: Establishing Optimal Dose and Dose-Rate Parameters for the FLASH Skin-Sparing Effect.Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis SocietyArticle
- Comparative Transcriptomic Analysis Unveils Divergent Effects of FLASH Versus Conventional Irradiation on Skin Cells.Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis SocietyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Recent studies suggest ultra-high dose rate radiation treatment (UHDR-RT) reduces normal tissue damage compared to conventional radiation treatment (CONV-RT) at the same dose. In this study, we compared first, the kinetics and degree of skin damage in wild-type C57BL/6 mice, and second, tumor treatment efficacy in GL261 and B16F10 dermal tumor models, at the same UHDR-RT and CONV-RT doses. Flank skin of wild-type mice received UHDR-RT or CONV-RT at 25 Gy and 30 Gy. Normal skin damage was tracked by clinical observation to determine the time to moist desquamation, an endpoint which was verified by histopathology. Tumors were inoculated on the right flank of the mice, then received UHDR-RT or CONV-RT at 1 × 11 Gy, 1 × 15, 1 × 25, 3 × 6 and 3 × 8 Gy, and time to tumor tripling volume was determined. Tumors also received 1 × 11, 1 × 15, 3 × 6 and 3 × 8 Gy doses for assessment of CD8+/CD4+ tumor infiltrate and genetic expression 96 h postirradiation. All irradiations of the mouse tumor or flank skin were performed with megavoltage electron beams (10 MeV, 270 Gy/s for UHDR-RT and 9 MeV, 0.12 Gy/s for CONV-RT) delivered via a clinical linear accelerator. Tumor control was statistically equal for similar doses of UHDR-RT and CONV-RT in B16F10 and GL261 murine tumors. There were variable qualitative differences in genetic expression of immune and cell damage-associated pathways between UHDR and CONV irradiated B16F10 tumors. Compared to CONV-RT, UHDR-RT resulted in an increased latent period to skin desquamation after a single 25 Gy dose (7 days longer). Time to moist skin desquamation did not significantly differ between UHDR-RT and CONV-RT after a 30 Gy dose. The histomorphological characteristics of skin damage were similar for UHDR-RT and CONV-RT. These studies demonstrated similar tumor control responses for equivalent single and fractionated radiation doses, with variable difference in expression of tumor progression and immune related gene pathways. There was a modest UHDR-RT skin sparing effect after a 1 × 25 Gy dose but not after a 1 × 30 Gy dose.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.