Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 112 references

In vivo oxygen measurements argue against oxygen depletion as the mechanism of FLASH radiotherapy's normal-tissue sparing.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 16:27 UTC pith:CY5F4T5M

load-bearing objection A coherent, self-aware review that makes a plausible case against bulk oxygen depletion as the FLASH mechanism, but the abstract overstates the oxygen-window conclusion and the negative argument rests on bulk-probe, mostly skin gO2 values. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.17974 v1 pith:CY5F4T5M submitted 2026-07-20 physics.med-ph physics.bio-phphysics.optics

Review of oxygen measurement and relevance to the mechanisms of FLASH radiotherapy

Brian W. Pogue , David I. Hunter , Corbin Narita , William S. Thomas , Xu Cao , Harold M. Swartz This is my paper
classification physics.med-ph physics.bio-phphysics.optics PACS 87.53.-j
keywords FLASH radiotherapyradiolytic oxygen consumptionoxygen depletion hypothesistissue pO2 measurementOxyphor phosphorescenceoxygen enhancement ratioreactive oxygen speciesultra-high dose rate
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This review argues that FLASH radiotherapy's normal-tissue sparing is not caused by radiolytic oxygen depletion. Direct in vivo measurements with fast oxygen reporters yield consumption values of roughly 0.1–0.5 mmHg per Gray, so a 20 Gy treatment would remove only 2–4 mmHg of tissue oxygen—nowhere near the levels needed to create transient hypoxia. The review instead points to a different picture: the FLASH effect is observed only within an intermediate window of baseline tissue oxygen, and ultra-high dose rates shift radiation chemistry toward more solvated electrons and less hydroxyl-radical damage. If correct, the field should stop treating global oxygen depletion as the mechanism and focus on dose-rate-dependent ROS chemistry, local scavenging, and baseline pO2 as the controlling variables.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that measured in vivo radiolytic oxygen consumption during ultra-high dose rate irradiation is too small to induce radiobiological hypoxia. Using phosphorescence-lifetime oxygen probes (Oxyphor) in mice, the measured gO2 values of 0.1–0.5 mmHg per Gray imply that a typical 20 Gy FLASH dose depletes tissue oxygen by only 2–4 mmHg, far below the threshold for hypoxic radioprotection. The review also synthesizes oxygen-modulation experiments showing that FLASH sparing appears only at intermediate baseline pO2—disappearing under both clamping-induced hypoxia and hyperoxia—and pairs this with in vitro radiation chemistry showing UHDR shifts radical yields toward solva

What carries the argument

The gO2 value—radiolytic oxygen consumption per unit dose, measured in mmHg per Gray—is the central quantitative object that carries the argument; its small magnitude and its saturation at baseline pO2 above roughly 15–25 mmHg undermine the oxygen-depletion hypothesis. A second load-bearing idea is the pO2 window: FLASH sparing occurs only when baseline tissue oxygen lies in an intermediate range, vanishing under both hypoxia and hyperoxia. The measurement system that makes the central claim possible is oxygen-quenched phosphorescence with molecular reporters, which provides millisecond-resolution, radiation-insensitive, localized pO2 readings before, during, and after UHDR pulses.

Load-bearing premise

The measured gO2 values from Oxyphor probes in skin accurately represent the oxygen consumed in the irradiated tissue volume; if calibration, probe placement, tissue temperature, or non-concurrent measurement bias those numbers, the claim that depletion cannot cause hypoxia loses its foundation.

What would settle it

An experiment that measures tissue pO2 during a 20 Gy UHDR pulse with an independent fast technique (for instance EPR oximetry or a microelectrode) and finds a transient drop of more than 10 mmHg would contradict the paper's scaling argument. Equally, showing FLASH sparing in clamped hypoxic tissue or in hyperoxic tissue would contradict the pO2-window claim.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If oxygen depletion is not the mechanism, FLASH studies should pivot to measuring reactive oxygen species, scavenging, and downstream damage pathways rather than searching for transient hypoxia.
  • Baseline tissue pO2 becomes a critical, often unmeasured variable: anesthesia, inspired oxygen fraction, and biological sex can move tissue into or out of the FLASH window and should be controlled and reported.
  • Dose-rate characterization must include pulse structure and total irradiation time, not just mean dose rate, because radiation chemistry completes on nanosecond timescales while mean dose rate is pulse-frequency dominated.
  • Direct intra-irradiation oxygen measurement is feasible and provides one of the only real-time windows into radiation chemistry in vivo, which could be extended into clinical settings.
  • Tumor and normal-tissue responses may diverge under UHDR: tumor control appears hypoxia-independent, suggesting separate mechanisms for tumor killing and normal tissue sparing.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If gO2 is tissue-type independent but baseline dependent, the tumor-versus-normal difference in FLASH response likely comes from the local radical-scavenging pool rather than from oxygen consumption—an inference the paper poses as an open question; a testable prediction is that thiol-rich tissues show smaller effective damage but not smaller ΔpO2.
  • The unresolved mismatch between tiny measured depletion and the 5–10 second oxygen-diffusion timescale of the FLASH effect suggests a microdomain effect—intracellular oxygen near DNA or mitochondria could behave differently from bulk extracellular probe readings; this would be testable with intracellular reporters like protoporphyrin IX.
  • A clinical translation inference: baseline pO2 imaging could become a patient-selection biomarker for FLASH, predicting which tumors or normal tissues will show a meaningful therapeutic window; this is not stated in the paper but follows from the pO2-window claim.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This review surveys in vivo oxygen measurement techniques and their application to FLASH radiotherapy, with emphasis on phosphorescence-based Oxyphor and PpIX probes. It compiles measurements of radiolytic oxygen consumption (gO2) and oxygen-modulation studies, and argues that measured gO2 values of 0.1–0.5 mmHg/Gy imply a 20 Gy dose depletes only 2–4 mmHg, insufficient to produce transient radiobiological hypoxia. The authors propose instead that FLASH sparing depends on an intermediate baseline pO2 window and on dose-rate-dependent ROS chemistry, modulated by tissue scavenging.

Significance. If the central negative claim holds, the oxygen-depletion hypothesis would be excluded as a general mechanism, redirecting the field toward baseline pO2 windows and ROS/scavenger chemistry. The review usefully brings together independent corroborating data (Grilj, Van Slyke, El Khatib, Koch, Montay-Gruel) alongside the authors' own Oxyphor studies, and it explicitly flags many of its own limitations—non-concurrent pO2 measurements, skin-centric data, and the unresolved split-dose timescale discrepancy. The paper is therefore a valuable synthesis, but its load-bearing scaling argument rests on gO2 values that are predominantly extracellular, cutaneous, and volume-averaged, which the authors themselves acknowledge may not capture micro-local heterogeneity.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.4, Fig. 7] The central exclusion of oxygen depletion is a direct scaling ΔpO2 = gO2 × D, with gO2 = 0.1–0.5 mmHg/Gy. This assumes that Oxyphor-derived gO2 values represent radiolytic consumption at the radiobiological target. The paper itself states in Section 3.3 that 'it is not clear whether the lack of tissue dependence was due to the measurement process or is an inherent feature,' and Open Question 1 in Section 3.4 asks whether micro-local heterogeneity could matter. Given intercapillary distances of 100–300 μm (Section 2.2), an extracellular probe averaging over such a scale can miss perivascular gradients and localized depletion. The authors should either provide micro-local measurements or model the effect of heterogeneous oxygen distribution to support the 'no transient hypoxia' conclusion.
  2. [Table 3, Section 4.1] The abstract claims the FLASH effect occurs only at intermediate baseline pO2, yet most studies in Table 3 did not measure pO2 during irradiation, and Section 4.1 explicitly notes the 'absence of real-time tissue pO2 measurements during irradiation.' Hansen et al. used a separate room-air cohort and 25°C water irradiation (Section 4.2). The evidence for a sharp pO2 window is therefore correlative and non-concurrent, and the claim in the abstract is stronger than the data support.
  3. [Conclusions, final paragraph] The paper acknowledges an unresolved discrepancy: split-dose FLASH sparing is preserved on 5–10 s timescales that match oxygen diffusion, which is hard to reconcile with a 2–4 mmHg depletion being biologically irrelevant. Since this timescale is one of the strongest pieces of evidence for a diffusion-resupply mechanism, the authors need to either propose a quantitative explanation that reconciles the small gO2 with the time-window, or explicitly restrict their conclusion to cases where depletion is the sole mechanism.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 2 caption] The caption contains corrupted text '9988/*///8988' that should be removed.
  2. [References] Reference numbering is inconsistent: reference 69 is missing from the list, and ref 117 is cited in Section 1 before many earlier-numbered references.
  3. [Section 2.3, Key Point 4] ΔpO2 is used without definition at first occurrence; define it in Section 2.3 or earlier in Section 3.2 where it is formally introduced.
  4. [Table 2] The Koch et al. values include a footnote about the >30 mmHg plateau region; clarify in the header or footnote whether these are plateau values rather than routine gO2 values.
  5. [Abstract and Conclusions] The abstract uses 'demonstrating that the FLASH effect occurs only at intermediate baseline pO2'; given the limitations acknowledged in the text, 'suggesting' or 'indicating' would be more proportionate.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Review is a synthesis with acknowledged data gaps; central anti-depletion claim is scaled from external and multi-group gO2 measurements, not a circular derivation.

full rationale

This is a narrative review, not a derivation, so most circularity patterns (fitted-input-called-prediction, ansatz via citation, uniqueness imported from authors) do not apply. The paper's central quantitative claim is that measured gO2 values of 0.1–0.5 mmHg/Gy imply only 2–4 mmHg depletion at 20 Gy, which it concludes is insufficient to cause transient hypoxia (Section 3.4, Fig. 7). This is a linear scaling of empirically measured g-values, and the g-values come from multiple independent groups (Grilj, Van Slyke, El Khatib, Koch, Montay-Gruel, Jansen, plus the authors' own Oxyphor studies), not from a parameter fitted within this paper. The paper does rely heavily on the authors' own Oxyphor-based studies for the gO2 vs pO2 curves (Fig. 6, refs. 5, 72, 74–77, 81), and Table 3's pO2-window conclusion leans on Hunter et al. (2026, bioRxiv, self-citation) plus Tavakkoli and Sunnerberg, but corroboration by independent measurements (Grilj et al., El Khatib et al., Van Slyke et al.) means the central claim is externally supported rather than self-referential. The paper repeatedly flags its own limitations: Section 3.3 states 'It is not clear whether the lack of tissue dependence was due to the measurement process or is an inherent feature'; Section 4.1 notes the 'absence of real-time tissue pO2 measurements during irradiation' in modulation studies; Section 4.2 acknowledges Hansen et al. measured oxygen in a separate cohort not matching the irradiation setup; the Conclusions explicitly state the 5–10 s split-dose sparing timescale 'remains unresolved' against the small depletion estimate. These self-identified gaps weaken evidential strength but are not circularity: no claim is equivalent to its inputs by construction, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing argument reduces to an unverified self-citation. The only mild self-citation issue is the central pO2-window figure (Fig. 2b, ref. 116) and the gO2 synthesis being dominated by the authors' group; this is a normal self-citation pattern in a field where they perform the relevant measurements, and it is not the sole support. Score 1 reflects that self-citation is present but not load-bearing in a circular sense.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The review introduces no new fitted parameters; the quantitative claims rest on empirical gO2 values, saturation thresholds, and diffusion timescales inherited from cited primary studies. The main axioms are measurement and extrapolation assumptions: Oxyphor pO2 reports, isolation of oxygen as the modulated variable, transfer of in vitro radiation chemistry to in vivo, and generalization from skin to other tissues. No invented entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Reported gO2 values (radiolytic oxygen consumption per dose) = 0.1–0.5 mmHg/Gy; up to ~0.85 mmHg/Gy in some media
    Reported values from cited primary studies are used to compute that 20 Gy depletes only ~2–4 mmHg; these are empirical inputs, not fitted by this review.
  • gO2 saturation threshold pO2 = ≈15–25 mmHg
    Empirical transition to plateau used to argue oxygen depletion cannot increase indefinitely; varies across studies and is not derived in this paper.
  • Oxygen diffusion/resupply timescale = 5–10 s
    Used in Section 3.2 to justify that ΔpO2 at UHDR measures ROC rather than resupply-convolved values.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Oxyphor phosphorescence lifetime reports local tissue pO2 accurately during UHDR irradiation.
    Section 3.1/Table 1: ΔpO2 and gO2 values are derived from Oxyphor measurements; if probes perturb tissue or lag, the quantitative depletion argument weakens.
  • domain assumption Inhaled-gas and clamping interventions change tissue pO2 without independently altering radiosensitivity.
    Section 4.1/4.2: conclusions about a pO2 window assume these interventions isolate oxygen; paper notes anesthesia and temperature also change pO2.
  • domain assumption In vitro radiation-chemistry measurements (hydrated electron yields, gO2 in BSA solutions) extrapolate to in vivo mechanisms.
    Section 5: the proposed shift from HO• to eaq⁻ damage is supported by in vitro assays and simulations, not direct in vivo ROS measurements.
  • domain assumption Skin oxygen responses are representative of other normal tissues.
    Conclusions admit data are 'largely skin data'; generalization to brain/GI/tumor is asserted but not established.
  • domain assumption A Michaelis-Menten-like saturation of gO2 with pO2 is the correct functional form for ROC.
    Section 3.5 invokes this form via a kinetic model [84]; the exact functional form and parameters are not derived in the review.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 27517 in / 11315 out tokens · 100275 ms · 2026-08-01T16:27:57.875667+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

FLASH radiotherapy (FLASH-RT) is the phenomenon of relative sparing of normal tissue when ultra-high dose rates (UHDR) are used compared with conventional dose rates (CDR) as clinically used. Despite extensive investigation, the underlying mechanisms remain unexplained. Among the proposed hypotheses, tissue oxygen has consistently been a central theme because oxygen is the most dominant factor known to modulate radiation-induced damage. The factors implicated in FLASH sparing include the baseline partial pressure of oxygen (pO2), transient radiolytic oxygen consumption (ROC), and oxygen-dependent changes in the chemistry of reactive oxygen species (ROS) that vary with dose rate. This review synthesizes current evidence on in vivo oxygen measurement techniques, highlighting their capabilities and limitations in capturing the spatial and temporal heterogeneity of tissue oxygenation. Key experimental studies in skin are summarized and interpreted by modulating oxygen levels via changes in inspired oxygen gas and vascular clamping interventions, demonstrating that the FLASH effect occurs only at intermediate baseline pO2 (normoxic or slightly hypoxic) values, but not at hypoxia or hyperoxia. Direct measurement of oxygen consumption during UHDR irradiation is possible, providing one of the first in situ measurements of radiation chemistry in patients. In parallel, recent advances in fast in vitro radiation chemistry assays indicate that UHDR irradiation alters radical yields, favoring increased production of solvated electrons and reduced hydroxyl radical mediated damage. Taken together, the available data suggest that the FLASH sparing effect arises from an interplay among the delivered dose and dose rate, local oxygen availability, and radiation chemistry, with tissue-specific variation in scavenging, leading to altered biological responses across the CDR-to-UHDR shift.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.17974 by Brian W. Pogue, Corbin Narita, David I. Hunter, Harold M. Swartz, William S. Thomas, Xu Cao.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: A conceptual framework for how input radiation delivery parameters (left arrows) influence the output of tissue organ response assays (right arrows) is illustrated. This framework is designed to consider the temporal cascade of radiation-chemistry factors that transition from hydrolysis-derived primary radicals through ROS formation and peroxyl radicals to radical scavenging, ultimately culminating in DNA … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Illustration (a) of the oxygen partial pressure (pO2) and blood oxygen saturation (SO2) measurement techniques possible, arranged on a level of invasiveness; (b) of the 5 primary in vivo oxygen pO2 measurement devices and their benefits in terms of relative (i) SNR, (ii) lower acquisition time, (iii) smallness of volume of tissue sampled, (iv) in vivo location in terms of intracellular, extracellular or la… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) The loss of oxygen comes from several locations in the complex ROS cascade, illustrated in a simplified diagram. (b) Illustration of the acute drop in oxygen, described as ΔpO2, with UHDR electron irradiation followed by oxygen recovery from diffusion in tissue. (c) In vivo measurements of pO2 with Oxyphor, taken over time [76], illustrate the impact of dose rates on fast oxygen measurements: lower dos… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Data illustrating the oxygen consumption rate has an inverse relationship to incident dose rate, plotting oxygen consumption per unit dose (gO2 values) in water for 225 kV photon irradiation [79] and 224 MeV proton irradiation [79], and in 4% albumin aqueous solution for 10 MeV electron irradiation [77]. In an exhaustive in vitro study of radiolytic oxygen consumption variation with chemical environment, K… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: A summary of in vivo oxygen g-value measurements during UHDR irradiation is plotted to show the established dependence upon initial pO2 value. The lines show results from multiple studies [5,72,74–77,81]. These studies cover electron and proton radiation, intracellular and extracellular oxygen measurements. All studies were performed in mice, with most measuring in murine skin. There is high similarity in … view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of (A) oxygen consumption predicted by the FLASH oxygen depletion hypothesis and (B) measured FLASH oxygen consumption. Measured oxygen consumption is significantly lower at g-values around 0.25 mmHg/Gy than at the g-value predicted by the oxygen depletion hypothesis (~1 mmHg/Gy). 3.5 Saturation of Oxygen Consumption at High Initial Oxygen Levels The observed saturation of gO2 above a certain pO… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Schematic illustration of some of the key influential products from hydrolysis as a function of timescale and chosen based upon their relevance to oxygen and possible subsequent biological toxicity [111]. Key Points 1 Accurate measurement of nearly all highly damaging ROS produced in vivo is not possible, making ΔpO2 measurement one of the few means of assessing transient radiation chemistry in vivo. 2 Oxy… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: A fishbone process diagram shows known or hypothesized factors that influence the FLASH sparing effect, with oxygen-related inputs shown in red and downstream oxygen-related parameters in purple. This flow matches the rough timeline from initial water radiolysis through to the biological observation of reduced damage or sparing. On the topic of oxygen supply and depletion during irradiation, current data … view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

112 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages

  1. [3]

    Oxygen supplementation in anesthesia can block FLASH effect and anti -tumor immunity in conventional proton therapy

    Iturri L, Bertho A, Lamirault C, Brisebard E, Juchaux M, Gilbert C, et al. Oxygen supplementation in anesthesia can block FLASH effect and anti -tumor immunity in conventional proton therapy. Commun Med. 2023 Dec 15;3(1):183. doi:10.1038/s43856 - 023-00411-9

    doi:10.1038/s43856 2023

  2. [4]

    Anesthetic Oxygen Use and Sex Are Critical Factors in the FLASH Sparing Effect

    Tavakkoli AD, Clark MA, Kheirollah A, Sloop AM, Soderholm HE, Daniel NJ, et al. Anesthetic Oxygen Use and Sex Are Critical Factors in the FLASH Sparing Effect. Adv Radiat Oncol. 2024 Jun 1;9(6):101492. doi:10.1016/j.adro.2024.101492

    arXiv 2024

  3. [6]

    Inspired oxygen level and tension modulate the murine skin sparing FLASH effect in electron ultra - high dose rate irradiations [Internet]

    Hunter DI, Sunnerberg JP, Tavakkoli AD, Sloop AM, Allen B, Gui J, et al. Inspired oxygen level and tension modulate the murine skin sparing FLASH effect in electron ultra - high dose rate irradiations [Internet]. bioRxiv; 2025 [cited 2026 Feb 22]. p. 2025.10.06.680759. Available from: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.10.06.680759v3 doi:10.1101...

    work page doi:10.1101/2025.10.06.680759v3 2025

  4. [7]

    The oxygen puzzle in FLASH radiotherapy: A comprehensive review and experimental outlook

    Scarmelotto A, Delprat V, Michiels C, Lucas S, Heuskin AC. The oxygen puzzle in FLASH radiotherapy: A comprehensive review and experimental outlook. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol. 2024 Nov 1;49:100860. doi:10.1016/j.ctro.2024.100860

    arXiv 2024

  5. [8]

    Model studies of the role of oxygen in the FLASH effect

    Favaudon V, Labarbe R, Limoli CL. Model studies of the role of oxygen in the FLASH effect. Med Phys [Internet]. 2021. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34407219 doi:10.1002/mp.15129

    arXiv 2021

  6. [9]

    Reinventing Radiobiology in the Light of FLASH Radiotherapy

    Limoli CL, Vozenin MC. Reinventing Radiobiology in the Light of FLASH Radiotherapy. Annu Rev Cancer Biol. 2023 Apr;7:1–21. doi:10.1146/annurev -cancerbio-061421-022217 PubMed PMID: 39421564; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC11486513

    doi:10.1146/annurev 2023

  7. [10]

    OH radicals from the indirect actions of X-rays induce cell lethality and mediate the majority of the oxygen enhancement effect

    Hirayama R, Ito A, Noguchi M, Matsumoto Y, Uzawa A, Kobashi G, et al. OH radicals from the indirect actions of X-rays induce cell lethality and mediate the majority of the oxygen enhancement effect. Radiat Res. 2013. p. 514–23. doi:10.1667/RR13368.1

    work page doi:10.1667/rr13368.1 2013

  8. [11]

    Oxidative stress, free radicals and protein peroxides

    Gebicki JM. Oxidative stress, free radicals and protein peroxides. Arch Biochem Biophys. 2016 Apr 1;595:33 –9. doi:10.1016/j.abb.2015.10.021 PubMed PMID: 27095212

    work page doi:10.1016/j.abb.2015.10.021 2016

  9. [12]

    Pulse Radiolysis Using Very-high -energy Ions for Optimizing Cancer Therapy

    Getoff N. Pulse Radiolysis Using Very-high -energy Ions for Optimizing Cancer Therapy. Vivo Athens Greece. 2016 Apr;30(2):119–21. PubMed PMID: 26912822

    2016

  10. [13]

    Oxygen as a primary species in radiolysis of water

    Daniels M, Wigg E. Oxygen as a primary species in radiolysis of water. Science. 1966 Sep 23;153(3743):1533–4. doi:10.1126/science.153.3743.1533 PubMed PMID: 5331263

    arXiv 1966

  11. [14]

    Investigating ultra-high dose rate water radiolysis using the Geant4 -DNA toolkit and a Geant4 model of the Oriatron eRT6 electron linac

    Chappuis F, Tran HN, Jorge PG, Zein SA, Kyriakou I, Emfietzoglou D, et al. Investigating ultra-high dose rate water radiolysis using the Geant4 -DNA toolkit and a Geant4 model of the Oriatron eRT6 electron linac. Sci Rep. 2024 Nov 4;14(1):26707. doi:10.1038/s41598-024-76769-0 PubMed PMID: 39496703; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC11535405

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-024-76769-0 2024

  12. [15]

    Historical view of the effects of radiation on cancer cells

    Hazout S, Oehler C, Zwahlen DR, Taussky D. Historical view of the effects of radiation on cancer cells. Oncol Rev. 2025;19:1527742. doi:10.3389/or.2025.1527742 PubMed PMID: 40370490; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC12075557

    arXiv 2025

  13. [16]

    Oxygen Enhancement Ratio in Radiation-Induced Initial DSBs by an Optimized Flow Cytometry-based Gamma-H2AX Analysis in A549 Human Cancer Cells

    Sunada S, Hirakawa H, Fujimori A, Uesaka M, Okayasu R. Oxygen Enhancement Ratio in Radiation-Induced Initial DSBs by an Optimized Flow Cytometry-based Gamma-H2AX Analysis in A549 Human Cancer Cells. Radiat Res. 2017. p. 591–4. doi:10.1667/RR14824.1

    work page doi:10.1667/rr14824.1 2017

  14. [17]

    Radiobiological Aspects of FLASH Radiotherapy

    Hageman E, Che PP, Dahele M, Slotman BJ, Sminia P. Radiobiological Aspects of FLASH Radiotherapy. Biomolecules. 2022 Oct;12(10):1376. doi:10.3390/biom12101376

    work page doi:10.3390/biom12101376 2022

  15. [18]

    DNA strand break induction of aqueous plasmid DNA exposed to 30 MeV protons at ultra-high dose rate

    Ohsawa D, Hiroyama Y, Kobayashi A, Kusumoto T, Kitamura H, Hojo S, et al. DNA strand break induction of aqueous plasmid DNA exposed to 30 MeV protons at ultra-high dose rate. J Radiat Res. 2022. p. 255–60. doi:10.1093/jrr/rrab114

    work page doi:10.1093/jrr/rrab114 2022

  16. [19]

    Biological effects of conventional and ultra high dose rate radiation in human cells

    Ryan TL, Escalona MB, O’Brien K, Tan Y, Kanagaraj K, Taveras M, et al. Biological effects of conventional and ultra high dose rate radiation in human cells. Sci Rep. 2026 Jan 2;16(1):3713. doi:10.1038/s41598-025-33817-7 PubMed PMID: 41484408; PubMed Centra l PMCID: PMC12852176

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-025-33817-7 2026

  17. [20]

    In vitro oxygen concentration alters reactive oxygen species yields with minor plasmid DNA damage change at ultra-high - dose rate

    Thomas WS, Kulkarni S, Ilina A, Reed M, Pogue BW. In vitro oxygen concentration alters reactive oxygen species yields with minor plasmid DNA damage change at ultra-high - dose rate. Br J Radiol. 2026 Jan 1;99(1177):169 –75. doi:10.1093/bjr/tqaf245 PubMed PMID: 41003674

    work page doi:10.1093/bjr/tqaf245 2026

  18. [21]

    Molecular biological mechanisms of radiotherapy-induced skin injury occurrence and treatment

    Cui J, Wang TJ, Zhang YX, She LZ, Zhao YC. Molecular biological mechanisms of radiotherapy-induced skin injury occurrence and treatment. Biomed Pharmacother. 2024 Nov 1;180:117470. doi:10.1016/j.biopha.2024.117470

    arXiv 2024

  19. [23]

    Preclinical quantitative in vivo assessment of skin tissue vascularity in radiation-induced fibrosis with optical coherence tomography

    Demidov V, Zhao X, Demidova O, Pang HYM, Flueraru C, Liu FF, et al. Preclinical quantitative in vivo assessment of skin tissue vascularity in radiation-induced fibrosis with optical coherence tomography. J Biomed Opt. 2018 Oct;23(10):1–9. doi:10.1117/1.JBO.23.10.106003 PubMed PMID: 30315644

    work page doi:10.1117/1.jbo.23.10.106003 2018

  20. [24]

    Relevance of oxygen in radiation oncology

    Molls M, Stadler P, Becker A, Feldmann HJ, Dunst J. Relevance of oxygen in radiation oncology. Mechanisms of action, correlation to low hemoglobin levels. Strahlenther Onkol Organ Dtsch Rontgengesellschaft Al. 1998 Dec;174 Suppl 4:13–6. PubMed PMID: 9879341

    1998

  21. [25]

    FLASH irradiation induces lower levels of DNA damage ex vivo, an effect modulated by oxygen tension, dose, and dose rate

    Cooper CR, Jones D, Jones GD, Petersson K. FLASH irradiation induces lower levels of DNA damage ex vivo, an effect modulated by oxygen tension, dose, and dose rate. Br J Radiol. 2022. p. 20211150. doi:10.1259/bjr.20211150

    work page doi:10.1259/bjr.20211150 2022

  22. [26]

    Effects of the Oxygen depletion in FLASH irradiation investigated through Geant4 -DNA toolkit

    Farokhi F, Shirani B, Fattori S, Ali Asgarian M, Cuttone G, Jia SB, et al. Effects of the Oxygen depletion in FLASH irradiation investigated through Geant4 -DNA toolkit. Radiat Phys Chem. 2023 Nov 1;212:111184. doi:10.1016/j.radphyschem.2023.111184

    arXiv 2023

  23. [27]

    Incorporating oxygenation levels in analytical DNA-damage models -quantifying the oxygen fixation mechanism

    Van den Heuvel F, Vella A, Fiorini F, Brooke M, Hill MA, Maughan T. Incorporating oxygenation levels in analytical DNA-damage models -quantifying the oxygen fixation mechanism. Phys Med Biol [Internet]. 2021. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34130265 doi:10.1088/1361 -6560/ac0b80

    arXiv 2021

  24. [28]

    The oxygen fixation hypothesis: a reevaluation

    Ewing D. The oxygen fixation hypothesis: a reevaluation. Am J Clin Oncol. 1998. p. 355 –

    1998

  25. [29]

    A mechanistic investigation of the oxygen fixation hypothesis and oxygen enhancement ratio

    Grimes DR, Partridge M. A mechanistic investigation of the oxygen fixation hypothesis and oxygen enhancement ratio. Biomed Phys Eng Express. 2015. p. 045209. doi:10.1088/2057-1976/1/4/045209

    doi:10.1088/2057-1976/1/4/045209 2015

  26. [30]

    Impact of oxygen deprivation on the FLASH effect for skin toxicity in a murine model

    Hansen AH, Poulsen PR, Kristensen L, Møller VV, Sinha PM, Johansen JG, et al. Impact of oxygen deprivation on the FLASH effect for skin toxicity in a murine model. Radiother Oncol J Eur Soc Ther Radiol Oncol. 2026 Jan;214:111277. doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2025.111277 PubMed PMID: 41232779

    arXiv 2026

  27. [31]

    Investigating the oxygen dependence of FLASH -RT using electron paramagnetic resonance imaging

    Waldrop T, Murley G, Velasquez B, Konradsson E, Neill D, Connell L, et al. Investigating the oxygen dependence of FLASH -RT using electron paramagnetic resonance imaging. Radiother Oncol. 2026 Feb 1;215. doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2025.111329 PubMed PMID: 41389858

    arXiv 2026

  28. [32]

    Prognostic value of tumor oxygenation in 397 head and neck tumors after primary radiation therapy

    Nordsmark M, Bentzen SM, Rudat V, Brizel D, Lartigau E, Stadler P, et al. Prognostic value of tumor oxygenation in 397 head and neck tumors after primary radiation therapy. An international multi-center study. Radiotherapy and oncology. 2005. p. 18 –24

    2005

  29. [33]

    Histograph

    Nozue M, Lee I, Yuan F, Teicher BA, Brizel DM, Dewhirst MW, et al. Interlaboratory variation in oxygen tension measurement by Eppendorf “Histograph” and comparison with hypoxic marker. J Surg Oncol. 1997. p. 30–8. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1096- 9098(199709)66:1<30::AID-JSO7>3.0.CO;2-O [pii]

    work page doi:10.1002/(sici)1096- 1997

  30. [34]

    Measuring Tumor Hypoxia

    Raleigh JA, Dewhirst MW, Thrall DE. Measuring Tumor Hypoxia. Semin Radiat Oncol

  31. [35]

    Oxygen transport in tumors: characteristics and clinical implications

    Vaupel P. Oxygen transport in tumors: characteristics and clinical implications. Adv Exp Med Biol. 1996. p. 341 –51

    1996

  32. [36]

    How best to interpret measures of levels of oxygen in tissues to make them effective clinical tools for care of patients with cancer and other oxygen -dependent pathologies

    Swartz HM, Flood AB, Schaner PE, Halpern H, Williams BB, Pogue BW, et al. How best to interpret measures of levels of oxygen in tissues to make them effective clinical tools for care of patients with cancer and other oxygen -dependent pathologies. Physiol R ep. 2020. p. e14541. doi:10.14814/phy2.14541

    doi:10.14814/phy2.14541 2020

  33. [37]

    Measuring real levels of oxygen in vivo: opportunities and challenges

    Swartz HM. Measuring real levels of oxygen in vivo: opportunities and challenges. Biochem Soc Trans. 2002. p. 248 –52. doi:10.1042/

    2002

  34. [38]

    Oxygenation of human tumors

    Vaupel P. Oxygenation of human tumors. Strahlenther Onkol. 1990. p. 377–86

    1990

  35. [39]

    Concepts of oxygen transport at the microcirculatory level

    Dewhirst MW. Concepts of oxygen transport at the microcirculatory level. Semin Radiat Oncol. 1998 Jul;8(3):143–50. doi:10.1016/s1053-4296(98)80040 -4 PubMed PMID: 9634491

    work page doi:10.1016/s1053-4296(98)80040 1998

  36. [41]

    Pulse oximetry: analysis of theory, technology, and practice

    Wukitsch MW, Petterson MT, Tobler DR, Pologe JA. Pulse oximetry: analysis of theory, technology, and practice. J Clin Monit. 1988. p. 290–301

    1988

  37. [42]

    Measurement of hemoglobin flow and blood flow by near -infrared spectroscopy

    Edwards AD, Richardson C, van der Zee P, Elwell C, Wyatt JS, Cope M, et al. Measurement of hemoglobin flow and blood flow by near -infrared spectroscopy. J Appl Physiol. 1993. p. 1884 –9

    1993

  38. [43]

    Oxygen distributions within R3230Ac tumors growing in dorsal flap window chambers in rats

    Wilson DF, Evans SM, Jenkins WT, Vinogradov SA, Ong E, Dewhirst MW. Oxygen distributions within R3230Ac tumors growing in dorsal flap window chambers in rats. Adv Exp Med Biol. 1998. p. 603–9

    1998

  39. [44]

    Blood flow, oxygen and nutrient supply, and metabolic microenvironment of human tumors: a review

    Vaupel P, Kallinowski F, Okunieff P. Blood flow, oxygen and nutrient supply, and metabolic microenvironment of human tumors: a review. Cancer Res. 1989. p. 6449 –65

    1989

  40. [45]

    Estimation of oxygen distribution in RIF-1 tumors by diffusion model -based interpretation of pimonidazole hypoxia and eppendorf measurements

    Pogue BW, Paulsen KD, O’Hara JA, Wilmot CM, Swartz HM. Estimation of oxygen distribution in RIF-1 tumors by diffusion model -based interpretation of pimonidazole hypoxia and eppendorf measurements. Radiat Res. 2001 Jan;155(1 Pt 1):15 –25. doi:10.1667/0033- 7587(2001)155[0015:eoodir]2.0.co;2 PubMed PMID: 11121211

    work page doi:10.1667/0033- 2001

  41. [46]

    Effect of hyperoxia, hypoxia and hypercapnia on O2 supply of malignant tumors in situ

    Vaupel P. Effect of hyperoxia, hypoxia and hypercapnia on O2 supply of malignant tumors in situ. Bibl Anat. 1977. p. 288– 90

    1977

  42. [47]

    Blood flow and oxygenation status of head and neck carcinomas

    Vaupel P. Blood flow and oxygenation status of head and neck carcinomas. Adv Exp Med Biol. 1997. p. 89–95

    1997

  43. [48]

    An integrated approach to measuring tumor oxygen status using human melanoma xenografts as a model

    Menon C, Polin GM, Prabakaran I, Hsi A, Cheung C, Culver JP, et al. An integrated approach to measuring tumor oxygen status using human melanoma xenografts as a model. Cancer Res. 2003. p. 7232–40

    2003

  44. [49]

    Review of methods used to study oxygen transport at the microcirculatory level

    Dewhirst MW, Klitzman B, Braun RD, Brizel DM, Haroon ZA, Secomb TW. Review of methods used to study oxygen transport at the microcirculatory level. Int J Cancer. 2000 Oct 20;90(5):237–55. PubMed PMID: 11091348

    2000

  45. [50]

    Indwelling blood compatible chemical sensors

    Eberhart RC. Indwelling blood compatible chemical sensors. Surg Clin North Am. 1985 Aug;65(4):1025–40. doi:10.1016/s0039 -6109(16)43692-3 PubMed PMID: 3901342

    work page doi:10.1016/s0039 1985

  46. [51]

    Noninvasive imaging of the distribution in oxygen in tissue in vivo using near-infrared phosphors

    Vinogradov SA, Lo LW, Jenkins WT, Evans SM, Koch C, Wilson DF. Noninvasive imaging of the distribution in oxygen in tissue in vivo using near-infrared phosphors. Biophys J. 1996. p. 1609–17. doi:S0006-3495(96)79764-3 [pii] 10.1016/S0006 -3495(96)79764-3

    work page doi:10.1016/s0006 1996

  47. [52]

    Measuring oxygen in living tissue: intravascular, interstitial, and “tissue” oxygen measurements

    Wilson DF, Finikova OS, Lebedev AY, Apreleva S, Pastuszko A, Lee WM, et al. Measuring oxygen in living tissue: intravascular, interstitial, and “tissue” oxygen measurements. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2011. p. 53–9. doi:10.1007/978 -1-4419-7756-4_8

    doi:10.1007/978 2011

  48. [53]

    In vivo EPR: when, how and why? NMR Biomed

    Gallez B, Swartz HM. In vivo EPR: when, how and why? NMR Biomed. 2004. p. 223 –5. doi:10.1002/nbm.913

    work page doi:10.1002/nbm.913 2004

  49. [54]

    A method for measuring oxygen distributions in tissue using frequency domain phosphorometry

    Vinogradov SA, Fernandez-Seara MA, Dupan BW, Wilson DF. A method for measuring oxygen distributions in tissue using frequency domain phosphorometry. Comp Biochem Physiol A Mol Integr Physiol. 2002. p. 147 –52. doi:S1095643301005414 [pii]

    2002

  50. [55]

    Oxygen distributions in tissue measured by phosphorescence quenching

    Vinogradov SA, Grosul P, Rozhkov V, Dunphy I, Shuman L, Dugan BW, et al. Oxygen distributions in tissue measured by phosphorescence quenching. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2003. p. 181–5

    2003

  51. [56]

    Development of Ruthenium Nanophotocages with Red or Near -Infrared Light -Responsiveness

    Zhang Z, He M, Wang R, Fan J, Peng X, Sun W. Development of Ruthenium Nanophotocages with Red or Near -Infrared Light -Responsiveness. Chembiochem Eur J Chem Biol. 2023 Dec 14;24(24):e202300606. doi:10.1002/cbic.202300606 PubMed PMID: 37837285

    work page doi:10.1002/cbic.202300606 2023

  52. [57]

    Characterization of a dissolved oxygen sensor made of plastic optical fiber coated with ruthenium-incorporated solgel

    Chu F, Yang J, Cai H, Qu R, Fang Z. Characterization of a dissolved oxygen sensor made of plastic optical fiber coated with ruthenium-incorporated solgel. Appl Opt. 2009 Jan 10;48(2):338–42. doi:10.1364/ao.48.000338 PubMed PMID: 19137045

    work page doi:10.1364/ao.48.000338 2009

  53. [58]

    Photo-controlled targeted intracellular delivery of both nitric oxide and singlet oxygen using a fluorescence -trackable ruthenium nitrosyl functional nanoplatform

    Xiang HJ, An L, Tang WW, Yang SP, Liu JG. Photo-controlled targeted intracellular delivery of both nitric oxide and singlet oxygen using a fluorescence -trackable ruthenium nitrosyl functional nanoplatform. Chem Commun (Camb). 2015. p. 2555–8. doi:10.1039/c4cc09869b

    work page doi:10.1039/c4cc09869b 2015

  54. [59]

    Mitochondrial PO2 measured by delayed fluorescence of endogenous protoporphyrin IX

    Mik EG, Stap J, Sinaasappel M, Beek JF, Aten JA, van Leeuwen TG, et al. Mitochondrial PO2 measured by delayed fluorescence of endogenous protoporphyrin IX. Nat Methods

  55. [60]

    Pressure- enhanced sensing of tissue oxygenation via endogenous porphyrin: Implications for dynamic visualization of cancer in surgery

    Petusseau AF, Ochoa M, Reed M, Doyley MM, Hasan T, Bruza P, et al. Pressure- enhanced sensing of tissue oxygenation via endogenous porphyrin: Implications for dynamic visualization of cancer in surgery. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2024 Aug 20;121(34):e2405628121. doi:10.1073/pnas.2405628121 PubMed PMID: 39141355; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC11348300

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.2405628121 2024

  56. [61]

    doi:10.1097/00000421-199808000-00008

    work page doi:10.1097/00000421-199808000-00008

  57. [62]

    Oxyphor R2 and G2: phosphors for measuring oxygen by oxygen-dependent quenching of phosphorescence

    Dunphy I, Vinogradov SA, Wilson DF. Oxyphor R2 and G2: phosphors for measuring oxygen by oxygen-dependent quenching of phosphorescence. Anal Biochem. 2002 Nov 15;310(2):191–8. doi:10.1016/s0003 -2697(02)00384-6 PubMed PMID: 12423638

    work page doi:10.1016/s0003 2002

  58. [63]

    protected

    Esipova TV, Karagodov A, Miller J, Wilson DF, Busch TM, Vinogradov SA. Two new “protected” oxyphors for biological oximetry: properties and application in tumor imaging. Anal Chem. 2011. p. 8756–65. doi:10.1021/ac2022234

    work page doi:10.1021/ac2022234 2011

  59. [65]

    In vivo mitochondrial oxygen tension measured by a delayed fluorescence lifetime technique

    Mik EG, Johannes T, Zuurbier CJ, Heinen A, Houben -Weerts JH, Balestra GM, et al. In vivo mitochondrial oxygen tension measured by a delayed fluorescence lifetime technique. Biophys J. 2008. p. 3977–90. doi:10.1529/biophysj.107.126094 S0006 -3495(08)78536-9 [pii]

    work page doi:10.1529/biophysj.107.126094 2008

  60. [66]

    Special article: measuring mitochondrial oxygen tension: from basic principles to application in humans

    Mik EG. Special article: measuring mitochondrial oxygen tension: from basic principles to application in humans. Anesth Analg. 2013. p. 834 –46. doi:10.1213/ANE.0b013e31828f29da ANE.0b013e31828f29da [pii]

    work page doi:10.1213/ane.0b013e31828f29da 2013

  61. [67]

    Oxyphor 2P: A High-Performance Probe for Deep -Tissue Longitudinal Oxygen Imaging

    Esipova TV, Barrett MJP, Erlebach E, Masunov AE, Weber B, Vinogradov SA. Oxyphor 2P: A High-Performance Probe for Deep -Tissue Longitudinal Oxygen Imaging. Cell Metab

  62. [68]

    Does FLASH deplete oxygen? Experimental evaluation for photons, protons, and carbon ions

    Jansen J, Knoll J, Beyreuther E, Pawelke J, Skuza R, Hanley R, et al. Does FLASH deplete oxygen? Experimental evaluation for photons, protons, and carbon ions. Med Phys

  63. [70]

    Oxygen Monitoring in Model Solutions and In vivo in Mice During Proton Irradiation at Conventional and FLASH Dose Rates

    Van Slyke AL, El Khatib M, Velalopoulou A, Diffenderfer E, Shoniyozov K, Kim MM, et al. Oxygen Monitoring in Model Solutions and In vivo in Mice During Proton Irradiation at Conventional and FLASH Dose Rates. Radiat Res. 2022. p. 181 –9. doi:10.1667/RADE-21- 00232.1

    work page doi:10.1667/rade-21- 2022

  64. [71]

    pO(2)-weighted imaging in vivo by delayed fluorescence of intracellular protoporphyrin IX: publisher’s note

    Scholz M, Cao X, Gunn JR, Bruza P, Pogue B. pO(2)-weighted imaging in vivo by delayed fluorescence of intracellular protoporphyrin IX: publisher’s note. Opt Lett. 2020 Feb 1;45(3):664. doi:10.1364/OL.387641 PubMed PMID: 32004278

    work page doi:10.1364/ol.387641 2020

  65. [73]

    Quantification of Oxygen Depletion During FLASH Irradiation In vitro and In vivo

    Cao X, Zhang R, Esipova TV, Allu SR, Ashraf R, Rahman M, et al. Quantification of Oxygen Depletion During FLASH Irradiation In vitro and In vivo. Int J Radiat Oncol. 2021 Sep 1;111(1):240–8. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2021.03.056

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2021.03.056 2021

  66. [74]

    Oxygen Monitoring in Model Solutions and In vivo in Mice During Proton Irradiation at Conventional and FLASH Dose Rates

    Van Slyke AL, El Khatib M, Velalopoulou A, Diffenderfer E, Shoniyozov K, Kim MM, et al. Oxygen Monitoring in Model Solutions and In vivo in Mice During Proton Irradiation at Conventional and FLASH Dose Rates. Radiat Res. 2022 Aug 1;198(2):181 –9. doi:10.1667/RADE-21-00232.1 PubMed PMID: 35640166; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC10176203

    work page doi:10.1667/rade-21-00232.1 2022

  67. [75]

    Ultrafast Tracking of Oxygen Dynamics During Proton FLASH

    El Khatib M, Van Slyke AL, Velalopoulou A, Kim MM, Shoniyozov K, Allu SR, et al. Ultrafast Tracking of Oxygen Dynamics During Proton FLASH. Int J Radiat Oncol. 2022 Jul 1;113(3):624–34. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2022.03.016

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2022.03.016 2022

  68. [78]

    Analysis of the heterogeneity of pO2 dynamics during photodynamic therapy with verteporfin

    Pogue BW, Braun RD, Lanzen JL, Erickson C, Dewhirst MW. Analysis of the heterogeneity of pO2 dynamics during photodynamic therapy with verteporfin. Photochem Photobiol. 2001 Nov;74(5):700–6. doi:10.1562/0031 -8655(2001)074<0700:aothop>2.0.co;2 PubMed PMID: 11723798

    work page doi:10.1562/0031 2001

  69. [79]

    Does FLASH deplete oxygen? Experimental evaluation for photons, protons, and carbon ions

    Jansen J, Knoll J, Beyreuther E, Pawelke J, Skuza R, Hanley R, et al. Does FLASH deplete oxygen? Experimental evaluation for photons, protons, and carbon ions. Med Phys. 2021;48(7):3982–90. doi:10.1002/mp.14917

    work page doi:10.1002/mp.14917 2021

  70. [80]

    Radiation-Chemical Oxygen Depletion Depends on Chemical Environment and Dose Rate: Implications for the FLASH Effect

    Koch CJ, Kim MM, Wiersma RD. Radiation-Chemical Oxygen Depletion Depends on Chemical Environment and Dose Rate: Implications for the FLASH Effect. Int J Radiat Oncol. 2023 Sep 1;117(1):214–22. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.04.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2023.04.001 2023

  71. [81]

    Intracellular Oxygen Transient Quantification in vivo During Ultra-High Dose Rate FLASH Radiation Therapy

    Petusseau AF, Clark M, Bruza P, Gladstone D, Pogue BW. Intracellular Oxygen Transient Quantification in vivo During Ultra-High Dose Rate FLASH Radiation Therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol. 2024 Nov 1;120(3):884 –93. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2024.04.068

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2024.04.068 2024

  72. [82]

    Ultra-High Dose Rate (FLASH) Radiotherapy: Silver Bullet or Fool’s Gold? Front Oncol

    Wilson JD, Hammond EM, Higgins GS, Petersson K. Ultra-High Dose Rate (FLASH) Radiotherapy: Silver Bullet or Fool’s Gold? Front Oncol. 2020 Jan 17;9. doi:10.3389/fonc.2019.01563

    arXiv 2020

  73. [83]

    Time Scale of Radiation-Induced Oxygen Depletion and Decay Kinetics of Oxygen-Dependent Damage in Cells Irradiated at Ultrahigh Dose Rates

    Ling CC. Time Scale of Radiation-Induced Oxygen Depletion and Decay Kinetics of Oxygen-Dependent Damage in Cells Irradiated at Ultrahigh Dose Rates. Radiat Res. 1975 Sep;63(3):455. doi:10.2307/3574097

    work page doi:10.2307/3574097 1975

  74. [84]

    Kinetic model of radiochemical oxygen depletion (ROD) in FLASH radiotherapy

    Seco J, Freitas H. Kinetic model of radiochemical oxygen depletion (ROD) in FLASH radiotherapy. Med Phys. 2026 Apr;53(4):e70383. doi:10.1002/mp.70383

    work page doi:10.1002/mp.70383 2026

  75. [85]

    Long - term neurocognitive benefits of FLASH radiotherapy driven by reduced reactive oxygen species

    Montay-Gruel P, Acharya MM, Petersson K, Alikhani L, Yakkala C, Allen BD, et al. Long - term neurocognitive benefits of FLASH radiotherapy driven by reduced reactive oxygen species. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019 May 28;116(22):10943– 51. doi:10.1073/pnas.1901777116 PubMed PMID: 31097580; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6561167

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.1901777116 2019

  76. [86]

    Deep-tissue oxygen monitoring in the brain of rabbits for stroke research

    Khan N, Hou H, Eskey CJ, Moodie K, Gohain S, Du G, et al. Deep-tissue oxygen monitoring in the brain of rabbits for stroke research. Stroke. 2015 Mar;46(3):e62 -66. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.114.007324 PubMed PMID: 25613304; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4342327

    work page doi:10.1161/strokeaha.114.007324 2015

  77. [87]

    Ultrahigh dose-rate FLASH irradiation increases the differential response between normal and tumor tissue in mice

    Favaudon V, Caplier L, Monceau V, Pouzoulet F, Sayarath M, Fouillade C, et al. Ultrahigh dose-rate FLASH irradiation increases the differential response between normal and tumor tissue in mice. Sci Transl Med. 2014 Jul 16;6(245):245ra93. doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.3008973 PubMed PMID: 25031268

    doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.3008973 2014

  78. [88]

    Design, Implementation, and in vivo Validation of a Novel Proton FLASH Radiation Therapy System

    Diffenderfer ES, Verginadis II, Kim MM, Shoniyozov K, Velalopoulou A, Goia D, et al. Design, Implementation, and in vivo Validation of a Novel Proton FLASH Radiation Therapy System. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2020 Feb 1;106(2):440– 8. doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2019.10.049 PubMed PMID: 31928642; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7325740

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2019.10.049 2020

  79. [89]

    [cited 2026 Jan 23]

    Hypofractionated FLASH-RT as an Effective Treatment against Glioblastoma that Reduces Neurocognitive Side Effects in Mice - PubMed [Internet]. [cited 2026 Jan 23]. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33060122/

    arXiv 2026

  80. [90]

    Abdominal FLASH irradiation reduces radiation -induced gastrointestinal toxicity for the treatment of ovarian cancer in mice

    Levy K, Natarajan S, Wang J, Chow S, Eggold JT, Loo PE, et al. Abdominal FLASH irradiation reduces radiation -induced gastrointestinal toxicity for the treatment of ovarian cancer in mice. Sci Rep. 2020 Dec 10;10(1):21600. doi:10.1038/s41598 -020-78017-7 PubMed PMID: 33303827; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7728763

    doi:10.1038/s41598 2020

Showing first 80 references.