Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39862897›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics2025

Discordance in Acute Gastrointestinal Toxicity between Synchrotron-Based Proton and Linac-based Electron Ultra-High Dose Rate Irradiation.

Kevin Liu, Uwe Titt, Nolan Esplen, Luke Connell, Elise Konradsson, Ming Yang, Xiaochun Wang, Takeshi Takaoka, Ziyi Li, Albert C Koong and 5 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Musculoskeletal and Marrow Sparing With Proton FLASH Radiation Therapy in Juvenile Mice.International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Investigating the oxygen dependence of FLASH-RT using electron paramagnetic resonance imaging.Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology · 2026
    Article
  6. Microenvironmental remodeling in FLASH radiotherapy.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2026
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Kevin LiuDepartment of Radiation Physics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; The University of Texas MD Anderson UTHealth Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Houston, Texas.
Uwe TittDepartment of Radiation Physics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; The University of Texas MD Anderson UTHealth Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Houston, Texas.
Nolan EsplenDepartment of Radiation Physics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Luke ConnellDepartment of Radiation Physics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; The University of Texas MD Anderson UTHealth Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Houston, Texas.
Elise KonradssonDepartment of Radiation Physics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Ming YangDepartment of Radiation Physics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; The University of Texas MD Anderson UTHealth Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Houston, Texas.
Xiaochun WangDepartment of Radiation Physics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Takeshi TakaokaDepartment of Radiation Physics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; Particle Therapy Division, Hitachi America Ltd, Houston, Texas.
Ziyi LiDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Albert C KoongDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Devarati MitraDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Radhe MohanDepartment of Radiation Physics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; The University of Texas MD Anderson UTHealth Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Houston, Texas.
Billy W LooDepartment of Radiation Oncology and Stanford Cancer Institute, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.
Steven H LinThe University of Texas MD Anderson UTHealth Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Houston, Texas; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
Emil SchülerDepartment of Radiation Physics, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; The University of Texas MD Anderson UTHealth Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Houston, Texas. Electronic address: eschueler@mdanderson.org.

Funding

Tumor Evolution and Metastasis ProgramP30CA016672 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI DIANE BODURKA · 1985 to 2026
$290.8M
Research Supplements to Promote Diversity in Health-Related Research: Preclinical optimization of ultra-high dose rate (FLASH) radiotherapy parameters for translational relevanceR01CA266673 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI SCHUELER, EMIL · 2022 to 2025
$3.5M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016672NCI NIH HHS R01 CA266673
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeProton FLASH has been investigated using cyclotron and synchrocyclotron beamlines but not synchrotron beamlines. We evaluated the impact of dose rate [ultra-high vs conventional (CONV)] and beam configuration [shoot-through (S-T) 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-beam FLASH (188-205 Gy/s).

resultsThe 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 electron-beam FLASH. 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 P = .047 for the 4 groups).

conclusionsOur 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.

Indexed as

ElectronsJejunumParticle AcceleratorsProtonsProton TherapyRadiation Injuries, ExperimentalSynchrotronsAnimalsFemaleMiceMice, Inbred C57BLRadiotherapy DosageProtons

Identifiers

PMID39862897
PMCPMC13383351

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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 Socratic graph.