ArticleArXiv2024
On the acceptance, commissioning, and quality assurance of electron FLASH units.
Article in ArXiv, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background & Purpose: FLASH or ultra-high dose rate (UHDR) radiation therapy (RT) has gained attention in recent years for its ability to spare normal tissues relative to conventional dose rate (CDR) RT in various preclinical trials. However, clinical implementation of this promising treatment option has been limited because of the lack of availability of accelerators capable of delivering UHDR RT. Commercial options are finally reaching the market that produce electron beams with average dose rates of up to 1000 Gy/s. We established a framework for the acceptance, commissioning, and periodic quality assurance (QA) of electron FLASH units and present an example of commissioning. Methods: A protocol for acceptance, commissioning, and QA of UHDR linear accelerators was established by combining and adapting standards and professional recommendations for standard linear accelerators based on the experience with UHDR at four clinical centers that use different UHDR devices. Non-standard dosimetric beam parameters considered included pulse width, pulse repetition frequency, dose per pulse, and instantaneous dose rate, together with recommendations on how to acquire these measurements. Results: The 6- and 9-MeV beams of an UHDR electron device were commissioned by using this developed protocol. Measurements were acquired with a combination of ion chambers, beam current transformers (BCTs), and dose-rate-independent passive dosimeters. The unit was calibrated according to the concept of redundant dosimetry using a reference setup. Conclusions: This study provides detailed recommendations for the acceptance testing, commissioning, and routine QA of low-energy electron UHDR linear accelerators. The proposed framework is not limited to any specific unit, making it applicable to all existing eFLASH units in the market. Through practical insights and theoretical discourse, this document establishes a benchmark for the commissioning of UHDR devices for clinical use.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38827455PMC11142322What 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.