Which 'dose rate' definition describes the FLASH sparing effect for scanned proton beams? A meta-analysis of skin murine data
Abstract
We compiled preclinical proton PBS skin toxicity data to assess how various dose rate definitions (field, average, and dose average) explain the FLASH sparing effect. Only average dose rate (ADR), accounting for 'effective irradiation time,' reliably describes it. We identified high-dose and ADR regions where the effect was consistently observed.
How strong is the evidence?
Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in animal, not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.
Read the paper
Related studies
- Preliminary Toxicity Analysis of 3DCRT versus IMRT on the High Dose Arm of the RTOG 0126 Prostate Cancer Trial
- Adaptive Radiotherapy for Head and Neck Cancer: Initial Clinical Outcomes from a Prospective Trial
- American Association of Physicists in Medicine Task Group 263: Standardizing Nomenclatures in Radiation Oncology
- Motion Management Strategies and Technical Issues Associated with Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy of Thoracic and Upper Abdominal Tumors: A Review from NRG Oncology
- High-dose-rate interstitial brachytherapy as a monotherapy for localized prostate cancer: treatment description and preliminary results of a phase I/II clinical trial
- Highly efficient training, refinement, and validation of a knowledge-based plan quality control system for radiotherapy clinical trials
Go deeper in Evidence Hub
Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.