ArticleFrontiers in oncology2024
Spread-out Bragg peak FLASH: quantifying normal tissue toxicity in a murine model.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Harnessing the sparing effect of FLASH-RT: From phenomenon observation, radiophysical determinants to molecular mechanisms and synergistic strategies.Materials today. Bio · 2026Review
- Conditional sparing in FLASH radiotherapy: Conformal dosimetry and ALARA remain essential.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2026Review
- Six-month evaluation of normal mouse brain side effects: Comparing FLASH and conventional proton partial brain irradiation.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Time-resolved point dosimetry for spread-out Bragg-peak proton FLASH using fibre-coupled scintillators.Medical physics · 2026Article
- Factors Influencing the Biological Effects of FLASH Irradiation.Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Determining the effects of hyperthermia on the tumor and acute normal tissue response of FLASH radiation.Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden) · 2025Article
- Tissue-specific iron levels modulate lipid peroxidation and the FLASH radiotherapy effect.Cell death & disease · 2025Article
- Fixation method influences FLASH skin sparing in an in vivo leg model.Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden) · 2025Article
- Discordance in Acute Gastrointestinal Toxicity between Synchrotron-Based Proton and Linac-based Electron Ultra-High Dose Rate Irradiation.International journal of radiation oncology, biology, 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
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: A favorable effect of ultra-high dose rate (FLASH) radiation on normal tissue-sparing has been indicated in several preclinical studies. In these studies, the adverse effects of radiation damage were reduced without compromising tumor control. Most studies of proton FLASH investigate these effects within the entrance of a proton beam. However, the real advantage of proton therapy lies in the Spread-out Bragg Peak (SOBP), which allows for giving a high dose to a target with a limited dose to healthy tissue at the entrance of the beam. Therefore, a clinically relevant investigation of the FLASH effect would be of healthy tissues within a SOBP. Our study quantified the tissue-sparing effect of FLASH radiation on acute and late toxicity within an SOBP in a murine model. Material/Methods: Radiation-induced damage was assessed for acute and late toxicity in the same mice following irradiation with FLASH (Field dose rate of 60 Gy/s) or conventional (CONV, 0.34 Gy/s) dose rates. The right hindleg of unanesthetized female CDF1 mice was irradiated with single-fraction doses between 19.9-49.7 Gy for CONV and 30.4-65.9 Gy for FLASH with 5-8 mice per dose. The leg was placed in the middle of a 5 cm SOBP generated from a mono-energetic beam using a 2D range modulator. Acute skin toxicity quantified by hair loss, moist desquamation and toe separation was monitored daily within 29 days post-treatment. Late toxicity of fibrotic development measured by leg extendibility was monitored biweekly until 30 weeks post-treatment. Results: Comparison of acute skin toxicity following radiation indicated a tissue-sparing effect of FLASH compared to conventional single-fraction radiation with a mean protection ratio of 1.40 (1.35-1.46). Fibrotic development similarly indicated normal tissue sparing with a 1.18 (1.17-1.18) protection ratio. The acute skin toxicity tissue sparing was similar to data from entrance-beam irradiations of Sørensen et al. (4). Conclusion: Full dose-response curves for acute and late toxicity after CONV and FLASH radiation were obtained. Radiation within the SOBP retains the normal-tissue-sparing effect of FLASH with a dose-modifying factor of 40% for acute skin damage and 18% for fibrotic development.
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.