ArticleMedical physics2025
Quality assurance and reporting for FLASH clinical trials: The experience of the FEATHER trial.
Article in Medical physics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The potential and risks of FLASH radiotherapy in pediatric patients.Neuro-oncology pediatrics · 2026Review
- Quality assurance and reporting for FLASH clinical trials: The experience of the FEATHER trial.Medical physics · 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundResearch on ultra-high dose rate (UHDR) radiation therapy has indicated its potential to spare normal tissue while maintaining equivalent tumor control compared to conventional treatments. First clinical trials are underway. The randomized phase II/III FEATHER clinical trial at the Paul Scherrer Institute in collaboration with the University of Zurich Animal Hospital is one of the first curative domestic animal trials to be attempted, and it is designed to provide a good example for human trials. However, the lack of standardized quality assurance (QA) guidelines for FLASH clinical trials presents a significant challenge in trial design. PURPOSE: This work aims to demonstrate the development and testing of QA and reporting procedures implemented in the FEATHER clinical trial.
methodsWe have expanded the clinical QA program to include UHDR-specific QA and additional patient-specific QA. Furthermore, we have modified the monitor readout to enable time-resolved measurements, allowing delivery log files to be used for dose and dose rate recalculations. Finally, we developed a reporting strategy encompassing relevant parameters for retrospective studies.
resultsWe evaluated our QA and reporting procedures with simulated treatments. This testing confirmed that our QA procedures effectively ensure the correct and safe delivery of the planned dose (3%/3 mm gamma criteria, pass > 90%). Additionally, we demonstrated that we could reconstruct the delivered dose and dose rate using the delivery log files.
conclusionWe developed and used in practice a comprehensive QA and reporting protocol for a FLASH clinical trial at the Paul Scherrer Institute. This work aims to establish guidelines and standardize reporting practices for future advancements in the FLASH-RT field.
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.