A FLASH model of radiolytic oxygen depletion and reactive oxygen species for differential tumor and normal-tissue response
Ma, J.; Gao, H.; Shen, X.; Bai, X.; Tang, M.
Show abstract
ObjectiveFLASH-RT can potentially improve the sparing of normal tissues while preserving the tumoricidal efficiency, owing to the radiation with ultra-high dose rate. However, the FLASH mechanism remains to be solved. A popular FLASH model is based on radiolytic oxygen depletion (ROD), which explains for radiation protection of normal tissues under FLASH-RT. However, ROD does not explain the preservation of tumoricidal efficiency for tumors. This work will develop a ROS+ROD FLASH model that can explain the differential tumor and normal-tissue response. ApproachThe new FLASH model utilizes reactive oxygen species (ROS) in addition to ROD, and takes into account that ROS level decreases during FLASH-RT. Specifically, the differential-equation model takes into account that the basic ROS level is lower during FLASH-RT and the degeneration rates of ROS are different in tumor cells and healthy cells. Based on this ROS+ROD FLASH model, the surviving fractions of tumor and normal cells are respectively compared between conventional radiotherapy (CONV-RT) and FLASH-RT. Main resultsWhile ROD alone does not distinguish the response of tumors and normal tissues to FLASH-RT, the proposed new FLASH model based on ROD and ROS successfully explained the differential response of tumors and normal tissues to FLASH-RT, i.e., the preserved tumoricidal capability, which cannot be explained by ROD alone, and the extra normal-tissue protection owing to the ultra-high dose rate. SignificanceSince the ROS level decreases slower in tumors than in normal tissues, during FLASH-RT, ROS decreases more in normal tissue, thus can get more protection. By incorporating ROS in addition to ROD, the new FLASH model can not only recover all results by previous FLASH model with ROD alone, but also explain the differential response: preserved lethality of FLASH-RT to tumors and improved protection to normal tissues.
Matching journals
The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- First demonstration of the FLASH effect with ultrahigh dose-rate high-energy X-rays 95%
- Evaluation of indirect damage and damage saturation effects in dose-response curves of hypofractionated radiotherapy of early-stage NSCLC and brain metastases 93%
- Deep learning NTCP model for late dysphagia after radiotherapy for head and neck cancer patients based on 3D dose, CT and segmentations 93%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Sensitivity of radio-photoluminescence glass dosimeters to accumulated doses 95%
- A method for continuously monitoring the quality of Masson pine seedlings 94%
- Predictive factors for the development of peritumoral brain edema after LINAC-based radiation treatment in patients with intracranial meningioma 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Cluster-Based Toxicity Estimation of Osteoradionecrosis via Unsupervised Machine Learning: Moving Beyond Single Dose-Parameter Normal Tissue Complication Probability by Using Whole Dose-Volume Histograms for Cohort Risk Stratification 95%
- Bayesian Learning to Reduce Cardiac Risk for Locally Advanced NSCLC Patients Based on Personalized Radiotherapy Prescription 93%
- Comprehensive Quantitative Evaluation of Inter-observer Delineation Performance of MR-guided Delineation of Oropharyngeal Gross Tumor Volumes and High-risk Clinical Target Therapy: An R-IDEAL Stage 0 Prospective Study 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Standardising Breast Radiotherapy Structure Naming Conventions: A Machine Learning Approach 94%
- Quality of life and patient-reported outcomes following proton therapy for oropharyngeal carcinoma: a systematic review 91%
- Effectiveness of FLASH vs conventional dose rate radiotherapy in a model of orthotopic, murine breast cancer 91%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.