ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2024
Discordance in acute gastrointestinal toxicity between synchrotron-based proton and linac-based electron ultra-high dose rate irradiation.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2024. 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
- Updated by
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Proton FLASH has been investigated using cyclotron and synchrocyclotron beamlines but not synchrotron beamlines. We evaluated the impact of dose rate (ultra-high [UHDR] vs. conventional [CONV]) and beam configuration (shoot-through [ST] vs. spread-out-Bragg-peak [SOBP]) on acute radiation-induced gastrointestinal toxicity (RIGIT) in mice. We also compared RIGIT between synchrotron-based protons and linac-based electrons with matched mean dose rates. Methods and Materials: We administered abdominal irradiation (12-14 Gy single fraction) to female C57BL/6J mice with an 87 MeV synchrotron-based proton beamline (2 cm diameter field size as a lateral beam). Dose rates were 0.2 Gy/s (S-T pCONV), 0.3 Gy/s (SOBP pCONV), 150 Gy/s (S-T pFLASH), and 230 Gy/s (SOBP pFLASH). RIGIT was assessed by the jejunal regenerating crypt assay and survival. We also compared responses to proton [pFLASH and pCONV] with responses to electron CONV (eCONV, 0.4 Gy/s) and electron FLASH (eFLASH, 188-205 Gy/s). Results: The number of regenerating jejunal crypts at each matched dose was lowest for pFLASH (similar between S-T and SOBP), greater and similar between pCONV (S-T and SOBP) and eCONV, and greatest for eFLASH. Correspondingly, mice that received pFLASH SOBP had the lowest survival rates (50% at 50 days), followed by pFLASH S-T (80%), and pCONV SOBP (90%), but 100% of mice receiving pCONV S-T survived (log-rank Conclusions: Our findings are consistent with an increase in RIGIT after synchrotron-based pFLASH versus pCONV. This negative proton-specific FLASH effect versus linac-based electron irradiation underscores the importance of understanding the physical and biological factors that will allow safe and effective clinical translation.
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.