Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40233872›Full record

ArticleRadiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology2025

Ex vivo brain MRI to assess conventional and FLASH brain irradiation effects.

Jeannette Jansen, Adam Kimbler, Olivia Drayson, Bernard Lanz, Jessie Mosso, Veljko Grilj, Benoit Petit, Javier Franco-Perez, Aaron Simon, Charles L Limoli and 3 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Volumetric FLASH dosimetryPhysics in medicine and biology · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
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

13 authors.

Jeannette JansenLaboratory of Radiation Oncology/Radiation Oncology Service/Department of Oncology/CHUV, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Adam KimblerDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA.
Olivia DraysonDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA.
Bernard LanzCIBM Center for Biomedical Imaging, Lausanne, Switzerland; Animal Imaging and Technology, EPFL, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Jessie MossoCIBM Center for Biomedical Imaging, Lausanne, Switzerland; Animal Imaging and Technology, EPFL, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Veljko GriljInstitute of Radiation Physics (IRA)/CHUV, Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Benoit PetitRadiotherapy and Radiobiology Sector, Radiation Therapy Service, University Hospital of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland; LiRR- Laboratory of Innovation in Radiobiology Applied to Radiotherapy/Faculty of Medicine/University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Javier Franco-PerezLaboratory of Radiation Oncology/Radiation Oncology Service/Department of Oncology/CHUV, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland; Laboratorio de Patología Vascular Cerebral, Instituto Nacional de Neurología y Neurocirugía MVS, Mexico City, Mexico.
Aaron SimonDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA.
Charles L LimoliDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA.
Marie-Catherine VozeninRadiotherapy and Radiobiology Sector, Radiation Therapy Service, University Hospital of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland; LiRR- Laboratory of Innovation in Radiobiology Applied to Radiotherapy/Faculty of Medicine/University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Craig StarkDepartment of Radiation Oncology, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA; Department of Neurobiology and Behavior, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA.
Paola Ballesteros-ZebaduaLaboratory of Radiation Oncology/Radiation Oncology Service/Department of Oncology/CHUV, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland; Laboratorio de Física Médica, Instituto Nacional de Neurología y Neurocirugía MVS, Mexico City, Mexico. Electronic address: paolabz@ciencias.unam.mx.

Funding

Project 4: Mechanistic Basics of FLASH Effect: Role of O2P01CA244091 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-IRVINE · PI LIMOLI, CHARLES · 2020 to 2024
$9.6M
Improving pediatric brain tumor treatments using FLASH radiotherapyR01CA254892 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-IRVINE · PI Charles Limoli · 2021 to 2026
$2.5M
NCI NIH HHS P01 CA244091NCI NIH HHS R01 CA254892
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposeThe FLASH effect expands the therapeutic ratio of tumor control to normal tissue toxicity observed after delivery of ultra-high (>100 Gy/s FLASH-RT) vs. conventional dose rate radiation (CONV-RT). In this first exploratory study, we assessed whether ex vivo Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) could reveal long-term differences after FLASH-RT and CONV-RT whole-brain irradiation. MATERIALS AND

methodsFemale C57BL/6 mice were divided into three groups: control (non-irradiated), conventional (CONV-RT 0.1 Gy/s), and ultra-high dose rates (FLASH-RT 1 pulse, 5.5 x 10^6 Gy/s), and received 10 Gy of whole-brain irradiation in a single fraction at 10 weeks of age. Mice were evaluated by Novel Object Recognition cognitive testing at 10 months post-irradiation and were sampled at 13 months post-irradiation. Ex vivo brains were imaged with a 14.1 Tesla/26 cm magnet with a multimodal MRI protocol, including T2-weighted TurboRare (T2W) and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) sequences.

resultsIn accordance with previous results, cognitive tests indicated that animals receiving CONV-RT exhibited a decline in cognitive function, while FLASH-RT performed similarly to the controls. Ex vivo MRI showed decreased hippocampal mean intensity in the CONV-RT mice compared to controls, but not in the FLASH-RT group. Comparing CONV-RT to control, we found significant changes in multiple whole-brain diffusion metrics, including the mean Apparent Diffusion Coefficient (ADC) and Mean Apparent Propagator (MAP) metrics. By contrast, no significant diffusion changes were found between the FLASH-RT and control groups. In an exploratory analysis, compared to controls, regional diffusion metrics were primarily altered in the basal forebrain and the insular cortex after conventional radiation therapy (CONV-RT), and to a lesser extent after flash radiation therapy (FLASH-RT).

conclusionThis study presents initial evidence that ex vivo MRI uncovered changes in the brain after CONV-RT but not after FLASH-RT. The study indicates the potential use of ex vivo MRI to analyze the brain radiation responses at different dose rates.

Indexed as

BrainCranial IrradiationMagnetic Resonance ImagingAnimalsFemaleMiceMice, Inbred C57BLRadiotherapy DosageBrain FLASH radiotherapyDiffusion-weighted imagingex vivo MRIFLASH-RTHippocampal atrophy

Identifiers

PMID40233872
PMCPMC12919612

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.