Elke Beyreuther1, Michael Brand2, Stefan Hans2, Katalin Hideghéty3, Leonhard Karsch4, Elisabeth Leßmann5, Michael Schürer6, Emília Rita Szabó3, Jörg Pawelke4. 1. Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf, Institute of Radiation Physics, Germany; OncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf, Germany. Electronic address: E.Beyreuther@hzdr.de. 2. Center for Molecular and Cellular Bioengeneering (CMCB), DFG-Center for Regenerative Therapies Dresden (CRTD), Technische Universität Dresden, Germany. 3. Attosecond Light Pulse Source, ELI-HU Nonprofit Ltd., Szeged, Hungary. 4. OncoRay - National Center for Radiation Research in Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Technische Universität Dresden, Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf, Germany; Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf, Institute of Radiooncology - OncoRay, Germany. 5. Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden - Rossendorf, Institute of Radiation Physics, Germany. 6. National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Motivated by first animal trials showing the normal tissue protecting effect of electron and photon Flash irradiation, i.e. at mean dose rates of 100 Gy/s and higher, relative to conventional beam delivery over minutes the feasibility of proton Flash should be assessed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A setup and beam parameter settings for the treatment of zebrafish embryo with proton Flash and proton beams of conventional dose rate were established at the University Proton Therapy Dresden. Zebrafish embryos were treated with graded doses and the differential effect on embryonic survival and the induction of morphological malformations was followed for up to four days after irradiation. RESULTS: Beam parameters for the realization of proton Flash were set and tested with respect to controlled dose delivery to biological samples. Analyzing the dose dependent embryonic survival and the rate of spinal curvature as one type of developmental abnormality, no significant influence of proton dose rate was revealed. For the rate of pericardial edema as acute radiation effect, a significant difference (p < 0.05) between proton Flash and protons delivered at conventional dose rate of 5 Gy/min was observed for one dose point only. CONCLUSION: The feasibility of Flash proton irradiation was successfully shown, whereas more experiments are required to confirm the presence or absence of a protecting effect and to figure out the limits and requirements for the Flash effect.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Motivated by first animal trials showing the normal tissue protecting effect of electron and photon Flash irradiation, i.e. at mean dose rates of 100 Gy/s and higher, relative to conventional beam delivery over minutes the feasibility of proton Flash should be assessed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A setup and beam parameter settings for the treatment of zebrafish embryo with proton Flash and proton beams of conventional dose rate were established at the University Proton Therapy Dresden. Zebrafish embryos were treated with graded doses and the differential effect on embryonic survival and the induction of morphological malformations was followed for up to four days after irradiation. RESULTS: Beam parameters for the realization of proton Flash were set and tested with respect to controlled dose delivery to biological samples. Analyzing the dose dependent embryonic survival and the rate of spinal curvature as one type of developmental abnormality, no significant influence of proton dose rate was revealed. For the rate of pericardial edema as acute radiation effect, a significant difference (p < 0.05) between proton Flash and protons delivered at conventional dose rate of 5 Gy/min was observed for one dose point only. CONCLUSION: The feasibility of Flash proton irradiation was successfully shown, whereas more experiments are required to confirm the presence or absence of a protecting effect and to figure out the limits and requirements for the Flash effect.
Authors: Jia-Ling Ruan; Carl Lee; Shari Wouters; Iain D C Tullis; Mieke Verslegers; Mohamed Mysara; Chee Kin Then; Sean C Smart; Mark A Hill; Ruth J Muschel; Amato J Giaccia; Borivoj Vojnovic; Anne E Kiltie; Kristoffer Petersson Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2021-08-14 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Michele M Kim; Arash Darafsheh; Jan Schuemann; Ivana Dokic; Olle Lundh; Tianyu Zhao; José Ramos-Méndez; Lei Dong; Kristoffer Petersson Journal: IEEE Trans Radiat Plasma Med Sci Date: 2021-06-22
Authors: Emil Schüler; Munjal Acharya; Pierre Montay-Gruel; Billy W Loo; Marie-Catherine Vozenin; Peter G Maxim Journal: Med Phys Date: 2022-01-19 Impact factor: 4.506
Authors: Mirna El Khatib; Alexander L Van Slyke; Anastasia Velalopoulou; Michele M Kim; Khayrullo Shoniyozov; Srinivasa Rao Allu; Eric E Diffenderfer; Theresa M Busch; Rodney D Wiersma; Cameron J Koch; Sergei A Vinogradov Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2022-03-18 Impact factor: 8.013
Authors: Keith A Cengel; Amit Maity; Theresa M Busch; Anastasia Velalopoulou; Ilias V Karagounis; Gwendolyn M Cramer; Michele M Kim; Giorgos Skoufos; Denisa Goia; Sarah Hagan; Ioannis I Verginadis; Khayrullo Shoniyozov; June Chiango; Michelle Cerullo; Kelley Varner; Lutian Yao; Ling Qin; Artemis G Hatzigeorgiou; Andy J Minn; Mary Putt; Matthew Lanza; Charles-Antoine Assenmacher; Enrico Radaelli; Jennifer Huck; Eric Diffenderfer; Lei Dong; James Metz; Constantinos Koumenis Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2021-07-28 Impact factor: 13.312