ArticleScientific reports2024
Proton-FLASH: effects of ultra-high dose rate irradiation on an in-vivo mouse ear model.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- The FLASH effect-an evaluation of preclinical studies of ultra-high dose rate radiotherapy.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Pooled it
- Systematic analysis of biological endpoint variability and implications for quantitative modeling of the FLASH sparing effect.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 2026Review
- FLASH radiotherapy as an emerging paradigm in radioimmunotherapy: biological rationale, preclinical evidence, and translational roadmap.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- Carbon ion FLASH irradiation reduces acute skin toxicity compared with conventional dose rate irradiation.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Commissioning of a gantry-mounted synchrocyclotron for preclinical FLASH studies utilizing spread-out Bragg peaks.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- 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
- Commissioning of a 142.4 MeV ultra-high dose rate (UHDR) proton beamline in a synchrotron-based proton therapy system.Medical physics · 2025Article
- Medical physics dataset article: A database of FLASH murine in vivo studies.Medical physics · 2025Article
- The impact of dose rate optimisation and robust optimisation on FLASH proton therapy treatment plan quality and dose rates.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- High-throughput, low-cost FLASH: irradiation of Drosophila melanogaster with low-energy X-rays using time structures spanning conventional and ultrahigh dose rates.Journal of radiation research · 2024Article
- FLASH radiotherapy: bridging revolutionary mechanisms and clinical frontiers in cancer treatment - a narrative review.Ewha medical journal · 2024Review
- Review
- Major contributors to FLASH sparing efficacy emerge from murine skin studies: dose rate, total dose per fraction, anesthesia and oxygenation.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
FLASH-radiotherapy may provide significant sparing of healthy tissue through ultra-high dose rates in protons, electrons, and x-rays while maintaining the tumor control. Key factors for the FLASH effect might be oxygen depletion, the immune system, and the irradiated blood volume, but none could be fully confirmed yet. Therefore, further investigations are necessary. We investigated the protective (tissue sparing) effect of FLASH in proton treatment using an in-vivo mouse ear model. The right ears of Balb/c mice were irradiated with 20 MeV protons at the ion microprobe SNAKE in Garching near Munich by using three dose rates (Conv = 0.06 Gy/s, Flash9 = 9.3 Gy/s and Flash930 = 930 Gy/s) at a total dose of 23 Gy or 33 Gy. The ear thickness, desquamation, and erythema combined in an inflammation score were measured for 180 days. The cytokines TGF-β1, TNF-α, IL1α, and IL1β were analyzed in the blood sampled in the first 4 weeks and at termination day. No differences in inflammation reactions were visible in the 23 Gy group for the different dose rates. In the 33 Gy group, the ear swelling and the inflammation score for Flash9 was reduced by (57 ± 12) % and (67 ± 17) % and for Flash930 by (40 ± 13) % and (50 ± 17) % compared to the Conv dose rate. No changes in the cytokines in the blood could be measured. However, an estimation of the irradiated blood volume demonstrates, that 100-times more blood is irradiated when using Conv compared to using Flash9 or Flash930. This indicates that blood might play a role in the underlying mechanisms in the protective effect of FLASH.
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.