ArticleScientific reports2025
Carbon ion FLASH irradiation reduces acute skin toxicity compared with conventional dose rate irradiation.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- FLASH radiotherapy: physico-chemical considerations on ionisation tracks, radical reactions, and the role of oxygen.Radiation oncology (London, England) · 2026Review
- Article
- Development of a temperature-dependent chemical simulation code based on PHITS for water radiolysis from 0 to 350 °C.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Microenvironmental remodeling in FLASH radiotherapy.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
FLASH radiotherapy, defined by ultra-high dose rates exceeding 40 Gy/s, has shown potential for widening the therapeutic window due to its demonstrated normal tissue-sparing effects while maintaining tumor control with electrons, photons, and protons. However, limited biological data are available regarding its effects with heavy ions. This study aimed to investigate the biological effects of carbon-ion FLASH irradiation by assessing acute skin reactions in mice. C3H/He mice received irradiation to the right hind limb with 34-58 Gy of carbon-ion pencil beam scanning at the entrance region (dose-averaged LET: 13 keV/µm), delivered at either conventional dose rate (CONV: 0.047-0.051 Gy/s) or ultra-high dose rate (FLASH: 166.7-190.8 Gy/s). Skin reactions were evaluated every other day for up to 5 weeks to monitor early responses. The temporal patterns of skin response were similar between the CONV and FLASH groups. However, FLASH group consistently resulted in lower reaction scores across all doses and time points. Dose-response curve indicated a tissue-sparing effect with FLASH group, requiring approximately 1.5 times higher dose to produce the same biological effect as CONV group. These findings confirm the normal tissue-sparing potential of carbon-ion FLASH irradiation, with the FLASH effect quantitatively demonstrated through dose-response comparisons.
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.