2021
DOI: 10.1016/s0167-8140(21)06968-1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

OC-0561 In vivo validation and tissue sparing factor for acute damage of pencil beam scanning proton FLASH

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
35
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(36 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
1
35
0
Order By: Relevance
“…While clinical trials involving FLASH radiotherapy still face a variety of challenges [ 40 ] and we are aware of regulatory hurdles, in vivo studies of tumor growth kinetics should try to include a larger number of specimens to improve the sensitivity for the potentially small differences in growth that may evolve to a more impactful change in tumor control. Ultimately, the question posed in the title will have to be answered via direct measurements of the TCP, which a few in vivo studies have presented with promising results for FLASH radiotherapy [ 41 , 42 ]. However, in the lights of the number of possible variables showcased in this study as well as the conclusions by Böhlen et al mentioned above, we again see the necessity for more experiments with larger amounts of measurements to ensure sparing of the TCP can be excluded in all relevant cases, as even small amount of sparing might diminish the potential of FLASH radiotherapy.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…While clinical trials involving FLASH radiotherapy still face a variety of challenges [ 40 ] and we are aware of regulatory hurdles, in vivo studies of tumor growth kinetics should try to include a larger number of specimens to improve the sensitivity for the potentially small differences in growth that may evolve to a more impactful change in tumor control. Ultimately, the question posed in the title will have to be answered via direct measurements of the TCP, which a few in vivo studies have presented with promising results for FLASH radiotherapy [ 41 , 42 ]. However, in the lights of the number of possible variables showcased in this study as well as the conclusions by Böhlen et al mentioned above, we again see the necessity for more experiments with larger amounts of measurements to ensure sparing of the TCP can be excluded in all relevant cases, as even small amount of sparing might diminish the potential of FLASH radiotherapy.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This shows the importance of the full dose profiles for accurate reporting of the PBS dose rates in experiments and therefore potentially also for the design of FLASH treatments. The PBS dose rate map calculated previously for the same field and beam parameters 6 yielded similar results as the case of a Gaussian profile in this study (max DR PBS95% = 531 Gy/s, Figure 8c), but the maximum PBS dose rate (418 Gy/s) was lower due to a larger Gaussian width (σ x = 3.9 mm and σ y = 4.1 mm) and lower field dose rate (77 Gy/s) used in the simulation. In another study, the measured dose profile found by a 2D strip segmented ionization chamber array was used for PBS dose rate calculations 28 .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The calibrated detectors were used in a larger radiobiological study investigating the response of healthy tissue as function of dose rate. Here the detectors were used for time‐resolved dose rate measurements during mouse leg irradiations with varying field dose rates using a previously described setup 6,12 …”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…To obtain the normal tissue-sparing effects of FLASH therapy, a high fractional dose is required, so FLASH proton beams may be used for the boost treatment after whole-breast radiotherapy. In a mouse model, radioprotective effects for the skin has been reported with a dose-modifying factor of 1.44–1.58 [ 71 ]. Skin reactions are marked at the completion of whole-breast radiotherapy, so the use of FLASH protons may be a better choice for patients without lymph node metastasis.…”
Section: Current Recommendations and Future Prospectsmentioning
confidence: 99%