ArticleBMC medicine2026
FLASH radiotherapy preserves systemic and tissue homeostasis while maintaining antitumor efficacy.
Article in BMC medicine, 2026. 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.
- Radiotherapy and tertiary lymphoid structures: balancing immune activation and immune damage in cancer immunotherapy.Molecular cancer · 2026Review
- Ultra-high-dose-rate pulsed irradiation and the conditional FLASH effect: dosimetry, multiscale biology, and clinical translation.Frontiers in oncology · 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
26 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundConventional radiotherapy (CONV-RT) is widely used for cancer treatment, but its efficacy is limited by toxicity to surrounding healthy tissues. Ultra-high dose rate radiotherapy (FLASH-RT) has emerged as a promising approach, maintaining tumor control while sparing normal tissues. Melanoma is highly radioresistant, and deep-seated lesions expose skin and muscle to radiation, causing long-term fibrosis, stiffness, and loss of elasticity. The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy and collateral effects of CONV-RT and FLASH-RT, using melanoma as a benchmark for tumor response and skin-muscle as a model for normal tissue toxicity, and to investigate the underlying molecular and systemic mechanisms.
methodsA novel linear accelerator (LINAC) delivering low-energy electrons at ultra-high dose rate via a triode gun with precise tissue targeting and dose delivery was used. CONV-RT and FLASH-RT were administered to a syngeneic melanoma mouse model. Tumor growth, skin and muscle integrity, transcriptional changes, and systemic homeostasis were analyzed in tumor-bearing and naïve mice.
resultsBoth modalities achieved comparable tumor suppression. CONV-RT induced persistent skin damage, dermal fibrosis, muscle dysfunction, and systemic inflammatory-metabolic alterations, whereas FLASH-RT largely preserved tissue architecture and systemic balance. Bulk RNA sequencing revealed minimal transcriptional disruption after FLASH-RT, while CONV-RT triggered thousands of differentially expressed genes, including pathways related to fibrosis, inflammation, cell death in skin, and muscle remodeling, function, and the unfolded protein response. Histological and ultrastructural analyses confirmed reduced immune infiltration and preserved tissue structure following FLASH-RT.
conclusionsFLASH-RT provides effective tumor control while largely preserving normal tissues. CONV-RT and FLASH-RT elicit substantially different biological responses, suggesting the involvement of upstream modulators that vary depending on the dose rate.
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.