Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39525619›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in oncology2024

Major contributors to FLASH sparing efficacy emerge from murine skin studies: dose rate, total dose per fraction, anesthesia and oxygenation.

Brian W Pogue, William S Thomas, Armin D Tavakkoli, Lesley A Jarvis, P Jack Hoopes

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Mechanisms of the FLASH effect: current insights and advances.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2025
    Review
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

5 authors.

Brian W PogueDepartment of Medical Physics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States.
William S ThomasDepartment of Medical Physics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States.
Armin D TavakkoliDepartment of Surgery, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, NH, United States.
Lesley A JarvisThayer School of Engineering at Dartmouth, Hanover, NH, United States.
P Jack HoopesThayer School of Engineering at Dartmouth, Hanover, NH, United States.

Funding

Translational Engineering in Cancer (TEC)P30CA023108 · NCI · DARTMOUTH COLLEGE · PI Steven D Leach · 1985 to 2026
$91.3M
Optimization of MeV FLASH radiotherapy for normal tissue preservationU01CA260446 · NCI · DARTMOUTH COLLEGE · PI David J. Gladstone, Jack Hoopes · 2022 to 2026
$3.1M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA023108NCI NIH HHS U01 CA260446
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Normal tissue sparing from radiation damage upon ultra-high dose rate irradiation, known as the FLASH effect with an equivalent tumor response, has been widely reported in murine skin models, and translation of this type of radiotherapy to humans has already begun, with skin sparing being a primary outcome expected. Methods: This study reviews the status of the field, focusing on the proposed mechanisms and skin response assays, outlining what has become known in terms of input parameters that might control the magnitude of the FLASH effect. Results: Murine studies have largely focused on acute damage responses, developing over 3-8 weeks, to single doses of FLASH versus conventional dose rate (CDR), suggesting that at dose rates above tens of Gray per second, with a total dose of more than 20 Gy, the FLASH effect is induced. Fractionated delivery appears to be possible, although fraction sizes >17 Gy appear to be needed for sparing efficacy. The interplay between the dose rate and total dose per fraction remains to be fully elucidated. Oxygen is a modulator of efficacy, with both hypoxia and hyperoxia diminishing the effect of FLASH. Measurement of transient changes in oxygen levels is possible and may be a marker of treatment efficacy. Conclusion: Taken together, murine skin data provide important information for translational studies, despite the associated limitations. Studies of later-term sparing effects, as well as studies on pig skin, are needed to take the next step in assessing translational FLASH efficacy. The control of biological factors, such as tissue oxygenation, may be required to understand and control the response.

Indexed as

dosimetryFLASH radiotherapyradiation responseradiation response biomarkersradiobiologyradiotherapyskin

Identifiers

PMID39525619
PMCPMC11544430

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.