Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 54 references

Modeled circulating lymphocytes survive better with ultra-fast proton delivery in lung SBRT.

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 ↗

Pin-ridge-filter proton lung SBRT cuts modeled circulating-blood dose and improves modeled lymphocyte survival versus IMPT, mostly by shortening delivery time.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-01 challenge →

load-bearing objection Useful, honest modeling study; the headline immune-sparing numbers rest on a lung-only bDVH that leaves out extra-pulmonary blood dose. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.22842 v1 pith:Q2ABEL7G submitted 2026-07-24 physics.med-ph

Circulating Lymphocytes Preservation in Lung Cancer Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy with Ultra-Fast Proton Delivery Using Modularized Pin Ridge Filters

Duncan Bohannon , Ahmal Jawad Zafar , Sibo Tian , Williams Stokes , Zachary S. Buchwald , Sunil W. Dutta , William A. LePain , Zachary Diamond
show 4 more authors
Anees Dhabaan Hania Al-Hallaq Xiaofeng Yang Jun Zhou
This is my paper
classification physics.med-ph
keywords radiation-induced lymphopeniacirculating lymphocytesproton therapypencil beam scanningpin ridge filterlung SBRTblood dose-volume histogramFLASH radiotherapy
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.

The reading

This retrospective planning study asks whether replacing conventional multi-energy IMPT with a patient-specific pin ridge filter (pRF) that delivers protons with a single beam energy can reduce radiation injury to circulating lymphocytes during lung SBRT. It finds that pRF plans cut delivery time by roughly 85% at conventional dose rates and by ~99.9% at FLASH dose rates, reduce the volume of blood exposed to low-dose radiation, and improve modeled survival of CD4/CD8 lymphocytes—especially the unstimulated, most radiosensitive subpopulations—while preserving tumor coverage. The paper argues the benefit comes mostly from shortening treatment time, not from the FLASH rate itself, and that pRF delivery may be a practical immune-sparing strategy.

Core claim

The central discovery is that the timing structure of pencil-beam delivery—not just dose distribution—governs how much circulating blood gets irradiated. By eliminating energy-layer switching (the slowest part of IMPT delivery), pRF plans keep the same GTV D95% while cutting per-fraction delivery time by ~85% at conventional rates and ~99.9% at FLASH rates. Synchronizing a stochastic blood-circulation model with a spot-by-spot PBS timing simulation shows that this time reduction lowers the blood volume receiving low doses (V5cGy down 26–39% over the full course) and raises modeled survival of unstimulated CD4/CD8 lymphocytes by roughly 8–10 percentage points, with smaller gains for stimulate

What carries the argument

The pin ridge filter (pRF)—a patient-specific plate of pyramidal ridge pins that converts a single-energy proton beam into the spread of ranges normally produced by many energy layers—is the enabling object. Its role is to eliminate energy-layer switching, which dominates treatment time. The comparison rests on two coupled models: a stochastic whole-body blood-flow simulation (with a uniform random walk inside the lung at up to 20 cm/s) that tracks 100,000 blood particles, and a delivery-timing simulation built from clinical beam-log data that models spot delivery, scanning, and energy switching. Their outputs are blood dose-volume histograms, which are then fed to in-vitro linear-quadratic

Load-bearing premise

The entire benefit rests on the assumption that a chain of surrogates—reference blood volumes and flow rates, a uniform random-walk model of lung circulation, averaged beam-timing values, and in-vitro lymphocyte survival curves—captures how real circulating lymphocytes are injured in vivo; if any link breaks, the modeled 8–10% survival gains may not appear in patients.

What would settle it

A prospective comparison of absolute lymphocyte counts in matched lung SBRT patients treated with pRF versus conventional IMPT, with delivery times confirmed by treatment logs; if the pRF arm does not show meaningfully higher lymphocyte nadirs and faster recovery despite the modeled ~8–10% survival advantage, the central claim would be refuted.

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

If this is right

  • pRF planning preserves IMPT-level GTV D95% while cutting per-fraction delivery time by a mean of 85% at conventional dose rates and 99.9% at simulated FLASH rates.
  • Per-fraction irradiated blood volume drops by a mean of 53% and 81% for the two modes; over the full course, blood V5cGy falls by about 26% and 39%.
  • Modeled survival of unstimulated CD4/CD8 lymphocytes improves by roughly 8–10 percentage points under the saturation model—the largest gains in the most radiosensitive cells.
  • Most of the benefit comes from shorter delivery time, so pRF provides immune sparing even without FLASH dose rates; FLASH adds only a small increment.
  • The pRF improvement carries a tradeoff: a smaller volume receives low doses while a larger high-dose tail appears, so the net benefit depends on the survival model chosen.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The paper stops short of predicting clinical outcomes, but if the modeled survival difference holds in vivo, pRF could reduce radiation-induced lymphopenia in lung SBRT—a toxicity linked to worse survival—and the decisive test would be a prospective lymphocyte-count study.
  • The same timing argument implies the immune-sparing effect is not unique to pRF: any delivery scheme that shortens blood transit through the beam should show a similar bDVH shift, so comparing two machines with different energy-switching speeds would isolate the timing contribution.
  • Since the gain saturates once delivery is short, the paper's logic suggests conventional-dose-rate pRF may capture most of the immune-sparing benefit, making it a more practical near-term step than full FLASH capability for small lung targets.
  • The increased high-dose tail means the benefit has a boundary: for larger targets or longer beam-on times, the survival gain could shrink or reverse; this is a testable limit rather than a contradiction of the paper.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper evaluates whether pin-ridge-filter (pRF) based single-energy proton delivery, at conventional and FLASH dose rates, improves sparing of circulating lymphocytes (CL) compared with intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) in lung SBRT. For 10 previously treated patients, the authors generate pRF plans, simulate PBS delivery with spot, scanning, and energy-layer-switching timings, combine HEDOS blood-flow simulation with a random-walk model for intrapulmonary positions to accumulate blood dose-volume histograms (bDVHs), and estimate CL survival with LQ and saturation models. They report that pRF plans reduce delivery time by 85–99.9%, reduce low-dose bDVH metrics (e.g., V5cGy by 26–39% over the course), and improve modeled survival, especially for unstimulated CD4/CD8 lymphocytes, while maintaining GTV D95%. The central claim is that ultra-fast single-energy delivery is a practical immune-sparing strategy, with additional but saturating gains at FLASH dose rates.

Significance. If the result holds, this is an important and practical finding: pRF delivery eliminates energy-layer switching and can be implemented on existing proton PBS systems, potentially reducing radiation-induced lymphopenia without requiring FLASH-level dose rates. The study's strength is the integration of a time-resolved PBS delivery model with a stochastic blood-flow framework and the use of multiple lymphocyte survival models; the analysis is internally coherent and transparent about many assumptions. However, the central quantitative claims depend on a bDVH accumulation scheme that appears to score dose only while blood particles are inside the lung segmentation, omitting extra-pulmonary blood exposure. Because pRF and IMPT differ in their dose distributions outside the target, this omission is potentially load-bearing and should be resolved before the immune-sparing conclusion is accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.4] Blood dose accumulation is performed only for BPs 'located within the lung segmentation.' The text states that 'each BP's dose is determined by the partial dose at its position within the lung segmentation.' BPs in other compartments that are traversed by the beams (chest wall, heart, mediastinum) receive no modeled dose. Since pRF plans have a broader penumbra and increased low-dose spill outside the target compared with IMPT, the omitted extra-pulmonary blood dose may not cancel in the comparison. This directly affects the reported reductions in V5cGy/V50cGy and the modeled SF gains, and the limitations section does not disclose this exclusion. Please extend the accumulation to all HEDOS compartments in the radiation field, or provide a sensitivity analysis quantifying the potential bias from omitting extra-pulmonary blood dose.
  2. [Section 2.4, Eq. (9a-b)] The random walk for intrapulmonary BP motion has no specified boundary condition. With vmax=20 cm/s and Δt=50 ms, each step can move a BP by up to 1 cm; over a fraction, many BPs will reach the lung boundary. It is unclear whether BPs that exit the segmentation are reflected, removed, or continue to accumulate dose in the lung compartment. This can bias the bDVH, especially at higher dose levels. Please define the boundary handling and test the sensitivity of the bDVHs to vmax and to the confinement method.
  3. [Abstract and Table 2] The 'irradiated blood volume' and bDVH values are computed from intrapulmonary blood only, yet are reported without qualification as if they apply to the whole blood pool. This is misleading for a reader. Please revise the terminology throughout (e.g., 'intrapulmonary irradiated blood volume') or, preferably, implement whole-body blood dose accumulation so that the abstract and results accurately reflect the endpoint being modeled.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract vs. Section 3] The abstract reports p=0.03 for pRFCONV CD4 saturation-model SF improvement, while Section 3 reports p=0.04 for the same comparison. Please correct the inconsistency.
  2. [Eq. (2)] Equation (2) is typeset illegibly; the fraction for w̄_{p,i−1} is garbled. Please reformat so the recursive weight formula is readable.
  3. [Discussion, paragraph 5] The statement that unstimulated lymphocytes 'make up >95% of the CL population' cites references [46] and [47], but these papers do not appear to support that specific proportion. Please provide an appropriate reference or qualify the claim.
  4. [Section 2.3.1] The pRFFLASH simulations assume a 500 nA nozzle current that the authors acknowledge is theoretical because it can only be achieved by the highest energy beam. This is appropriately caveated in the Discussion, but the abstract presents pRFFLASH results without this caveat; consider adding a brief qualifier.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the pRF-versus-IMPT survival comparison is driven by external blood-flow and radiosensitivity models, not by fitted parameters or self-referential definitions.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. pRF plans are generated with a previously published planning framework (Ma et al. [28], Zafar et al. [29]), used here as a tool rather than as the outcome; the self-citations supply method, not the CL-survival endpoint. The blood-circulation component is the external HEDOS/ICRP-89 compartmental model, and BP positions are obtained from stochastic transitions plus an independent uniform random walk; the paper adds PBS timing from institutional log-file averages, none of which are fit to the bDVH or survival results. Lymphocyte radiosensitivity parameters come from external in-vitro datasets (Nakamura et al.; Heylmann et al.; Pham et al.), and survival is computed by applying Equations 10-13 to the simulated bDVH. The predicted delivery-time reductions follow from the timing model and pRF's single-energy design (no ELS), not from fitting survival endpoints. The bDVH accumulation is limited to intrapulmonary blood (Section 2.4), and the Discussion explicitly labels the survival estimates as 'relative biological comparisons rather than direct predictions' and lists missing patient-specific hemodynamics and validation; these are acknowledged scope limitations and potential sources of bias, not constructional equivalences between input and output. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness claim is imported from the authors, and the central comparison remains externally testable against measured lymphocyte counts in a prospective study.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

7 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities; the pRF is an existing device from prior work. The main free parameters are timing and hemodynamic constants, some fitted to institutional data and some chosen ad hoc. The strongest borrowed components are the external in-vitro lymphocyte radiosensitivity parameters, which are the most consequential for the clinical interpretation.

free parameters (7)
  • Energy-layer switching time linear fit = 789 ms + 122 ms/MeV × ΔE
    Fitted to institutional measurements of ELS times; directly determines the delivery-time advantage of pRF over IMPT.
  • Average scanning speeds = vx=0.43 cm/ms, vy=0.85 cm/ms
    Averaged from more than 10,000 treatment log files; used to compute spot-to-spot scanning times.
  • Minimum spot delivery time = 3.14 ms
    Measured average for the Varian ProBeam system; caps the dose rate of each energy layer.
  • Random-walk maximum intrapulmonary velocity = 20 cm/s
    Chosen conservatively from pulmonary blood velocity literature; controls how long simulated blood particles remain in the irradiated lung volume.
  • Inter-beam blood circulation interval = 60 s
    Arbitrarily chosen between beams; authors cite Shin et al. showing minimal impact on bDVHs at 30/60/90 s.
  • FLASH nozzle current = 500 nA
    Theoretical maximum nozzle current for the system; used only to simulate the hypothetical pRFFLASH scenario.
  • Lymphocyte radiosensitivity parameters = LQ α/β; saturation SFsat, μ (Table 1)
    External fits to in-vitro human lymphocyte data (Nakamura 1990; Pham 2024 on Heylmann data); central to converting bDVHs into survival fractions.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption ICRP-89 compartmental blood-flow model represents patient circulation
    HEDOS uses reference blood volumes and cardiac output; no patient-specific hemodynamics are modeled (Section 2.2).
  • ad hoc to paper Uniform random-walk approximates intrapulmonary blood-particle motion
    Section 2.4: BP positions inside the lung are updated with velocities sampled from a uniform distribution; no validation against flow imaging is provided.
  • domain assumption In-vitro lymphocyte survival models are valid comparative response functions in vivo
    Section 2.5 and Discussion: the authors state the models do not explicitly represent in-vivo response but are used as relative comparators; this is load-bearing for the 'immune sparing' interpretation.
  • domain assumption Averaged PBS timing parameters from institutional log files apply to the simulated plans
    Section 2.3: average scanning speeds and ELS times are used; continuous scanning during spot transitions is not modeled, and variability is suppressed by averaging.
  • domain assumption bDVH-to-survival summation (Eqs. 12–13) captures per-fraction and full-course CL survival
    Assumes full sublethal damage repair between fractions and no lymphocyte redistribution/trafficking; neglects bone-marrow and lymphoid-organ dose.
  • domain assumption pRF single-energy plans are clinically deliverable and match IMPT target coverage
    Plans are optimized to match GTV D95% and clinical goals, but deliverability is not experimentally demonstrated in this study; it relies on the prior pRF framework.

reviewed 2026-08-01 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Circulating Lymphocytes Preservation in Lung Cancer Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy with Ultra-Fast Proton Delivery Using Modularized Pin Ridge Filters." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Q2ABEL7G

@misc{pith2026260722842,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Circulating Lymphocytes Preservation in Lung Cancer Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy with Ultra-Fast Proton Delivery Using Modularized Pin Ridge Filters},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Q2ABEL7G}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.22842}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Purpose: Radiation-induced lymphopenia is an increasingly recognized toxicity in lung radiotherapy and has been linked to radiation exposure to circulating lymphocytes (CL). In intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT), prolonged pencil beam scanning (PBS) delivery may increase CL dose. We recently developed a patient-specific pin ridge filter (pRF) framework that enables ultra-fast proton delivery with a single beam energy. This study evaluated whether pRF-based lung stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) plans delivered at conventional (pRFCONV) and FLASH dose rates (pRFFLASH) improve immune sparing using time-resolved blood dose accumulation and CL survival modeling. Methods: pRF plans were created for 10 lung SBRT patients previously treated with IMPT. PBS delivery simulations modeled spot delivery, scanning, and energy switching. Blood dose-volume histograms (bDVHs) were calculated with the hematological dose framework. CL survival fractions (SF) were estimated from bDVHs with saturation and linear-quadratic models derived from in-vitro survival data for CD4/CD8 CL. Results: Compared with IMPT, pRFCONV/pRFFLASH plans reduced delivery time (mean reductions: 85.3/99.9%) and irradiated blood volume per fraction (mean reductions: 52.9/81.3%). pRFCONV/pRFFLASH plans reduced blood V5cGy by 26.4/39.4%, and V50cGy by 4.5/6.9%, respectively. pRF plans improved modeled CL survival across all models and subpopulations. Unstimulated CD4/CD8 CL had the largest SF differences, for which mean saturation-model SF improved by 7.9/8.6% for pRFCONV (p=0.03/0.02) and 9.6/10.4% for pRFFLASH (p=0.02/0.01), respectively. Conclusion: pRF plans improved modeled CL survival by significantly shortening delivery time and reducing irradiation of circulating blood. Our findings suggest that pRF's ultra-fast delivery may provide a practical strategy for immune sparing in proton lung SBRT.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.22842 by Ahmal Jawad Zafar, Anees Dhabaan, Duncan Bohannon, Hania Al-Hallaq, Jun Zhou, Sibo Tian, Sunil W. Dutta, William A. LePain, Williams Stokes, Xiaofeng Yang, Zachary Diamond, Zachary S. Buchwald.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Diagram of pRF planning workflow for an example lung patient. Red dots represent spots; dot size increases with spot weight, and columns of dots represent energy layers. The planning process starts with a conventional IMPT plan. For this example, a beam model with a maximum energy matched to the IMPT plan (120 MeV) is commissioned. A downstream plan (IMPT-DS) is then created by reoptimizing the IMPT plan u… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Diagram of PBS beam delivery synchronized with HEDOS. The PBS delivery timeline is comprised of n spot delivery times (Td), n-1 scanning times between spots (Ts), and l￾1 energy switching between l energy layers (Te). The HEDOS model provides the positions of BPs within the body for m time steps. The total beam dose, D, is divided into partial doses at each timestep and added to BPs. Because HEDOS only pro… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: shows pRF and IMPT plans for a single patient along with their corresponding single fraction and full course bDVHs. Single fraction bDVH differences were most pronounced in the low dose region. Compared with IMPT, pRFCONV/pRFFLASH reduced mean V5cGy to V30cGy by 7.32/8.89% to 1.19/1.97%, respectively. Smaller differences were observed at higher doses. Relative to IMPT, pRFCONV/pRFFLASH reduced V40cGy and V… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Single patient lymphocyte survival spectra after completing treatment across all planning strategies for (a)-(b) Stimulated CD4 and CD8 lymphocytes. Using the linear–quadratic (LQ) model, IMPT killed 3.65/2.65% of CD4/CD8 lymphocytes, respectively, pRFCONV killed 0.16/0.13%, and pRFFLASH killed 0.09/0.07%. Using the saturation model, IMPT killed 1.43/1.97%, pRFCONV killed 0.09/0.11%, and pRFFLASH killed 0.… 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

54 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Introduction Radiation-induced lymphopenia (RIL), a condition in which lymphocytes in the blood are significantly depleted following radiation exposure, is a prevalent and clinically significant toxicity in radiotherapy [1-3] that leads to worsened survival, recurrence, and metastasis [4]. RIL has been correlated with the dose to circulating lymphocytes (...

  2. [2]

    using an inverse-planning framework originally described in [28,29] that jointly optimizes pRF geometry and spot weights

    Methods 2.1 pRF Plan Creation pRF plans were generated in RayStation 2023B, RaySearch Laboratories, Stockholm, Sweden. using an inverse-planning framework originally described in [28,29] that jointly optimizes pRF geometry and spot weights. Figure 1 illustrates the four-stage pRF planning process for an example lung patient. Figure 1: Diagram of pRF plann...

  3. [3]

    Across the cohort, pRF plans maintained the same GTV D95% as their corresponding IMPT plans

    Results Table 2 compares GTV D95%, lung-GTV Dmean, delivery time, irradiated blood volume, bDVH thresholds, and CL survival between IMPT, pRFCONV, and pRFFLASH. Across the cohort, pRF plans maintained the same GTV D95% as their corresponding IMPT plans. Because pRF plans had poorer energy modulation than IMPT, they had a broaderdose penumbra and increased...

  4. [4]

    Compared with conventional IMPT, pRF plans preserved target coverage while substantially reducing delivery time and low-dose exposure of circulating blood

    Discussion This study evaluated patient-specific pRF delivery as a potential immune sparing strategy for proton lung SBRT. Compared with conventional IMPT, pRF plans preserved target coverage while substantially reducing delivery time and low-dose exposure of circulating blood. The modeled survival benefit was observed at both conventional and FLASH dose ...

  5. [5]

    Conclusions This study evaluated the potential for pRF delivery to enhance immune preservation in proton lung SBRT by comparing clinically deliverable pRF plans with conventional IMPT. By substantially reducing treatment time through the elimination of ELS, pRF plans decreased low dose blood exposure while slightly increasing the fraction receiving high d...

  6. [6]

    Lymphocyte-Sparing effect of stereotactic body radiation therapy in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer

    Wild AT, Herman JM, Dholakia AS, Moningi S, Lu Y , Rosati LM, et al. Lymphocyte-Sparing effect of stereotactic body radiation therapy in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer. Int Jornal Radiat Oncol Biol Phys (2016) 94:571–9. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2015.11.026

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2015.11.026 2016

  7. [7]

    Early and late effects of irradiation for seminoma test is on the number of blood lymphocytes and their B and T subpopulations

    Heier HE, Christensen I, Froland SS, Engeset A. Early and late effects of irradiation for seminoma test is on the number of blood lymphocytes and their B and T subpopulations. Lymphology (1975) 8:69–74

    1975

  8. [8]

    The development of lymphopenia in uremic patients undergoing extracorporeal irradiation of the blood with portable beta units

    Weeke E. The development of lymphopenia in uremic patients undergoing extracorporeal irradiation of the blood with portable beta units. Radiat Res (1973) 56:554–9. doi: 10.2307/3573724

    work page doi:10.2307/3573724 1973

  9. [9]

    Analysis of treatment in childhood leukemia

    MacLennan IC, Kay HE. Analysis of treatment in childhood leukemia. IV . The critical association between dose fractionation and immunosuppression induced by cranial irradiation. Cancer (1978) 41:108–11. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(197801) 41:1<108::AID-CNCR2820410116>3.0.CO;2-Z

    work page doi:10.1002/1097-0142(197801 1978

  10. [10]

    The influence of severe radiation-induced lymphopenia on overall survival in solid tumors: A systematic review and meta-analysis

    Damen PJJ, Kroese TE, van Hillegersberg R, Schuit E, Peters M, Verhoeff JJC, et al. The influence of severe radiation-induced lymphopenia on overall survival in solid tumors: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys (2021) 111:936–48. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2021.07.1695 18

    doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2021.07.1695 2021

  11. [11]

    Treatment modality, site, and fractionation strongly influence RIL risk

    combined with the high radiosensitivity of CLs [12-15]. Treatment modality, site, and fractionation strongly influence RIL risk. RIL occurs particularly often in thoracic patients where larger volumes of blood are irradiated [16,17]. Compared with intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), proton therapy has been associated with reduced rates of severe...

  12. [12]

    Lymphocyte Sparing effect of proton therapy in patients with esophageal cancer treated with definitive chemoradiation

    Fang P, Shiraishi Y , Verma V , Jiang W, Song J, Hobbs BP, et al. Lymphocyte Sparing effect of proton therapy in patients with esophageal cancer treated with definitive chemoradiation. Int J Part Ther (2018) 4:23–32. doi: 10.14338/IJPT-17 00033.1

    work page doi:10.14338/ijpt-17 2018

  13. [13]

    Severe lymphopenia during neoadjuvant chemoradiation for esophageal cancer: A propensity matched analysis of the relative risk of proton versus photon-based radiation therapy

    Shiraishi Y , Fang P, Xu C, Song J, Krishnan S, Koay EJ, et al. Severe lymphopenia during neoadjuvant chemoradiation for esophageal cancer: A propensity matched analysis of the relative risk of proton versus photon-based radiation therapy. Radiother Oncol (2018) 128:154–60. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2017.11.028

    doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2017.11.028 2018

  14. [14]

    Radiation induced lymphopenia is associated with the effective dose to the circulating immune cells in breast cancer

    Chen F, Jin JY , Hui TSK, Jing H, Zhang H, Nong Y , et al. Radiation induced lymphopenia is associated with the effective dose to the circulating immune cells in breast cancer. Front Oncol (2022) 12:768956. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2022.768956

    arXiv 2022

  15. [15]

    On the interplay between dosiomics and genomics in radiation-induced lymphopenia of lung cancer patients

    Monti S, Xu T, Liao Z, Mohan R, Cella L, Palma G. On the interplay between dosiomics and genomics in radiation-induced lymphopenia of lung cancer patients. Radiother Oncol (2022) 167:219–25. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2021.12.038

    work page doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2021.12.038 2022

  16. [16]

    Dosimetric modeling of lymphopenia in patients with metastatic cancer receiving palliative radiation and PD-1 immune checkpoint inhibitors

    Qian JM, Akama-Garren E, Shin J, Gunasti L, Bang A, Pike LRG, et al. Dosimetric modeling of lymphopenia in patients with metastatic cancer receiving palliative radiation and PD-1 immune checkpoint inhibitors. Adv Radiat Oncol (2022) 7:100880. doi: 10.1016/j.adro.2021.100880

    arXiv 2022

  17. [17]

    Yovino S, Kleinberg L, Grossman SA, Narayanan M, Ford E. The etiology of treatment- related lymphopenia in patients with malignant gliomas: modeling radiation dose to circulating lymphocytes explains clinical observations and suggests methods of modifying the impact of radiation on immune cells. Cancer Invest (2013) 31:140–4. doi: 10.3109/07357907.2012.762780

    arXiv 2013

  18. [18]

    A review on lymphocyte radiosensitivity and its impact on radiotherapy

    Paganetti H. A review on lymphocyte radiosensitivity and its impact on radiotherapy. Front Oncol 2023;13:1201500

    2023

  19. [19]

    Lymphocyte radiosensitivity: An extension to the linear-quadratic model? Radiother Oncol

    Pham TN, Coupey J, Thariat J, Valable S. Lymphocyte radiosensitivity: An extension to the linear-quadratic model? Radiother Oncol. 2024 Sep;198:110406. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2024.110406. Epub 2024 Jun 24. PMID: 38925262

    arXiv 2024

  20. [20]

    Swanson, G., Hammonds, K., & Jhavar, S. (2022). Lymphocyte response and recovery to radiation therapy alone. Annals Of Blood, 8. doi:10.21037/aob-21-74

    work page doi:10.21037/aob-21-74 2022

  21. [21]

    Activation of mouse lymphocytes inhibits induction of rapid cell death by x-irradiation

    Lowenthal JW, Harris AW. Activation of mouse lymphocytes inhibits induction of rapid cell death by x-irradiation. J Immunol. 1985 Aug;135(2):1119-25. PMID: 3874229

    1985

  22. [22]

    Radiation-induced lymphopenia: A data compilation to unveil relevant factors and mitigation strategies

    Sandul V , Al-Hamami SS, Kubeš J, Durante M, Friedrich T. Radiation-induced lymphopenia: A data compilation to unveil relevant factors and mitigation strategies. Clin Transl 19 Radiat Oncol. 2025 Nov 10;56:101071. doi: 10.1016/j.ctro.2025.101071. PMID: 41321701; PMCID: PMC12662089

    arXiv 2025

  23. [24]

    Lymphocyte nadir and esophageal cancer survival outcomes after chemoradiation therapy

    Davuluri R, Jiang W, Fang P, Xu C, Komaki R, Gomez DR, et al. Lymphocyte nadir and esophageal cancer survival outcomes after chemoradiation therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys (2017) 99:128–35. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2017.05.037

    doi:10.1016/j.ijrobp.2017.05.037 2017

  24. [25]

    Proton Therapy Reduces the Effective Dose to Immune Cells in Mediastinal Hodgkin Lymphoma Patients

    Loap P, De Marzi L, Decroocq J, Birsen R, Johnson N, Deau Fischer B, Bouscary D, Kirova Y . Proton Therapy Reduces the Effective Dose to Immune Cells in Mediastinal Hodgkin Lymphoma Patients. Int J Part Ther. 2024 Jun 20;13:100110. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpt.2024.100110. PMID: 39091405; PMCID: PMC11293511

    arXiv 2024

  25. [26]

    Liu Y , Ye G, Chen W, Ding Y , Ying S and Wu S (2025) Stereotactic body radiation therapy or conventional fractionated radiotherapy combined with immune checkpoint inhibitors? From biological perspectives. Front. Immunol. 16:1578486. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2025.1578486

    arXiv 2025

  26. [27]

    Risk and impact of radiation related lymphopenia in lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

    Upadhyay R, Venkatesulu BP, Giridhar P, et al. Risk and impact of radiation related lymphopenia in lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiother Oncol 2021;157:225–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. radonc.2021.01.034

    doi:10.1016/j 2021

  27. [28]

    Acute severe lymphopenia by radiotherapy is associated with reduced overall survival in hepatocellular carcinoma

    Byun HK, Kim N, Park S, Seong J. Acute severe lymphopenia by radiotherapy is associated with reduced overall survival in hepatocellular carcinoma. Strahlenther Onkol 2019;195(11):1007–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00066- 019-01462-5

    work page doi:10.1007/s00066- 2019

  28. [29]

    Zhang HG, Yang P, Jiang T, et al. Lymphopenia is Associated with Gross Target V olumes and Fractions in Hepatocellular Carcinoma patients Treated with External Beam Radiation Therapy and also Indicates worse overall Survival. Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019;2019:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/ 9691067

    doi:10.1155/2019/ 2019

  29. [30]

    FLASH radiotherapy sparing effect on the circulating lymphocytes in pencil beam scanning proton therapy: impact of hypofractionation and dose rate

    Galts A, Hammi A. FLASH radiotherapy sparing effect on the circulating lymphocytes in pencil beam scanning proton therapy: impact of hypofractionation and dose rate. Phys Med Biol. 2024 Jan 5;69(2). doi: 10.1088/1361-6560/ad144e. PMID: 38081067

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6560/ad144e 2024

  30. [31]

    The use of a mini‐ridge filter with cyclotron‐based pencil beam scanning proton therapy

    O'Grady F, Janson M, Rao AD, et al. The use of a mini‐ridge filter with cyclotron‐based pencil beam scanning proton therapy. Medical Physics. 2023;50(4):1999-2008

    2023

  31. [32]

    Using Modularized Pin Ridge Filter in Proton FLASH Planning for Liver Stereotactic Ablative Body Radiotherapy

    Ma C, Yang X, Wang Y , Yu D, Patel P, Zhou J. Using Modularized Pin Ridge Filter in Proton FLASH Planning for Liver Stereotactic Ablative Body Radiotherapy. ArXiv. Jun 4 2024; 20

    2024

  32. [33]

    An adaptive proton FLASH therapy using modularized pin ridge filter

    Zafar AJ, Yang X, Diamond Z, et al. An adaptive proton FLASH therapy using modularized pin ridge filter. Medical Physics. 2025;52(9):e18109

    2025

  33. [34]

    Streamlined pin‐ridge‐filter design for single‐energy proton FLASH planning

    Ma C, Zhou J, Chang CW, et al. Streamlined pin‐ridge‐filter design for single‐energy proton FLASH planning. Medical Physics. 2024;51(4):2955-2966

    2024

  34. [35]

    Ahmal Jawad Zafar, Xiaofeng Yang, Yinan Wang, Zachary Diamond, & Jun Zhou. (2025). Ultrafast Proton Delivery with Pin Ridge Filters (pRFs): A Novel Approach for Motion Management in Proton Therapy. https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.01593

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  35. [36]

    and Pang, D

    Kang, M. and Pang, D. (2020), Commissioning and beam characterization of the first gantry-mounted accelerator pencil beam scanning proton system. Med. Phys., 47: 3496-3510. https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.13972

    work page doi:10.1002/mp.13972 2020

  36. [37]

    Beam properties within the momentum acceptance of a clinical gantry beamline for proton therapy

    Giovannelli AC, Maradia V , Meer D, et al. Beam properties within the momentum acceptance of a clinical gantry beamline for proton therapy. Medical physics. 2022;49(3):1417- 1431

    2022

  37. [38]

    Speed and accuracy of a beam tracking system for treatment of moving targets with scanned ion beams

    Saito N, Bert C, Chaudhri N, et al. Speed and accuracy of a beam tracking system for treatment of moving targets with scanned ion beams. Physics in Medicine & Biology. 2009;54(16):4849

    2009

  38. [39]

    Pencil beam characteristics of the next- generation proton scanning gantry of PSI: design issues and initial commissioning results

    Pedroni E, Meer D, Bula C, Safai S, Zenklusen S. Pencil beam characteristics of the next- generation proton scanning gantry of PSI: design issues and initial commissioning results. The European Physical Journal Plus. 2011;126(7):66

    2011

  39. [40]

    Lin (2020)

    Cai Xu, Jian-Yue Jin, Ming Zhang, Amy Liu, Jun Wang, Radhe Mohan, Fengming (Spring) Kong, & Steven H. Lin (2020). The impact of the effective dose to immune cells on lymphopenia and survival of esophageal cancer after chemoradiotherapy. Radiotherapy and Oncology, 146, 180-186

    2020

  40. [41]

    A stochastic model of blood flow to calculate blood dose during radiotherapy

    Beekman C, Withrow JD, Correa Alfonso CM, Pathak SP, Dawson RJ, Carrasco-Rojas N, Sforza AR, Colon CG, Bolch WE, Grassberger C, Paganetti H. A stochastic model of blood flow to calculate blood dose during radiotherapy. Phys Med Biol. 2023 Nov 8;68(22):10.1088/1361- 6560/ad02d6. doi: 10.1088/1361-6560/ad02d6. PMID: 37827171; PMCID: PMC10695181

    doi:10.1088/1361- 2023

  41. [42]

    Kim N, Shin J, Ahn SH, Pyo H, Noh JM, Yang K, et al. Reduced radiation exposure to circulating blood cells in proton therapy compared with X-ray therapy in locally advanced lung cancer: Computational simulation based on circulating blood cells. Front Oncol 2023:13

    2023

  42. [43]

    McCullum L, Shin J, Xing S, Beekman C, Schuemann J, Hong T, et al. Predicting severity of radiation induced lymphopenia in individual proton therapy patients for varying dose rate and fractionation using dynamic 4-dimensional blood flow simulations. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2023. 21

    2023

  43. [44]

    A dynamic blood flow model to compute absorbed dose to circulating blood and lymphocytes in liver external beam radiotherapy

    Xing S, Shin J, Pursley J, Correa-Alfonso CM, Depauw N, Domal S, et al. A dynamic blood flow model to compute absorbed dose to circulating blood and lymphocytes in liver external beam radiotherapy. Phys Med Biol 2022;67:045010

    2022

  44. [45]

    Radiosensitivity of CD4 or CD8 positive human T- lymphocytes by an in vitro colony formation assay

    Nakamura N, Kusunoki Y , Akiyama M. Radiosensitivity of CD4 or CD8 positive human T- lymphocytes by an in vitro colony formation assay. Radiat Res 1990;123: 224–7

    1990

  45. [46]

    A report of age- and gender-related differences in the anatomical and physiological characteristics of reference individuals

    Basic anatomical and physiological data for use in radiological protection: reference values. A report of age- and gender-related differences in the anatomical and physiological characteristics of reference individuals. ICRP Publication 89. Ann ICRP. 2002;32(3-4):5-265. PMID: 14506981

    2002

  46. [47]

    The pulmonary circulation

    Fishman AP. The pulmonary circulation. JAMA 239: 1299–1301, 1978

    1978

  47. [48]

    Assessment of normal flow patterns in the pulmonary circulation by using 4D magnetic resonance velocity mapping

    Bächler P, Pinochet N, Sotelo J, Crelier G, Irarrazaval P, Tejos C, Uribe SC. Assessment of normal flow patterns in the pulmonary circulation by using 4D magnetic resonance velocity mapping. Magn Reson Imaging 31: 178–188

  48. [49]

    HEDOS-a computational tool to assess radiation dose to circulating blood cells during external beam radiotherapy based on whole-body blood flow simulations

    Shin J, Xing S, McCullum L, Hammi A, Pursley J, Correa CA, Withrow J, Domal S, Bolch W, Paganetti H, Grassberger C. HEDOS-a computational tool to assess radiation dose to circulating blood cells during external beam radiotherapy based on whole-body blood flow simulations. Phys Med Biol. 2021 Aug 3;66(16):10.1088/1361-6560/ac16ea. doi: 10.1088/1361- 6560/a...

    doi:10.1088/1361-6560/ac16ea 2021

  49. [50]

    Sensitivity of CD3/CD28- stimulated versus non-stimulated lymphocytes to ionizing radiation and genotoxic anticancer drugs: key role of ATM in the differential radiation response

    Heylmann D, Badura J, Becker H, Fahrer J, Kaina B. Sensitivity of CD3/CD28- stimulated versus non-stimulated lymphocytes to ionizing radiation and genotoxic anticancer drugs: key role of ATM in the differential radiation response. Cell Death Dis 2018;9:1053. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41419-018-1095-7

    work page doi:10.1038/s41419-018-1095-7 2018

  50. [51]

    The recirculation of lymphocytes from blood to lymph in the rat

    GOWANS JL. The recirculation of lymphocytes from blood to lymph in the rat. J Physiol. 1959 Apr 23;146(1):54-69. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1959.sp006177. PMID: 13655215; PMCID: PMC1356889

    work page doi:10.1113/jphysiol.1959.sp006177 1959

  51. [52]

    J., Marston, W

    Young, A. J., Marston, W. L., Dessing, M., Dudler, L., & Hein, W. R. (1997). Distinct Recirculating and Non-Recirculating B-Lymphocyte Pools in the Peripheral Blood Are Defined by Coordinated Expression of CD21 and L-Selectin. Blood, 90(12), 4865–4875. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood.V90.12.4865

    work page doi:10.1182/blood.v90.12.4865 1997

  52. [53]

    Differential activation of NF-κB and nitric oxide in lymphocytes regulates in vitro and in vivo radiosensitivity

    Sharma D, Sandur SK, Rashmi R, Maurya DK, Suryavanshi S, Checker R, Krishnan S, Sainis KB. Differential activation of NF-κB and nitric oxide in lymphocytes regulates in vitro and in vivo radiosensitivity. Mutat Res. 2010 Dec 21;703(2):149-57. doi: 10.1016/j.mrgentox.2010.08.010. Epub 2010 Aug 21. PMID: 20732448; PMCID: PMC3071568

    work page doi:10.1016/j.mrgentox.2010.08.010 2010

  53. [54]

    The Association Between Chemoradiation-related Lymphopenia and Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Locally Advanced 22 Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma

    Wild AT, Ye X, Ellsworth SG, Smith JA, Narang AK, Garg T, Campian J, Laheru DA, Zheng L, Wolfgang CL, Tran PT, Grossman SA, Herman JM. The Association Between Chemoradiation-related Lymphopenia and Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Locally Advanced 22 Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma. Am J Clin Oncol. 2015 Jun;38(3):259-65. doi: 10.1097/COC.0b013e3182940ff9. PM...

    work page doi:10.1097/coc.0b013e3182940ff9 2015

  54. [55]

    Severe radiation-induced lymphopenia during concurrent chemoradiotherapy for stage III non-small cell lung cancer: external validation of two prediction models

    van Rossum PSN, Juan-Cruz C, Stam B, Rossi MMG, Lin SH, Abravan A, Belderbos JSA, Sonke JJ. Severe radiation-induced lymphopenia during concurrent chemoradiotherapy for stage III non-small cell lung cancer: external validation of two prediction models. Front Oncol. 2023 Nov 9;13:1278723. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1278723. PMID: 38023221; PMCID: PMC10665840

    arXiv 2023

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 1, 2026.