Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42625213›Full record

ReviewRadiation oncology (London, England)2026

FLASH radiotherapy: physico-chemical considerations on ionisation tracks, radical reactions, and the role of oxygen.

Carsten Herskind, Peter O'Neill, Michael R Horsman

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Radiation oncology (London, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

3 authors.

Carsten HerskindCellular and Molecular Radiation Oncology Lab, Department of Radiation Oncology, Universitätsmedizin Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, Theodor-Kutzer-Ufer 1-3, 68167, Mannheim, Germany. carsten.herskind@medma.uni-heidelberg.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6554-5907
Peter O'Neill *Medical Sciences Division, Department of Oncology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Michael R Horsman *Experimental Clinical Oncology, Department of Oncology, Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The sparing effect of FLASH irradiation with ultrahigh dose rates (UHDR), by applying high dose fractions in less than one second, on adverse reaction in many normal tissues but not on tumour control has the potential to widen the therapeutic window and advance cancer radiotherapy. However, the mechanism is poorly understood, preventing its optimal application in the clinic. Here we review the current knowledge of radiation-induced radicals and their reactions, including time factors which are rarely considered. Furthermore, experimental in vitro and in vivo data in the framework of prevailing hypotheses, and the role of low oxygen concentrations and reoxygenation, are discussed. Finally, potential protective mechanisms are considered based on such reactions and the role of oxygen. We argue that more than one mechanism may contribute to dose-rate dependent protection, and that differences exist between protective mechanisms in vitro and in vivo. Furthermore, we propose a new protective reaction linking radiation chemistry to the role of oxygen in FLASH irradiation and incorporating the differential responses of normal tissue and tumours.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsOxygenAnimalsFree RadicalsHumansFree RadicalsOxygenaqueous electronsChemical restitutionDNAFLASH radiotherapyIonisation tracksMitochondriaOxygen fixation hypothesisRadiation chemistryRadicalsRecombinationTime factorsUltra-high dose rate (UHDR)

Identifiers

PMID42625213
PMCPMC13495190

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.