Paper detail

Modeling the impact of spatial oxygen heterogeneity on radiolytic oxygen depletion during FLASH radiotherapy

It has been postulated that the delivery of radiotherapy at ultra-high dose rates ("FLASH") reduces normal tissue toxicities by depleting them of oxygen. The fraction of normal tissue and cancer cells surviving radiotherapy depends on dose and oxygen levels in an exponential manner and even a very small fraction of tissue at low oxygen levels can determine radiotherapy response. The effect of FLASH on radiation-induced normal and tumour tissue cell killing was studied by simulating oxygen diffusion, metabolism, and radiolytic oxygen depletion over domains with simulated capillary architectures. Two architectural models were used: 1.) randomly distributed capillaries and 2.) capillaries forming a regular square lattice array. The resulting oxygen partial pressure distribution histograms were used to simulate normal and tumour tissue cell survival using the linear quadratic model of cell survival, modified to incorporate oxygen-enhancement ratio (OER) effects. Tumour cell survival was found to be increased by FLASH as compared to conventional radiotherapy, with a 0-1 order of magnitude increase for expected levels of tumour hypoxia, depending on the relative magnitudes of radiolytic oxygen depletion and tissue oxygen metabolism. Interestingly, for the random capillary model, the impact of FLASH on well-oxygenated (normal) tissues was found to be much greater, with an estimated increase in cell survival by up to 10 orders of magnitude, even though reductions in mean tissue partial pressure were modest, less than 7 mmHg for the parameter values studied. The presence of very small nearly hypoxic regions in otherwise well-perfused normal tissues with high mean oxygen levels resulted in a greater proportional sparing of normal tissue than tumour cells during FLASH irradiation, possibly explaining empirical normal tissue sparing and iso-tumour control results.

preprint2022arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.