ReviewAntioxidants (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Factors Influencing the Biological Effects of FLASH Irradiation.
Review in Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- PROTAC-based nanoassemblies targeting BRD4 for potentiate FLASH radiosensitization therapy.Materials today. Bio · 2026Article
- Review
- Oxygen Depletion in FLASH Particle Therapy: Effects of Linear Energy Transfer and Ion Track Structure.Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Among the methods for increasing the specificity of tumor radiotherapy, FLASH radiotherapy (FLASH-RT) stands out, having recently entered clinical trials. A distinctive feature of this treatment method is the delivery of a therapeutic dose in a fraction of a second with a typical mean dose rate greater than 40 Gy/s. In addition to improved patient comfort and a shorter hospital stay, this therapy potentially carries a lower risk of radiation-related side effects due to reduced damage to normal tissues. Numerous preclinical and in vivo laboratory trials of FLASH-RT have demonstrated that, in addition to reducing the severity of radiation-related complications, FLASH radiotherapy has antitumor efficacy similar to conventional radiotherapy. Partly reduced radiotoxicity after such a dose rate delivery obtained, in a broader radiobiological sense, an eponymous term FLASH effect. Although the first clinical trials aimed to evaluate the safety and efficiency of FLASH-RT against bone metastases (FAST-01/02), melanoma skin metastases (IMPulse, Flash-Skin I), Squamous Cell Carcinoma, or Basal Cell Carcinoma (LANCE) have already started or even finished and showed promising results (FAST-01), the radiobiological basis of the FLASH effect is far from a complete explanation. The fundamental factors explaining the nature of the FLASH effect are mainly considered to be the following: (1) changes in the balance of water radiolysis products and a decrease in the generation of stable reactive oxygen species (ROS), (2) differential oxygen depletion, depending on the initial oxygen concentration in tissues, and (3) physiological and metabolic, gene expression and probably epigenetic shifts in response to irradiation in normal and tumor cells. The main purpose of this review is the systematization of the radiobiological manifestations of the FLASH effect together with a consideration of the elementary processes laying in the basis of the FLASH effect in order to actualize rationale and future application developments of FLASH-RT.
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.