Dosimetric and biologic intercomparison between electron and proton FLASH beams.

Journal

bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology
Titre abrégé: bioRxiv
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101680187

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
21 Apr 2023
Historique:
pubmed: 3 5 2023
medline: 3 5 2023
entrez: 3 5 2023
Statut: epublish

Résumé

The FLASH effect has been validated in different preclinical experiments with electrons (eFLASH) and protons (pFLASH) operating at a mean dose rate above 40 Gy/s. However, no systematic intercomparison of the FLASH effect produced by e The electron eRT6/Oriatron/CHUV/5.5 MeV and proton Gantry1/PSI/170 MeV were used to deliver conventional (0.1 Gy/s eCONV and pCONV) and FLASH (≥100 Gy/s eFLASH and pFLASH) irradiation. Protons were delivered in transmission. Dosimetric and biologic intercomparisons were performed with previously validated models. Doses measured at Gantry1 were in agreement (± 2.5%) with reference dosimeters calibrated at CHUV/IRA. The neurocognitive capacity of e and pFLASH irradiated mice was indistinguishable from the control while both e and pCONV irradiated cohorts showed cognitive decrements. Complete tumor response was obtained with the two beams and was similar between e and pFLASH Despite major differences in the temporal microstructure, this study shows that dosimetric standards can be established. The sparing of brain function and tumor control produced by the two beams were similar, suggesting that the most important physical parameter driving the FLASH effect is the overall time of exposure which should be in the range of hundreds of milliseconds for WBI in mice. In addition, we observed that immunological memory response is similar between electron and proton beams and is independent off the dose rate.

Sections du résumé

Background and purpose UNASSIGNED
The FLASH effect has been validated in different preclinical experiments with electrons (eFLASH) and protons (pFLASH) operating at a mean dose rate above 40 Gy/s. However, no systematic intercomparison of the FLASH effect produced by e
Materials and methods UNASSIGNED
The electron eRT6/Oriatron/CHUV/5.5 MeV and proton Gantry1/PSI/170 MeV were used to deliver conventional (0.1 Gy/s eCONV and pCONV) and FLASH (≥100 Gy/s eFLASH and pFLASH) irradiation. Protons were delivered in transmission. Dosimetric and biologic intercomparisons were performed with previously validated models.
Results UNASSIGNED
Doses measured at Gantry1 were in agreement (± 2.5%) with reference dosimeters calibrated at CHUV/IRA. The neurocognitive capacity of e and pFLASH irradiated mice was indistinguishable from the control while both e and pCONV irradiated cohorts showed cognitive decrements. Complete tumor response was obtained with the two beams and was similar between e and pFLASH
Conclusion UNASSIGNED
Despite major differences in the temporal microstructure, this study shows that dosimetric standards can be established. The sparing of brain function and tumor control produced by the two beams were similar, suggesting that the most important physical parameter driving the FLASH effect is the overall time of exposure which should be in the range of hundreds of milliseconds for WBI in mice. In addition, we observed that immunological memory response is similar between electron and proton beams and is independent off the dose rate.

Identifiants

DOI: 10.1101/2023.04.20.537497 PMID: 37131769 PMC: PMC10153243
pubmed: 37131769
doi: 10.1101/2023.04.20.537497
pmc: PMC10153243
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Preprint

Langues

eng

Subventions

Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P01 CA244091
Pays : United States

Commentaires et corrections

Type : UpdateIn

Auteurs

A Almeida (A)

Laboratory of Radiation Oncology/Radiation Oncology Service/Department of Oncology/CHUV, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.

M Togno (M)

Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, 5323 Villigen PSI, Switzerland.

P Ballesteros-Zebadua (P)

Laboratory of Radiation Oncology/Radiation Oncology Service/Department of Oncology/CHUV, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Instituto Nacional de Neurología y Neurocirugía MVS, Mexico City, Mexico.

J Franco-Perez (J)

Laboratory of Radiation Oncology/Radiation Oncology Service/Department of Oncology/CHUV, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Instituto Nacional de Neurología y Neurocirugía MVS, Mexico City, Mexico.

R Geyer (R)

Department of Radiation Oncology, lnselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Switzerland.

R Schaefer (R)

Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, 5323 Villigen PSI, Switzerland.

B Petit (B)

Laboratory of Radiation Oncology/Radiation Oncology Service/Department of Oncology/CHUV, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.

V Grilj (V)

Institute of Radiation Physics (IRA)/CHUV, Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland.

D Meer (D)

Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, 5323 Villigen PSI, Switzerland.

S Safai (S)

Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, 5323 Villigen PSI, Switzerland.

T Lomax (T)

Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, 5323 Villigen PSI, Switzerland.

D C Weber (DC)

Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, 5323 Villigen PSI, Switzerland.
Department of Radiation Oncology, lnselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Switzerland.
Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital of Zurich, Switzerland.

C Bailat (C)

Institute of Radiation Physics (IRA)/CHUV, Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland.

S Psoroulas (S)

Center for Proton Therapy, Paul Scherrer Institute, 5323 Villigen PSI, Switzerland.

M C Vozenin (MC)

Laboratory of Radiation Oncology/Radiation Oncology Service/Department of Oncology/CHUV, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.

Classifications MeSH