Investigates radical dynamics in FLASH versus conventional proton therapy delivery, suggesting implications for tissue toxicity.
Purpose: FLASH proton radiotherapy delivered at ultra-high dose rates (UHDR; ≥40 Gy/s) has been reported to reduce normal-tissue toxicity without compromising tumor control; however, the underlying radiochemical mechanisms remain unclear. This study aims to investigate how beam temporal structure modulates radical dynamics during proton irradiation and compares FLASH with conventional delivery. Methods: Monte Carlo radiochemical simulations were performed using TOPAS-nBio with the Independent Reaction Time (IRT) approach, in which reaction times between radical pairs are stochastically sampled based on diffusion-controlled kinetics. A monoenergetic 100 MeV proton beam with an isotropic distribution was modeled in liquid water with a fixed total dose of 10 Gy. Two delivery regimes were compared: conventional (1000 pulses; 1 Gy/s) and FLASH (10 pulses; 100 Gy/s), with a pulse width of 10 µs and pulse interval of 0.01 s. Sensitivity analyses were conducted by varying pulse interval (1 s to 1 µs) and pulse width (10 ps to 10 ms) while maintaining constant total dose. Results: Time-dependent G-values (molecules/100 eV) for hydrated electrons (e⁻aq), hydroxyl radicals (•OH), and hydrogen peroxide (H₂O₂) were evaluated. Under FLASH, the maximum G-values of •OH and e⁻aq decreased to 1.47 and 1.34, compared with 2.00 and 1.99 under conventional irradiation (reductions of 26.5% and 32.5%), while H₂O₂ yield increased. Extremely short pulse intervals (~1 µs) promoted inter-pulse radical accumulation, whereas ultrashort pulse widths accelerated early-phase radical kinetics. Conclusion: These findings indicate that beam temporal structure significantly modulates radiochemical evolution and suppresses reactive radical yield under FLASH relative to conventional delivery.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Riskiana et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: