Proton FLASH preserves neurocognition across delivery techniques: implications for clinical translation in pediatric brain tumors.
AI interpretation is pending for this paper.
Open original publication →What the AI sees
Not AI summarized yet.
Research significance
Pending deeper interpretation.
Source abstract
BACKGROUND: Radiation therapy is integral to the curative treatment of childhood brain tumors but contributes to late neurocognitive impairment in survivors. FLASH (ultra-high dose rate, >40Gy/s) reduces normal-tissue toxicity in preclinical models, and proton-FLASH is currently the only modality capable of delivering ultra-high dose rates to the deep targets, such as pediatric brain tumors. However, two questions remain unresolved before clinical translation: (1) whether the FLASH effect can be achieved on synchrotron-based proton systems, which deliver protons in discrete spills that may be insufficient to cover a clinical target within a single delivery, and (2) which dose-rate metric, among the multiple definitions currently used in the field, best predicts the biological FLASH effect. METHODS: C57BL/6 mice (7-8 weeks) received 10 Gy whole-brain RT via a clinical Hitachi ProBEAT synchrotron with CBCT-guided delivery, using three transmission-beam techniques: single-spill pencil beam scanning (SS PBS), multi-spill PBS with ∼2-second inter-spot delay (MS PBS), and passive scatter (PS), compared to conventional (CONV) delivery and unirradiated controls (n=24-28/group, equal sex distribution). Dose rate was quantified using three frameworks: field dose rate (FDR), PBS dose rate (PBSDR), and dose-averaged dose rate (DADR). Recognition memory was assessed by novel object recognition (NOR) at 6 weeks post-RT, and cognitive flexibility was assessed via touchscreen visual discrimination and reversal learning at 14 weeks. Hippocampal neuroinflammation was evaluated by immunofluorescence and immunohistochemistry for Iba1, NeuN, and GFAP. RESULTS: FLASH conditions were met by SS PBS and PS under all three dose-rate definitions, but MS PBS qualified as FLASH only by DADR. Despite this, neuroprotection was preserved across all three FLASH techniques: discrimination index was significantly higher for SS PBS (P=0.021), MS PBS (P=0.008), and PS (P<0.001) versus CONV, with no significant difference between FLASH techniques. On touchscreen testing, FLASH-treated females demonstrated preserved cognitive flexibility (P=0.047 vs. CONV on reversal learning correct trials). Iba1 + microglia were reduced in FLASH compared to CONV mice, with morphology suggestive of preserved homeostatic state. CONCLUSIONS: Synchrotron-based proton FLASH preserves neurocognitive function across all delivery techniques, including under multi-spill delivery essential for treating clinical-scale pediatric brain tumors. Critically, this neuroprotection was observed even for deliveries that qualified as FLASH only by DADR, identifying DADR as the dose-rate metric most relevant to the biological FLASH effect with direct implications for clinical trial design and dose-rate reporting standards.