Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39331834›Full record

ArticleMedical physics2024

Dosimetric calibration of anatomy-specific ultra-high dose rate electron irradiation platform for preclinical FLASH radiobiology experiments.

Jinghui Wang, Stavros Melemenidis, Rakesh Manjappa, Vignesh Viswanathan, Ramish M Ashraf, Karen Levy, Lawrie B Skinner, Luis A Soto, Stephanie Chow, Brianna Lau and 9 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Medical physics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Investigating the oxygen dependence of FLASH-RT using electron paramagnetic resonance imaging.Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

19 authors.

Jinghui WangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.
Stavros MelemenidisDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.
Rakesh ManjappaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.
Vignesh ViswanathanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.
Ramish M AshrafDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.
Karen LevyDepartment of Gynecologic Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.
Lawrie B SkinnerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.
Luis A SotoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.
Stephanie ChowDepartment of Gynecologic Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.
Brianna LauDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.
Ryan B KoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.
Edward E GravesDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.
Amy S YuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.
Karl K BushDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.
Murat SurucuDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.
Erinn B RankinDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.
Billy W LooDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.
Emil SchülerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.
Peter G MaximDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.

Funding

Translational Biology CoreP01CA257907 · NCI · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI Maximilian Diehn, Quynh-Thu Xuan Le · 2022 to 2026
$12.0M
Project 4: Mechanistic Basics of FLASH Effect: Role of O2P01CA244091 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-IRVINE · PI LIMOLI, CHARLES · 2020 to 2024
$9.6M
Research Supplements to Promote Diversity in Health-Related Research: Preclinical optimization of ultra-high dose rate (FLASH) radiotherapy parameters for translational relevanceR01CA266673 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI SCHUELER, EMIL · 2022 to 2025
$3.5M
NCI NIH HHS P01 CA244091NCI NIH HHS P01 CA257907NCI NIH HHS R01 CA266673
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFLASH radiation therapy (RT) offers a promising avenue for the broadening of the therapeutic index. However, to leverage the full potential of FLASH in the clinical setting, an improved understanding of the biological principles involved is critical. This requires the availability of specialized equipment optimized for the delivery of conventional (CONV) and ultra-high dose rate (UHDR) irradiation for preclinical studies. One method to conduct such preclinical radiobiological research involves adapting a clinical linear accelerator configured to deliver both CONV and UHDR irradiation. PURPOSE: We characterized the dosimetric properties of a clinical linear accelerator configured to deliver ultra-high dose rate irradiation to two anatomic sites in mice and for cell-culture FLASH radiobiology experiments.

methodsDelivered doses of UHDR electron beams were controlled by a microcontroller and relay interfaced with the respiratory gating system. We also produced beam collimators with indexed stereotactic mouse positioning devices to provide anatomically specific preclinical treatments. Treatment delivery was monitored directly with an ionization chamber, and charge measurements were correlated with radiochromic film measurements at the entry surface of the mice. The setup for conventional dose rate irradiation utilized the same collimation system but at increased source-to-surface distance. Monte Carlo simulations and film dosimetry were used to characterize beam properties and dose distributions.

resultsThe mean electron beam energies before the flattening filter were 18.8 MeV (UHDR) and 17.7 MeV (CONV), with corresponding values at the mouse surface of 17.2 and 16.2 MeV. The charges measured with an external ion chamber were linearly correlated with the mouse entrance dose. The use of relay gating for pulse control initially led to a delivery failure rate of 20% (± 1 pulse); adjustments to account for the linac latency improved this rate to < 1/20. Beam field sizes for two anatomically specific mouse collimators (4 × 4 cm

conclusionWe successfully configured a clinical linear accelerator for increased output and developed a robust preclinical platform for anatomically specific irradiation, with highly accurate and precise temporal and spatial dose delivery, for both CONV and UHDR irradiation applications.

Indexed as

ElectronsRadiobiologyRadiometryRadiotherapy DosageAnimalsCalibrationMiceMonte Carlo MethodParticle AcceleratorsRadiation DosagedosimetryFLASHLinacradiotherapyultra‐high dose rate

Identifiers

PMID39331834
PMCPMC12231743

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.