ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2026
Use of apertures in single-energy pristine Bragg peak FLASH radiotherapy.
Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Proton Bragg peak flash stereotactic radiosurgery for recurrent glioblastoma reirradiation.Physics and imaging in radiation oncology · 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProton single-energy Bragg peak (SEBP) FLASH delivery can achieve dosimetric distributions equivalent to conventional intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT). However, range-pulling and field compensator devices enlarge the proton pencil beam spot size, increasing lateral penumbra and compromising dose conformality and high-dose-rate distribution. Apertures are employed to mitigate these effects, enhancing dose metrics while preserving ultra-high dose rate performance. PURPOSE: To investigate the efficacy of apertures in sharpening lateral dose falloff and enhancing dose conformity in proton pencil beam scanning (PBS) Bragg peak (BP) FLASH radiotherapy (RT), addressing increased lateral dose spillage caused by universal range shifter (URS) and range compensator (RC) usage.
methodsPBS Single-energy BP (SEBP) FLASH treatment plans with and without brass apertures were optimized using an in-house planning system. Dose and dose rate characteristics were simulated using MCSquare. Penumbra reduction was assessed in a water phantom for 3 and 5 cm square fields under varying pullback (10 cm, 20 cm. 30 cm) and air gap (5 cm, 10 cm, 15 cm) conditions. Aperture effects were evaluated at the entrance, midpoint, and BP positions. The rGBM cancer plan was optimized using SEBP with various dose thresholds (0, 2, and 5 Gy) applied to analyze dose and ultra-high dose rate (V
resultsUse of aperture significantly reduced lateral penumbra across all spatial positions. The degree of penumbra reduction increased significantly with the increased pullback, and the reduction effect at the BP was generally comparable to that at the entrance. The 5 cm field generally showed greater penumbra reduction than the 3 cm field. In the rGBM case, apertures improved gross tumor volume (GTV) dose conformity and reduced organ-at-risk (OAR) exposure but decreased ultra-high dose rate coverage for both GTV and OARs. The ultra-high dose rate coverage of GTV was not affected by the dose threshold, while the ultra-high dose rate coverage of the brain increased with the increasing dose threshold.
conclusionApertures effectively reduce lateral penumbra and dose spalliage to OARs, improving target dose conformity in range shifter-based SEBP FLASH-RT. They also can reduce ultra-high dose-rate exposure to critical OARs in the low-dose region while maintaining the FLASH ratio in the high-dose region.
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.