ArticleFrontiers in oncology2024
Long-term toxicity and efficacy of FLASH radiotherapy in dogs with superficial malignant tumors.
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
- Article
- First-in-human e-Flash radiotherapy using a modified conventional C-arm linear accelerator.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2026Article
- The potential and risks of FLASH radiotherapy in pediatric patients.Neuro-oncology pediatrics · 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
- Emerging strategies in radiation therapy: promises and challenges of spatial fractionation, ultra-high dose rates, and nanoparticles.Journal of physics D: Applied physics · 2025Review
- FLASH radiotherapy: bridging revolutionary mechanisms and clinical frontiers in cancer treatment - a narrative review.Ewha medical journal · 2024Review
- 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: FLASH radiotherapy (RT) has emerged as a promising modality, demonstrating both a normal tissue sparing effect and anticancer efficacy. We have previously reported on the safety and efficacy of single fraction FLASH RT in the treatment of oral tumors in canine cancer patients, showing tumor response but also a risk of radiation-induced severe late adverse effects (osteoradionecrosis) for doses ≥35 Gy. Accordingly, the objective in this study was to investigate if single fraction high dose FLASH RT is safe for treating non-oral tumors. Methods: Privately-owned dogs with superficial tumors or microscopic residual disease were included. Treatment was generally delivered as a single fraction of 15-35 Gy 10 MeV electron FLASH RT, although two dogs were re-irradiated at a later timepoint. Follow-up visits were conducted up to 12 months post-treatment to evaluate treatment efficiency and adverse effects. Results: Fourteen dogs with 16 tumors were included, of which nine tumors were treated for gross disease whilst seven tumors were treated post-surgery for microscopic residual disease. Four treatment sites treated with 35 Gy had ulceration post irradiation, which was graded as severe adverse effect. Only mild adverse effects were observed for the remaining treatment sites. None of the patients with microscopic disease experienced recurrence (0/7), and all patients with macroscopic disease showed either a complete (5/9) or a partial response (4/9). Five dogs were euthanized due to clinical disease progression. Discussion: Our study demonstrates that single fraction high dose FLASH RT is generally safe, with few severe adverse effects, particularly in areas less susceptible to radiation-induced damage. In addition, our study indicates that FLASH has anti-tumor efficacy in a clinical setting. No osteoradionecrosis was observed in this study, although other types of high-grade adverse effects including ulcer-formations were observed for the highest delivered dose (35 Gy). Overall, we conclude that osteoradionecrosis following single fraction, high dose FLASH does not appear to be a general problem for non-oral tumor locations. Also, as has been shown previously for oral tumors, 30 Gy appeared to be the maximum safe dose to deliver with single fraction FLASH RT.
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.