ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2025
Machine stability and dosimetry for ultra-high dose rate FLASH radiotherapy human clinical protocol.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- First-in-human e-Flash radiotherapy using a modified conventional C-arm linear accelerator.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2026Article
- FLASH effect is diminished by daily fractionation of electron RT in mouse skin.Physics in medicine and biology · 2025Article
- Beam intensity and stability control on a modified clinical linear accelerator for FLASH irradiation.Physics in medicine and biology · 2025Article
- Machine stability and dosimetry for ultra-high dose rate FLASH radiotherapy human clinical protocol.Journal of applied clinical medical physics · 2025Article
- Innovative radiotherapies for the treatment of glioblastoma.Neuro-oncology advancesReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe FLASH effect, induced by ultra-high dose rate (UHDR) irradiations, offers the potential to spare normal tissue while effectively treating tumors. It is important to achieve precise and accurate dose delivery and to establish reliable detector systems, particularly for clinical trials needed to help the clinical transfer of FLASH-Radiotherapy (FLASH-RT). However, the use of monitoring chambers with UHDR beams is presently limited, leading to the reliance on passive dosimetry and machine stability. PURPOSE: This study aimed to investigate the energy and output stability of a UHDR Mobetron (IntraOp, USA) and to compare it with its conventional dose rate (CDR) mode. Furthermore, we assessed the dosimetric accuracy of a human clinical protocol for FLASH-RT.
methodsOver a 26-month duration, we assessed the short- and long-term stability of the output and energy of the Mobetron system. Daily checks were conducted for 9 MeV CDR and UHDR. In parallel, the IMPulse clinical trial involving patients with skin metastases from melanoma was initiated. Prescription doses ranging from 22 to 28 Gy were administered. Pre-, post-, and in vivo dosimetry using alanine and thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) was performed and compared to the prescription doses.
resultsShort-term output fluctuations remained below 0.6 % and 1 % for 9 MeV CDR and UHDR, respectively. Long-term output fluctuations were within 2 % and the long-term energy fluctuations were below 2 mm (R
conclusionsThe Mobetron system demonstrated favorable short- and long-term stability. There was a good agreement between the prescribed and the measured dose for the clinical IMPulse trial. The stability of this UHDR machine allows us to effectively conduct human clinical protocols as well as preclinical experiments, even in the absence of a real-time monitoring system.
Indexed as
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.