Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Medical Physicsarrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao
Medical Physics
Article . 2025 . Peer-reviewed
License: Wiley Online Library User Agreement
Data sources: Crossref
Medical Physics
Article . 2025
versions View all 2 versions
addClaim

Treatment parameters consideration for universal range shifter‐based multi‐energy proton FLASH‐RT

Authors: Yiling, Zeng; Hong, Quan; Qi, Zhang; Wei, Wang; Xu, Liu; Bin, Qin; Bo, Pang; +5 Authors

Treatment parameters consideration for universal range shifter‐based multi‐energy proton FLASH‐RT

Abstract

Abstract Background Compared to conventional dose rate irradiation, ultra‐high dose rate irradiation provides superior normal tissue sparing. Multi‐energy proton beams combined with a universal range shifter (URS) and fast energy‐switching gantry enable ultra‐high dose rate delivery. Purpose This study investigates the effects of the URS, planning parameters, and patient selection on multi‐energy Bragg peak (MEBP) proton FLASH radiotherapy (FLASH‐RT) plans. Methods Single‐field plans were generated for water phantoms and a brain case, comparing beam setups with and without the URS. Planning parameters, including spot spacing, layer spacing, and beam orientation, were varied. The effects of fractional dose and target size were also assessed. Dose and FLASH‐related metrics were analyzed. Results The use of a URS increased the spot size, which reduced the number of required spots and energy layers but also resulted in a broader penumbra, a prolonged distal falloff, and a higher D mean in normal tissue. These effects became more pronounced with greater URS thickness. A spot spacing of 1.5 times the spot size (σ) and a layer spacing of 1.0 times the Bragg peak width (Proximal and Distal R80) improved V 40Gy/s , while effectively maintaining plan quality. Beam orientations with smaller field sizes increased V 40Gy/s . As the fractional dose increased, V 40Gy/s also increased, reaching saturation around 25 GyRBE. Additionally, V 40Gy/s improved with smaller target volumes. Conclusions The URS has a significant impact on plan quality, requiring a balance between normal tissue sparing and the FLASH effect in MEBP planning. Although MEBP plan is suitable for treating tumors with complex shapes, careful selection of planning parameters is critical for achieving effective FLASH treatment.

Related Organizations
Keywords

Organs at Risk, Phantoms, Imaging, Brain Neoplasms, Radiotherapy Planning, Computer-Assisted, Proton Therapy, Humans, Radiotherapy Dosage

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
0
Average
Average
Average
Related to Research communities
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!