Cargando…

Dosimetric and biologic intercomparison between electron and proton FLASH beams

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: 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 vs. pFLASH has yet been performed and co...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Almeida, A, Togno, M, Ballesteros-Zebadua, P, Franco-Perez, J, Geyer, R, Schaefer, R, Petit, B, Grilj, V, Meer, D, Safai, S, Lomax, T, Weber, DC, Bailat, C, Psoroulas, S, Vozenin, MC
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10153243/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37131769
http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/2023.04.20.537497
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: 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 vs. pFLASH has yet been performed and constitutes the aim of the present study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 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: 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 vs. e and pCONV. Tumor rejection was similar indicating that T-cell memory response is beam-type and dose-rate independent. CONCLUSION: 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.