MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4413923292 · doi:10.1088/1361-6560/ae023c

FLASH-enabled proton SBRT for a challenging case of spine metastasis

2025· article· en· W4413923292 on OpenAlexaff
S. Wuyckens, Macarena Chocan Vera, Rasmus Nilsson, Viktor Wase, Dario Di Perri, Xavier Geets, John A. Lee, Edmond Sterpin

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics in Medicine and Biology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Particle Physics
FundersWaalse Gewest
KeywordsNuclear medicineMedicineFlash (photography)Dose fractionationRadiation therapyRadiosurgeryProton therapyMedical physicsRadiologyPhysicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objective. The FLASH effect, characterized by potential sparing of organs at risk (OARs) through ultra-high dose rate (DR) irradiation, has garnered significant attention for its capability to address indications previously untreatable at conventional DRs with hypofractionated schemes. While considerable biological research is needed to understand the FLASH effect and determine the FLASH modifying factors (FMF) for individual OARs, treatment planning studies have also emerged. This study evaluates the feasibility of achieving FLASH conditions in proton stereotactic body radiotherapy for spine metastases and establishes the required FMFs under different fractionation regimens. Approach. A conformal FLASH Proton SBRT plan was generated for a patient with spine metastasis in a research version of RayStation11B (RaySearch laboratories AB, Stockholm) on an IBA Proteus Plus system. Two oblique posterior beams were used in the plan. The prescribed dose to the CTV was set according to 3 different fractionation regimens: 5 fractions (fx) of 7 Gy, 8 fx of 5 Gy, and 10 fx of 4.2 Gy. Spot filtering and sorting techniques were applied to maximize the 5% pencil beam scanning DR in the spinal cord (SC). The FLASH effect was assumed to be observed within irradiated regions above 40 Gy s−1 and 4 Gy per fraction. Main results. The generated plans successfully ensure robust target coverage in each fraction. The volume of SC that does not comply with the clinical goal adheres to the FLASH effect conditions in each fraction. Depending on the aforementioned fractionation schemes used, a FMF of approximately 0.6 to 0.8 is necessary to enable such treatment in FLASH conditions. Significance. This study indicates that treating challenging spine metastases with protons using FLASH delivery is technically feasible. However, clinical viability depends on optimistic parameters to trigger the FLASH effect and FMF values below 0.8, which are not yet guaranteed given current research.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.109
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.324 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics in Medicine and Biology→Same topicAdvanced Radiotherapy Techniques→French-language works237,207→