ArticleInternational journal of particle therapy2026
Spread-Out Bragg Peak FLASH Radiotherapy for Head and Neck Reirradiation: A Treatment Planning Study.
Article in International journal of particle therapy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Proton FLASH radiotherapy offers the potential to enhance normal tissue sparing while maintaining tumor control. This study investigates the dosimetric advantages of spread-out Bragg peak (SOBP) FLASH compared to standard intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) for re-irradiation in recurrent head-and-neck (HN) cancer. Methods: Eight recurrent HN cancer cases were retrospectively analyzed using hypofractionated proton therapy plans (5 × 8 Gy fractions). FLASH plans were designed using a single energy layer and patient-specific modulation devices implemented in the RayStation. Robust optimizations accounted for setup (±3 mm) and range (±3.5%) uncertainties. A biologically effective dose model incorporating a FLASH-modifying factor (FMF) of 0.7 for normal tissues meeting dose (≥5 Gy) and dose rate (≥40 Gy/s) thresholds was used to assess the therapeutic potential of FLASH. Dosimetric parameters such as target coverage, homogeneity index (HI), conformity index (CI), and organ-at-risk (OAR) sparing were compared between FLASH and standard IMPT plans. Results: Compared to standard IMPT, SOBP-based FLASH plans demonstrated reduced target homogeneity ( Conclusions: SOBP-based FLASH plans preserved the dosimetric advantages of IMPT for sparing distal normal tissues while offering potential reductions in high-dose exposure to OARs near the target volume. Incorporating an FMF of 0.7, these plans showed comparable dosimetric profiles to IMPT with the added benefit of enhanced normal tissue protection under uncertainty, a unique advantage over conventional radiotherapy.
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.