ArticleFrontiers in oncology2024
The sparing effect of ultra-high dose rate irradiation on the esophagus.
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 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The evolution of FLASH radiotherapy: a bibliometric analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Pooled it
- Reduced corneal toxicity following whole brain irradiation in mice.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2026Article
- Research progresses on FLASH radiotherapy and its application for the treatment of digestive system tumors.Discover oncology · 2026Review
- Preliminary mechanistic study of mitochondrial function in intestinal protection mediated by high-energy X-ray FLASH radiotherapy.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2026Article
- FLASH radiotherapy at a crossroads: a bibliometric perspective on progress and challenges.Discover oncology · 2025Article
- Exploring the Metabolic Impact of FLASH Radiotherapy.Cancers · 2025Review
- Mechanisms of the FLASH effect: current insights and advances.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and purpose: Current studies have substantiated the sparing effect of ultra-high dose rate irradiation (FLASH) in various organs including the brain, lungs, and intestines. Whether this sparing effect extends to esophageal tissue remains unexplored. This study aims to compare the different responses of esophageal tissue in histological and protein expression levels following conventional dose rate irradiation (CONV) and FLASH irradiation to ascertain the presence of a sparing effect. Methods and materials: C57 female mice were randomly divided into three groups: control, CONV, and FLASH groups. The chest region of the mice in the radiation groups was exposed to a prescribed dose of 20 Gy using a modified electron linear accelerator. The CONV group received an average dose rate of 0.1 Gy/s, while the FLASH group received an average dose rate of 125 Gy/s. On the 10th day after irradiation, the mice were euthanized and their esophagi were collected for histopathological analysis. Subsequently, label-free proteomic quantification analysis was performed on esophageal tissue. The validation process involved analyzing transmission electron microscopy images and utilizing the parallel reaction monitoring method. Results: Histopathology results indicated a significantly lower extent of esophageal tissue damage in the FLASH group compared to the CONV group ( Conclusions: Compared with CONV irradiation, a sparing effect on esophageal tissue can be observed after FLASH irradiation. This sparing effect is associated with alleviated mitochondria damage and acute inflammation.
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.