Embodiments of the present invention are generally related to integrated circuit structures used in memory systems that can be used by computer systems, including embedded computer systems.
The use of radiation therapy to treat cancer is well known. Typically, radiation therapy involves directing a beam of high energy proton, photon, ion, or electron radiation (“therapeutic radiation”) into a target or target volume (e.g., a tumor or lesion).
Before a patient is treated with radiation, a treatment plan specific to that patient is developed. The plan defines various aspects of the therapy using simulations and optimizations based on past experiences. In general, the purpose of the treatment plan is to deliver sufficient radiation to the target while minimizing exposure of surrounding normal, healthy tissue to the radiation.
The planner's goal is to find a solution that is optimal with respect to multiple clinical goals that may be contradictory in the sense that an improvement toward one goal may have a detrimental effect on reaching another goal. For example, a treatment plan that spares the liver from receiving a dose of radiation may result in the stomach receiving too much radiation. These types of tradeoffs lead to an iterative process in which the planner creates different plans to find the one plan that is best suited to achieving the desired outcome.
A recent radiobiology study has demonstrated the effectiveness of delivering an entire, relatively high therapeutic radiation dose to a target within a single, short period of time, in one fraction or possible a handful of fractions. This type of treatment is referred to generally herein as FLASH radiation therapy (FLASH RT). Evidence to date suggests that FLASH RT advantageously spares normal, healthy tissue from damage when that tissue is exposed to only a single irradiation for only a very short period of time. FLASH RT thus introduces important constraints that are not considered in or achieved with conventional radiation treatment planning.
Ultra-high dose rate radiotherapy or FLASH therapy delivers high doses of radiation at very high-speed achieving dose rates of 40 Gy/s and above. Pre-clinical studies have shown that delivering radiotherapy at such ultra-high dose rates allows comparable tumor control while sparing the healthy tissue thereby reducing toxicities. The mechanism of action behind this so-called FLASH effect is still under investigation but it is becoming increasingly clear that the time a tissue is irradiated, the dose applied and therefore the dose rate are critical parameters that play a role in the FLASH effect.
Current treatment planning systems (TPS) are restricted to prescribing dose and displaying dose as a distribution overlaid on a patient's CT scan. Since dose rate and such FLASH relevant parameters are now of importance, being able to prescribe dose rate of a certain threshold to a certain specific tissue structure (healthy tissue, organs at risk, margin, and clinical tumor volume) will be crucial for treating humans with Flash. Furthermore, this input of prescription will provide clinicians and researchers valuable information that can further be correlated with biological parameters and patient outcome.
Embodiments of the present invention implement a computing system comprising a central processing unit (CPU), and memory coupled to the CPU and having stored therein instructions that, when executed by the computing system, cause the computing system to execute operations to generate a radiation treatment plan. The operations include accessing a minimum prescribed dose to be delivered into and across the target, determining a number of beams and directions of the beams, wherein the directions are determined such that the beams do not overlap outside the target, and determining a beam energy for each of the beams, wherein the number of beams, the directions of the beams, and the beam energy for each of the beams are determined such that the entire target receives the minimum prescribed dose. The operations further include prescribing a dose rate, dose rate definition, and optimizing dose rate constraints for a FLASH therapy, while displaying a dose rate map of the FLASH therapy.
In one embodiment, a physician is provided access to a drop down menu that will allow a selection of a desired dose rate definition. In one embodiment, the desired dose rate definition includes an average field dose rate, a local dose rate, a spot dose rate, an instantaneous dose rate, or a dose rate threshold.
In one embodiment, the physician can select the dose rate value after the dose rate definition is selected. In one embodiment, the physician can apply a dose rate prescription to a plurality of fields, structures, sub-structures, or groupings of voxels.
In one embodiment, the dose rate prescription is passed through a quality assurance step, where the dose rate prescription is verified before patient treatment. In one embodiment, a record and verify system records a dose and a dose rate during the time of delivery.
In one embodiment, the present invention is implemented as a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer-executable instructions for causing a computing system to perform a method of generating a radiation treatment plan. The method includes accessing values of parameters from memory of the computing system, wherein the parameters comprise directions of beams to be directed into sub-volumes in a target and beam energies for the beams, accessing information that specifies limits for the radiation treatment plan, wherein the limits comprise a maximum limit on irradiation time for each sub-volume outside the target, and adjusting the values of the parameters until the irradiation time for said each sub-volume outside the target satisfies the maximum limit on irradiation time. The method further includes prescribing a dose rate and optimizing dose rate constraints for a FLASH therapy, and displaying a dose rate map of the FLASH therapy.
The foregoing is a summary and thus contains, by necessity, simplifications, generalizations and omissions of detail; consequently, those skilled in the art will appreciate that the summary is illustrative only and is not intended to be in any way limiting. Other aspects, inventive features, and advantages of the present invention, as defined solely by the claims, will become apparent in the non-limiting detailed description set forth below.
The present invention is illustrated by way of example, and not by way of limitation, in the figures of the accompanying drawings and in which like reference numerals refer to similar elements.
Reference will now be made in detail to the various embodiments of the present disclosure, examples of which are illustrated in the accompanying drawings. While described in conjunction with these embodiments, it will be understood that they are not intended to limit the disclosure to these embodiments. On the contrary, the disclosure is intended to cover alternatives, modifications and equivalents, which may be included within the spirit and scope of the disclosure as defined by the appended claims. Furthermore, in the following detailed description of the present disclosure, numerous specific details are set forth in order to provide a thorough understanding of the present disclosure. However, it will be understood that the present disclosure may be practiced without these specific details. In other instances, well-known methods, procedures, components, and circuits have not been described in detail so as not to unnecessarily obscure aspects of the present disclosure.
Some portions of the detailed descriptions that follow are presented in terms of procedures, logic blocks, processing, and other symbolic representations of operations on data bits within a computer memory. These descriptions and representations are the means used by those skilled in the data processing arts to most effectively convey the substance of their work to others skilled in the art. In the present application, a procedure, logic block, process, or the like, is conceived to be a self-consistent sequence of steps or instructions leading to a desired result. The steps are those utilizing physical manipulations of physical quantities. Usually, although not necessarily, these quantities take the form of electrical or magnetic signals capable of being stored, transferred, combined, compared, and otherwise manipulated in a computing system. It has proven convenient at times, principally for reasons of common usage, to refer to these signals as transactions, bits, values, elements, symbols, characters, samples, pixels, or the like.
It should be borne in mind, however, that all of these and similar terms are to be associated with the appropriate physical quantities and are merely convenient labels applied to these quantities. Unless specifically stated otherwise as apparent from the following discussions, it is appreciated that throughout the present disclosure, discussions utilizing terms such as “determining,” “accessing,” “directing,” “controlling,” “defining,” “arranging,” “generating,” “representing,” “applying,” “adding,” “multiplying,” “adjusting,” “calculating,” “predicting,” “weighting,” “assigning,” “using,” “identifying,” “reducing,” “downloading,” “reading,” “computing,” “storing,” or the like, refer to actions and processes of a computing system or similar electronic computing device or processor (e.g., the computing system 100 of
Portions of the detailed description that follows are presented and discussed in terms of a method. Although steps and sequencing thereof are disclosed in figures herein describing the operations of this method, such steps and sequencing are exemplary. Embodiments are well suited to performing various other steps or variations of the steps recited in the flowchart of the figure herein, and in a sequence other than that depicted and described herein.
Embodiments described herein may be discussed in the general context of computer-executable instructions residing on some form of computer-readable storage medium, such as program modules, executed by one or more computers or other devices. By way of example, and not limitation, computer-readable storage media may comprise non-transitory computer storage media and communication media. Generally, program modules include routines, programs, objects, components, data structures, etc., that perform particular tasks or implement particular abstract data types. The functionality of the program modules may be combined or distributed as desired in various embodiments.
Computer storage media includes volatile and nonvolatile, removable and non-removable media implemented in any method or technology for storage of information such as computer-readable instructions, data structures, program modules or other data. Computer storage media includes, but is not limited to, random access memory (RAM), read only memory (ROM), electrically erasable programmable ROM (EEPROM), flash memory or other memory technology, compact disk ROM (CD-ROM), digital versatile disks (DVDs) or other optical storage, magnetic cassettes, magnetic tape, magnetic disk storage or other magnetic storage devices, or any other medium that can be used to store the desired information and that can accessed to retrieve that information.
Communication media can embody computer-executable instructions, data structures, and program modules, and includes any information delivery media. By way of example, and not limitation, communication media includes wired media such as a wired network or direct-wired connection, and wireless media such as acoustic, radio frequency (RF), infrared and other wireless media. Combinations of any of the above can also be included within the scope of computer-readable media.
The system 100 also includes input device(s) 124 such as keyboard, mouse, pen, voice input device, touch input device, etc. Output device(s) 126 such as a display device, speakers, printer, etc., are also included.
In the example of
In the example of
The treatment planning tool set 310 searches through the knowledge base 302 (through the patient records 304) for prior patient records that are similar to the current patient record 312. The statistical models 308 can be used to compare the predicted results for the current patient record 312 to a statistical patient. Using the current patient record 312, a selected treatment type 306, and selected statistical models 308, the tool set 310 generates a radiation treatment plan 322.
More specifically, based on past clinical experience, when a patient presents with a particular diagnosis, stage, age, weight, sex, co-morbidities, etc., there can be a treatment type that is used most often. By selecting the treatment type that the planner has used in the past for similar patients, a first-step treatment type 314 can be chosen. The medical image processing module 316 provides automatic contouring and automatic segmentation of two-dimensional cross-sectional slides (e.g., from computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging) to form a three-dimensional (3D) image using the medical images in the current patient record 312. Dose distribution maps are calculated by the dose distribution module 320, which may utilize the optimizer model 150.
In embodiments according to the present invention, the optimizer model 150 uses a dose prediction model to help shape the dose distribution. The optimizer model 150 can provide, for example, a 3D dose distribution, fluences, and associated dose-volume histograms for the current patient.
The beam system 404 generates and transports a beam 401 to the nozzle 406. The beam 401 can be a proton beam, electron beam, photon beam, ion beam, or atom nuclei beam (e.g., carbon, helium, and lithium). In embodiments, depending on the type of beam, the beam system 404 includes components that direct (e.g., bend, steer, or guide) the beam system in a direction toward and into the nozzle 406. In embodiments, the radiation therapy system may include one or more multileaf collimators (MLCs); each MLC leaf can be independently moved back-and-forth by the control system 410 to dynamically shape an aperture through which the beam can pass, to block or not block portions of the beam and thereby control beam shape and exposure time. The beam system 404 may also include components that are used to adjust (e.g., reduce) the beam energy entering the nozzle 406.
The nozzle 406 is used to aim the beam toward various locations (a target) within an object (e.g., a patient) supported on the patient support device 408 (e.g., a chair or table) in a treatment room. A target may be an organ, a portion of an organ (e.g., a volume or region within the organ), a tumor, diseased tissue, or a patient outline.
The nozzle 406 may be mounted on or a part of a gantry (
The control system 410 of
As noted above, the beam entering the nozzle 406 has a specified energy. Thus, in embodiments according to the present disclosure, the nozzle 406 includes one or more components that affect (e.g., decrease, modulate) the energy of the beam. The term “beam energy adjuster” is used herein as a general term for a component or components that affect the energy of the beam, in order to control the range of the beam (e.g., the extent that the beam penetrates into a target), to control the dose delivered by the beam, and/or to control the depth dose curve of the beam, depending on the type of beam. For example, for a proton beam or an ion beam that has a Bragg peak, the beam energy adjuster can control the location of the Bragg peak in the target. In various embodiments, the beam energy adjuster 407 includes a range modulator, a range shifter, or both a range modulator and a range shifter. That is, when the term “beam energy adjuster” is used, then the element being discussed may be a range modulator, a range shifter, or both a range modulator and a range shifter.
In intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) such as intensity modulated particle therapy (IMPT), beam intensity is varied across each treatment region (target) in a patient. Depending on the treatment modality, the degrees of freedom available for intensity modulation include beam shaping (collimation), beam weighting (spot scanning), and angle of incidence (which may be referred to as beam geometry). These degrees of freedom lead to an effectively infinite number of potential treatment plans, and therefore consistently and efficiently generating and evaluating high-quality treatment plans is beyond the capability of a human and relies on the use of a computing system, particularly considering the time constraints associated with the use of radiation therapy to treat ailments like cancer, as well as the large number of patients that are undergoing or need to undergo radiation therapy during any given time period.
In block 502 of
In block 504, directions (e.g., gantry angles relative to the patient or target, or nozzle directions relative to the patient or target) for delivering beams into the target are determined. The beams can be proton beams, electron beams, photon beams, ion beams, or atom nuclei beams. The operation of determining beam directions can include determining the number of beams (the number of directions from which beams are to be delivered). The beams' paths may or may not overlap within the target, and may or may not overlap outside the target. In general, when generating the radiation treatment plan, one goal is to determine beam paths that minimize the irradiation time of each sub-volume or voxel of the tissue outside the target. Ideally, each sub-volume or voxel outside the target is intersected, at most, by only a single beam. If some overlap between beam paths is permitted, then ideally each sub-volume or voxel outside the target is intersected by not more than two beams, with most intersected by only a single beam. In embodiments, as one means of achieving the aforementioned goal, the beam directions are determined such that the total amount of overlap between the beams' paths is minimized outside the target. In one such embodiment, the directions are determined such that the paths of the beams overlap within the target and such that the total amount of overlap of the beams' paths outside the target is less than the total amount of the overlap of the beams' paths within the target. In another such embodiment, the directions are determined so that the paths of the beams do not overlap at all outside the target. The beams' paths can lie within the same plane, or they can be in different planes. Additional information is provided in conjunction with
Any number of other factors may be considered when determining the beam directions. These factors may include the shape and size (e.g., height H and width W, or diameter) of the beam in the beam's eye view (see
In block 506 of
While the operations in blocks 502, 504, and 506 of
The discussion to follow refers to beams, targets, doses, and other elements or values. The discussion below is in the context of modeled elements and calculated values in the treatment planning tool set 310 and the optimizer model 150 (
In the example of
Although multiple beams are shown in
For implementations in which the beams have a Bragg peak, such as a proton beam or an ion beam, the dose delivered by a beam (or beam segment) is not necessarily uniform along the entire length of the beam path through the target 604. Thus, for example, for a proton or ion beam, the dose delivered by the beam 605 at the proximal portion (or edge) 608 of the target 604 may be different from (e.g., less than) the dose delivered by that beam at the distal portion (or edge) 610 of the target (here, proximal and distal are with reference to the source of the beam 605). The same can be said for each proton or ion beam.
The dose delivered to each portion of the target 604 is cumulative, based on the number of beams that are delivered to and through that portion. For example, the portions of the target 604 covered by the beams 605 and 606 receive a total dose that is the sum of the dose delivered by the beam 605 and the dose delivered by the beam 606. In embodiments, the energies of the beams (beam segments) are accurately determined so that, even though the dose along each beam (or beam segment) is not uniform, a uniform cumulative dose distribution is achieved within and across the target 604.
In the example of
As mentioned above, for implementations that use proton beams or ion beams, the dose delivered by each beam at the respective proximal portion (or edge) of the target 604 may be different from (e.g., less than) the dose delivered by that beam at the respective distal portion (or edge) of the target (as before, proximal and distal are with reference to the source of the beam).
The dose delivered to each portion of the target 604 is cumulative, based on the number of beams that are delivered to and through that portion. Not all beams are depicted in the figures for simplicity; in general, the number of beams is sufficient to achieve a uniform cumulative dose distribution within the target 604.
In general, the surface of a target can be viewed as having a number of discrete facets. From this perspective, for beams other than photon beams, each incident beam is orthogonal to each facet such that the beams do not overlap outside the target. In the case of photon beams, each incident beam is parallel to the facet and does not overlap other beams outside the target.
In the
Each beam segment can deliver a relatively high dose in a relatively short period of time. For example, each beam segment can deliver at least 4 Gy in less than one second, and may deliver as much as 20 Gy or 50 Gy or more in less than one second. The energy or intensity of each beam segment can be controlled using the beam energy adjuster 407 of
In operation, in embodiments, the beam segments are delivered sequentially. For example, the beam segment 704 is delivered to the target (turned on) and then turned off, then the beam segment 706 is turned on then off, then the beam segment 708 is turned on then off, and so on. Each beam segment may be turned on for only a fraction of a second (on the order of milliseconds).
A FLASH prescription capability in a TPS and OIS (e.g., oncology information system) so that a physician can for example prescribe a certain dose rate based of a selected dose-rate definition (e.g., for example voxel-specific, contour-specific, global beam dose rate, etc.) dose rate threshold or irradiation time for a specific tissue structure. As research in this area progresses, the ability to determine which parameters have the most impact on patient outcome and refine FLASH prescriptions adjusting and optimizing with dose rate parameters becomes important. In addition, dose rate or irradiation times per voxel in 3D or 4D will be displayed similarly to how dose is displayed in the TPS today.
In the prior art, there are currently no dose rate, irradiation time or such parameters included in prescribing a treatment within a TPS or OIS. Making such information available to prescribe dose rate, optimize on dose rate constraints and displaying the dose rate map will allow the clinician to prescribe FLASH therapy in a reliable way while gathering information on the impact of those parameters on patient outcome.
For example, a clinician can decide to prescribe FLASH therapy to a lung cancer patient and determine depending on how dose rate is defined, that they need 90% of the normal lung to be irradiated at FLASH dose rate above 40 Gy/s. As more is learned from pre-clinical studies, perhaps it may be determined brain structures require higher dose rates in order to achieve the FLASH effect, so perhaps for a brain case, the clinician will want to prescribe that normal brain should receive a minimum dose rate of 100 Gy/s. They will also be able to visualize on the dose rate map if the prescription is achieved and make decisions on the course of treatment.
The method 750 begins with step 752, where the physician selects relevant parameters. The physician will have access to a drop down menu that will allow him or her to select the desired dose rate definition. Parameters include, for example, average field dose rate, local dose rate, spot dose rate, instantaneous dose rate, computed with active time or total time, or any other specific definition of biologically relevant dose rate, or time-depended flux pattern, as that information becomes available through pre-clinical research.
In step 754, the physician selects a desired dose rate definition. Once the dose rate definition is selected, the physician can select the dose rate value (40 gy/sec to 120 gy/sec) and above.
In step 756, the physician selects a desired dose rate value. The physician can also select treatment modalility (e.g., Bragg-Peak, Transmission, or a hybrid approach).
In step 758, the physician selects a treatment modality. The physician can apply the dose rate prescription to any field, structure, sub-structure, or groupings of voxels.
In step 760, the physician specifies plan statistical parameters. The physician can specify plan statistical parameters such as, for example, 90% of the voxels in healthy lung shall receive dose rate of x and above and no less than 70% of dose delivered at or above 40 Gy/s.
In step 762, a flash prescription is translated into a deliverable plan. In treatment planning the clinician will be able to translate the flash prescription into a deliverable plan. This means optimizing for dose to target simultaneously with optimizing for the dose rate prescription.
In step 764, quality assurance is performed on the dose rate prescription. The dose rate prescription gets passed through to a QA step, where now dose delivered and dose rate delivered is verified before patient treatment.
In step 766, the final step is the OIS acts as the record and verify system during the time of delivery. Recording and verifying both dose and dose-rate delivered for each fraction of the patients treatment. It should be noted that in one embodiment, offline adaptations may occur as well, with dose accumulation and dose-rate tracking. Should the dose or dose-rate deviate from physicians intent, the plan will be sent for re-planning.
The foregoing descriptions of specific embodiments of the present invention have been presented for purposes of illustration and description. They are not intended to be exhaustive or to limit the invention to the precise forms disclosed, and many modifications and variations are possible in light of the above teaching. The embodiments were chosen and described in order to best explain the principles of the invention and its practical application, to thereby enable others skilled in the art to best utilize the invention and various embodiments with various modifications as are suited to the particular use contemplated. It is intended that the scope of the invention be defined by the claims appended hereto and their equivalents.
This is a continuation application of co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 17/147,353 entitled “Flash Therapy Treatment Planning and Oncology Information System having Dose Rate Prescription and Dose Rate Mapping,” by Christel Smith et al., filed Jan. 12, 2021, which is a continuation application of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 16/436,762 entitled “Flash Therapy Treatment Planning and Oncology Information System having Dose Rate Prescription and Dose Rate Mapping,” by Christel Smith et al., filed Jun. 10, 2019, which are hereby incorporated by reference.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
4163901 | Azam | Aug 1979 | A |
4914681 | Klingenbeck et al. | Apr 1990 | A |
5153900 | Nomikos et al. | Oct 1992 | A |
5267294 | Kuroda et al. | Nov 1993 | A |
5550378 | Skillicorn et al. | Aug 1996 | A |
5610967 | Moorman et al. | Mar 1997 | A |
5625663 | Swerdloff et al. | Apr 1997 | A |
5682412 | Skillicorn et al. | Oct 1997 | A |
5757885 | Yao et al. | May 1998 | A |
6198802 | Elliott et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6222544 | Tarr et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6234671 | Solomon et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6260005 | Yang et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6379380 | Satz | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6411675 | Llacer | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6445766 | Whitham | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6504899 | Pugachev et al. | Jan 2003 | B2 |
6580940 | Gutman | Jun 2003 | B2 |
6993112 | Hesse | Jan 2006 | B2 |
7268358 | Ma et al. | Sep 2007 | B2 |
7453983 | Schildkraut et al. | Nov 2008 | B2 |
7515681 | Ebstein | Apr 2009 | B2 |
7522706 | Lu et al. | Apr 2009 | B2 |
7560715 | Pedroni | Jul 2009 | B2 |
7590219 | Maurer, Jr. et al. | Sep 2009 | B2 |
7616735 | Maciunas et al. | Nov 2009 | B2 |
7623623 | Raanes et al. | Nov 2009 | B2 |
7778691 | Zhang et al. | Aug 2010 | B2 |
7807982 | Nishiuchi et al. | Oct 2010 | B2 |
7831289 | Riker et al. | Nov 2010 | B2 |
7835492 | Sahadevan | Nov 2010 | B1 |
7907699 | Long et al. | Mar 2011 | B2 |
8284898 | Ho et al. | Oct 2012 | B2 |
8306184 | Chang et al. | Nov 2012 | B2 |
8401148 | Lu et al. | Mar 2013 | B2 |
8406844 | Ruchala et al. | Mar 2013 | B2 |
8559596 | Thomson et al. | Oct 2013 | B2 |
8600003 | Zhou et al. | Dec 2013 | B2 |
8613694 | Walsh | Dec 2013 | B2 |
8636636 | Shukla et al. | Jan 2014 | B2 |
8644571 | Schulte et al. | Feb 2014 | B1 |
8716663 | Brusasco et al. | May 2014 | B2 |
8836332 | Shvartsman et al. | Sep 2014 | B2 |
8847179 | Fujitaka et al. | Sep 2014 | B2 |
8903471 | Heid | Dec 2014 | B2 |
8917813 | Maurer, Jr. | Dec 2014 | B2 |
8948341 | Beckman | Feb 2015 | B2 |
8958864 | Amies et al. | Feb 2015 | B2 |
8983573 | Carlone et al. | Mar 2015 | B2 |
8986186 | Zhang et al. | Mar 2015 | B2 |
8992404 | Graf et al. | Mar 2015 | B2 |
8995608 | Zhou et al. | Mar 2015 | B2 |
9018603 | Loo et al. | Apr 2015 | B2 |
9033859 | Fieres et al. | May 2015 | B2 |
9079027 | Agano et al. | Jul 2015 | B2 |
9149656 | Tanabe | Oct 2015 | B2 |
9155908 | Meltsner et al. | Oct 2015 | B2 |
9233260 | Slatkin et al. | Jan 2016 | B2 |
9258876 | Cheung et al. | Feb 2016 | B2 |
9283406 | Prieels | Mar 2016 | B2 |
9308391 | Liu et al. | Apr 2016 | B2 |
9330879 | Lewellen et al. | May 2016 | B2 |
9333374 | Iwata | May 2016 | B2 |
9468777 | Fallone et al. | Oct 2016 | B2 |
9517358 | Velthuis et al. | Dec 2016 | B2 |
9526918 | Kruip | Dec 2016 | B2 |
9545444 | Strober et al. | Jan 2017 | B2 |
9583302 | Figueroa Saavedra et al. | Feb 2017 | B2 |
9636381 | Basile | May 2017 | B2 |
9636525 | Sahadevan | May 2017 | B1 |
9649298 | Djonov et al. | May 2017 | B2 |
9656098 | Goer | May 2017 | B2 |
9694204 | Hårdemark | Jul 2017 | B2 |
9776017 | Flynn et al. | Oct 2017 | B2 |
9786054 | Taguchi et al. | Oct 2017 | B2 |
9786093 | Svensson | Oct 2017 | B2 |
9786465 | Li et al. | Oct 2017 | B2 |
9795806 | Matsuzaki et al. | Oct 2017 | B2 |
9801594 | Boyd et al. | Oct 2017 | B2 |
9844358 | Wiggers et al. | Dec 2017 | B2 |
9854662 | Mishin | Dec 2017 | B2 |
9884206 | Schulte et al. | Feb 2018 | B2 |
9931522 | Bharadwaj et al. | Apr 2018 | B2 |
9962562 | Fahrig et al. | May 2018 | B2 |
9974977 | Lachaine et al. | May 2018 | B2 |
9987502 | Gattiker et al. | Jun 2018 | B1 |
10007961 | Grudzinski et al. | Jun 2018 | B2 |
10022564 | Thieme et al. | Jul 2018 | B2 |
10071264 | Liger | Sep 2018 | B2 |
10080912 | Kwak et al. | Sep 2018 | B2 |
10092774 | Vanderstraten et al. | Oct 2018 | B1 |
10183179 | Smith et al. | Jan 2019 | B1 |
10188875 | Kwak et al. | Jan 2019 | B2 |
10206871 | Lin et al. | Feb 2019 | B2 |
10212800 | Agustsson et al. | Feb 2019 | B2 |
10232193 | Iseki | Mar 2019 | B2 |
10258810 | Zwart et al. | Apr 2019 | B2 |
10272264 | Ollila et al. | Apr 2019 | B2 |
10279196 | West | May 2019 | B2 |
10293184 | Pishdad et al. | May 2019 | B2 |
10307614 | Schnarr | Jun 2019 | B2 |
10307615 | Ollila et al. | Jun 2019 | B2 |
10315047 | Glimelius et al. | Jun 2019 | B2 |
10413755 | Sahadevan | Sep 2019 | B1 |
10449389 | Ollila et al. | Oct 2019 | B2 |
10485988 | Kuusela et al. | Nov 2019 | B2 |
10525285 | Friedman | Jan 2020 | B1 |
10549117 | Vanderstraten et al. | Feb 2020 | B2 |
10603514 | Grittani et al. | Mar 2020 | B2 |
10609806 | Roecken et al. | Mar 2020 | B2 |
10636609 | Bertsche et al. | Apr 2020 | B1 |
10660588 | Boyd et al. | May 2020 | B2 |
10661100 | Shen | May 2020 | B2 |
10682528 | Ansorge et al. | Jun 2020 | B2 |
10702716 | Heese | Jul 2020 | B2 |
10758746 | Kwak et al. | Sep 2020 | B2 |
10870018 | Bartkoski et al. | Dec 2020 | B2 |
10918886 | Smith et al. | Feb 2021 | B2 |
11554271 | Smith et al. | Jan 2023 | B2 |
20070287878 | Fantini et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20080023644 | Pedroni | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20090063110 | Failla et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090287467 | Sparks et al. | Nov 2009 | A1 |
20100119032 | Yan et al. | May 2010 | A1 |
20100177870 | Nord et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100178245 | Arnsdorf et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100260317 | Chang et al. | Oct 2010 | A1 |
20110006224 | Maltz et al. | Jan 2011 | A1 |
20110091015 | Yu et al. | Apr 2011 | A1 |
20110135058 | Sgouros et al. | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20120006271 | Van Dine et al. | Jan 2012 | A1 |
20120076271 | Yan et al. | Mar 2012 | A1 |
20120157746 | Meltsner et al. | Jun 2012 | A1 |
20120171745 | Itoh | Jul 2012 | A1 |
20120197058 | Shukla et al. | Aug 2012 | A1 |
20130116929 | Carlton et al. | May 2013 | A1 |
20130150922 | Butson et al. | Jun 2013 | A1 |
20130177641 | Ghoroghchian | Jul 2013 | A1 |
20130231516 | Loo et al. | Sep 2013 | A1 |
20140020692 | Kawata et al. | Jan 2014 | A1 |
20140177807 | Lewellen et al. | Jun 2014 | A1 |
20140185776 | Li et al. | Jul 2014 | A1 |
20140206926 | van der Laarse | Jul 2014 | A1 |
20140275706 | Dean et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20140369476 | Harding | Dec 2014 | A1 |
20150011817 | Feng | Jan 2015 | A1 |
20150202464 | Brand et al. | Jul 2015 | A1 |
20150306423 | Bharat et al. | Oct 2015 | A1 |
20160279444 | Schlosser | Sep 2016 | A1 |
20160310764 | Bharadwaj et al. | Oct 2016 | A1 |
20160331997 | Vilsmeier | Nov 2016 | A1 |
20170021194 | Nelms | Jan 2017 | A1 |
20170080253 | Clayton | Mar 2017 | A1 |
20170173366 | Froehlich et al. | Jun 2017 | A1 |
20170189721 | Sumanaweera et al. | Jul 2017 | A1 |
20170203129 | Dessy | Jul 2017 | A1 |
20170281973 | Allen et al. | Oct 2017 | A1 |
20180021594 | Papp et al. | Jan 2018 | A1 |
20180043183 | Sheng et al. | Feb 2018 | A1 |
20180056090 | Jordan et al. | Mar 2018 | A1 |
20180099154 | Prieels | Apr 2018 | A1 |
20180099155 | Prieels et al. | Apr 2018 | A1 |
20180099159 | Forton et al. | Apr 2018 | A1 |
20180154183 | Sahadevan | Jun 2018 | A1 |
20180197303 | Jordan et al. | Jul 2018 | A1 |
20180207425 | Carlton et al. | Jul 2018 | A1 |
20180236268 | Zwart et al. | Aug 2018 | A1 |
20180369611 | Owens et al. | Dec 2018 | A1 |
20190022407 | Abel et al. | Jan 2019 | A1 |
20190022422 | Trail et al. | Jan 2019 | A1 |
20190054315 | Isola et al. | Feb 2019 | A1 |
20190070435 | Joe Anto et al. | Mar 2019 | A1 |
20190168027 | Smith et al. | Jun 2019 | A1 |
20190255361 | Mansfield | Aug 2019 | A1 |
20190299027 | Fujii et al. | Oct 2019 | A1 |
20190299029 | Inoue | Oct 2019 | A1 |
20190336793 | Zhou et al. | Nov 2019 | A1 |
20190351259 | Lee et al. | Nov 2019 | A1 |
20200001118 | Snider, III et al. | Jan 2020 | A1 |
20200022248 | Yi et al. | Jan 2020 | A1 |
20200030633 | Van Heteren et al. | Jan 2020 | A1 |
20200035438 | Star-Lack et al. | Jan 2020 | A1 |
20200069818 | Jaskula-Ranga et al. | Mar 2020 | A1 |
20200164224 | Vanderstraten et al. | May 2020 | A1 |
20200178890 | Otto | Jun 2020 | A1 |
20200197730 | Safavi-Naeini et al. | Jun 2020 | A1 |
20200254279 | Ohishi | Aug 2020 | A1 |
20200269068 | Abel et al. | Aug 2020 | A1 |
20200276456 | Swerdloff | Sep 2020 | A1 |
20200282234 | Folkerts et al. | Sep 2020 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
104001270 | Aug 2014 | CN |
104001270 | Aug 2014 | CN |
106730407 | May 2017 | CN |
106730407 | May 2017 | CN |
107362464 | Nov 2017 | CN |
107362464 | Nov 2017 | CN |
109966662 | Jul 2019 | CN |
109966662 | Jul 2019 | CN |
111481840 | Aug 2020 | CN |
111481840 | Aug 2020 | CN |
111481841 | Aug 2020 | CN |
111481841 | Aug 2020 | CN |
010207 | Jun 2008 | EA |
0979656 | Feb 2000 | EP |
0979656 | Feb 2000 | EP |
3338858 | Jun 2018 | EP |
3338858 | Jun 2018 | EP |
3384961 | Oct 2018 | EP |
3384961 | Oct 2018 | EP |
3421087 | Jan 2019 | EP |
3421087 | Jan 2019 | EP |
3453427 | Mar 2019 | EP |
3586920 | Jan 2020 | EP |
3586920 | Jan 2020 | EP |
2617283 | Jun 1997 | JP |
2617283 | Jun 1997 | JP |
2019097969 | Jun 2019 | JP |
2019097969 | Jun 2019 | JP |
2007017177 | Feb 2007 | WO |
WO-2007017177 | Feb 2007 | WO |
2010018476 | Feb 2010 | WO |
WO-2010018476 | Feb 2010 | WO |
2013081218 | Jun 2013 | WO |
WO-2013081218 | Jun 2013 | WO |
2013133936 | Sep 2013 | WO |
2014139493 | Sep 2014 | WO |
WO-2014139493 | Sep 2014 | WO |
2015038832 | Mar 2015 | WO |
WO-2015038832 | Mar 2015 | WO |
2015102680 | Jul 2015 | WO |
WO-2015102680 | Jul 2015 | WO |
2016122957 | Aug 2016 | WO |
WO-2016122957 | Aug 2016 | WO |
2017156316 | Sep 2017 | WO |
WO-2017156316 | Sep 2017 | WO |
2017174643 | Oct 2017 | WO |
WO-2017174643 | Oct 2017 | WO |
2018137772 | Aug 2018 | WO |
2018152302 | Aug 2018 | WO |
WO-2018137772 | Aug 2018 | WO |
WO-2018152302 | Aug 2018 | WO |
2019097250 | May 2019 | WO |
2019103983 | May 2019 | WO |
WO-2019097250 | May 2019 | WO |
WO-2019103983 | May 2019 | WO |
2019164835 | Aug 2019 | WO |
WO-2019164835 | Aug 2019 | WO |
2019166702 | Sep 2019 | WO |
WO-2019166702 | Sep 2019 | WO |
2019185378 | Oct 2019 | WO |
WO-2019185378 | Oct 2019 | WO |
2019222436 | Nov 2019 | WO |
WO-2019222436 | Nov 2019 | WO |
2020018904 | Jan 2020 | WO |
WO-2020018904 | Jan 2020 | WO |
2020064832 | Apr 2020 | WO |
WO-2020064832 | Apr 2020 | WO |
2020107121 | Jun 2020 | WO |
WO-2020107121 | Jun 2020 | WO |
WO-2020159360 | Jun 2020 | WO |
2020159360 | Aug 2020 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Steven Van De Water et al., “Towards FLASH proton therapy: the impact of treatment planning and machine characteristics on achievable dose rates,” Acta Oncologica, Jun. 26, 2019, vol. 58, No. 10, p. 1462-1469, Taylor & Francis Group, DOI: 10.1080/0284186X.2019.1627416. |
Elette Engels et al., “Toward personalized synchrotron microbeam radiation therapy,” Scientific Reports, 10:8833, Jun. 1, 2020, 13 pages, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-65729-z. |
Xiaoying Liang et al., “Using Robust Optimization for Skin Flashing in Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy for Breast Cancer Treatment: A Feasibility Study,” Practical Radiation Oncology, vol. 10, Issue 1, p. 59-69, Published by Elsevier Inc., Oct. 15, 2019. |
Ryosuke Kohno et al., “Development of Continuous Line Scanning System Prototype for Proton Beam Therapy,” International Journal of Particle Therapy, Jul. 11, 2017, vol. 3, Issue 4, p. 429-438, DOI: 10.14338/IJPT-16-00017.1. |
Wenbo Gu et al., “Integrated Beam Orientation and Scanning-Spot Optimization in Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy for Brain and Unilateral Head and Neck Tumors,” Med Phys. Author manuscript; available in PMC Apr. 1, 2019. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5904040/Published in final edited form as: Med Phys. Apr. 2018; 45(4): 1338-1350. Published online Mar. 1, 2018. doi: 10 1002/mp.12788 Accepted manuscript online: Feb. 2, 2018. |
A. Lomax, “Intensity modulation methods for proton radiotherapy,” Physics in Medicine & Biology, Jan. 1999, vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 185-205, doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/44/1/014. |
Shinichi Shimizu et al., “A Proton Beam Therapy System Dedicated to Spot-Scanning Increases Accuracy with Moving Tumors by Real-Time Imaging and Gating and Reduces Equipment Size,” PLoS ONE, Apr. 18, 2014, vol. 9, Issue 4, e94971, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0094971. |
Heng Li et al., “Reducing Dose Uncertainty for Spot-Scanning Proton Beam Therapy of Moving Tumors by Optimizing the Spot Delivery Sequence,” International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, vol. 93, Issue 3,Nov. 1, 2015, pp. 547-556, available online Jun. 18, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2015.06.019. |
R. M. De Kruijff, “Flash radiotherapy: ultra-high dose rates to spare healthy tissue,” International Journal of Radiation Biology, 2020, vol. 96, No. 4, pp. 419-423, published online: Dec. 19, 2019, https://doi org/10.1080/09553002.2020.1704912. |
David P. Gierga, “Is Flash Radiotherapy coming?”, International Organization for Medical Physics, 2020, https://www.iomp.org/iomp-news2-flash-radiotherapy/. |
Abdullah Muhammad Zakaria et al., “Ultra-High Dose-Rate, Pulsed (FLASH) Radiotherapy with Carbon Ions Generation of Early, Transient, Highly Oxygenated Conditions in the Tumor Environment,” Radiation Research, Dec. 1, 2020, vol. 194, Issue 6, pp. 587-593, Radiation Research Society, Published: Aug. 27, 2020, doi: https://doi.org/10.1667/RADE-19-00015.1. |
Yusuke Demizu et al., “Carbon Ion Therapy for Early-Stage Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer,” BioMed Research International, vol. 2014, Article ID 727962, 9 pages, Hindawi Publishing Corporation, published: Sep. 11, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/727962. |
Ivana Dokic et al., “Next generation multi-scale biophysical characterization of high precision cancer particle adiotherapy using clinical proton, helium-, carbon- and oxygen ion beams,” Oncotarget, Aug. 30, 2016, vol. 7, No. 35, p. 56676-56689, published online: Aug. 1, 2016, doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.10996. |
Aetna Inc., “Proton Beam, Neutron Beam, and Carbon Ion Radiotherapy,” 2020, No. 0270, http://www.aetna.com/cpb/medical/data/200_299/0270.html. |
Nicholas W. Colangelo et al., “The Importance and Clinical Implications of FLASH Ultra-High Dose-Rate Studies or Proton and Heavy Ion Radiotherapy,” Radiat Res. Author manuscript; available in PMC Jan. 1, 2021. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6949397/Published in final edited form as: Radiat Res. Jan. 2020; 193(1): 1-4. Published online Oct. 28, 2019. doi: 10.1667/RR15537.1. |
Vincent Favaudon et al., “Ultrahigh dose-rate FLASH irradiation increases the differential response between normal and tumor tissue in mice,” Science Translational Medicine, Jul. 16, 2014, vol. 6, Issue 245, 245ra93, American Association for the Advancement of Science, DOI: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3008973. |
“FlashRad: Ultra-high dose-rate FLASH radiotherapy to minimize the complications of radiotherapy,” 2014, https://siric.curie.fr/sites/default/files/atoms/files/flashrad.pdf. |
Tami Freeman, “FLASH radiotherapy: from preclinical promise to the first human treatment,” Physics World, Aug. 6, 2019, IOP Publishing Ltd, https://physicsworld.com/a/flash-radiotherapy-from-preclinical-promise-to-the-first-human-treatment/. |
Intraop Medical, Inc., “IntraOp and Lausanne University Hospital Announce Collaboration in FLASH Radiotherapy,” Jun. 18, 2020, https://intraop.com/news-events/lausanne-university-flash-radiotherapy-collaboration/. |
M.-C. Vozenin et al., “Biological Benefits of Ultra-high Dose Rate FLASH Radiotherapy: Sleeping Beauty Awoken,” Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). Author manuscript; available in PMC Nov. 12, 2019. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6850216/Published in final edited form as: Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). Jul. 2019; 31(7): 407-415. Bublished online Apr. 19, 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.clon.2019 04.001. |
Efstathios Kamperis et al., “A FLASH back to radiotherapy's past and then fast forward to the future,” J Cancer Prev Curr Res. 2019;10(6):142-144. published Nov. 13, 2019, DOI: 10.15406/jcpcr.2019.10.00407. |
P. Symonds et al., “FLASH Radiotherapy: The Next Technological Advance in Radiation Therapy?”, Clinical Dncology, vol. 31, Issue 7, P405-406, Jul. 1, 2019, The Royal College of Radiologists, Published by Elsevier Ltd., DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clon.2019.05.011. |
Swati Girdhani et al., “Abstract LB-280: Flash: A novel paradigm changing tumor irradiation platform that enhances therapeutic ratio by reducing normal tissue toxicity and activating immune pathways,” Proceedings: AACR Annual Meeting 2019; Mar. 29-Apr. 3, 2019; Atlanta, GA, published Jul. 2019, vol. 79, Issue 13 Supplement, pp. LB-280, American Association for Cancer Research, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7445.AM2019-LB-280. |
Bazalova-Carter et al., “On the capabilities of conventional x-ray tubes to deliver ultra-high (FLASH) dose rates,” Med. Phys. Dec. 2019; 46 (12):5690-5695, published Oct. 23, 2019, American Association of Physicists in Medicine, doi: 10.1002/mp. 13858. Epub Oct. 23, 2019. PMID: 31600830. |
Manuela Buonanno et al., “Biological effects in normal cells exposed to FLASH dose rate protons,” Radiother Oncol. Author manuscript; available in PMC Oct. 1, 2020. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6728238/Published in final edited form as: Radiother Oncol. Oct. 2019; 139: 51-55. Published online Mar. 5, 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2019.02.009. |
Eric S. Diffenderfer et al., “Design, Implementation, and in Vivo Validation of a Novel Proton FLASH Radiation Therapy System,” International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, vol. 106, Issue 2, Feb. 1, 2020, pp. 440-448, Available online Jan. 9, 2020, Published by Elsevier Inc., DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2019.10.049. |
Valerie Devillaine, “Radiotherapy and Radiation Biology,” Institut Curie, Apr. 21, 2017, https://institut-curie.org/page/radiotherapy-and-radiation-biology. |
Imaging Technology News, “ProNova and medPhoton to Offer Next Generation Beam Delivery, Advanced Imaging for Proton Therapy,” Oct. 6, 2014, Wainscot Media, Link: https://www.itnonline.com/content/pronova-and-medphoton-offer-next-generation-beam-delivery-advanced-imaging-proton-therapy. |
Oncolink Team, “Radiation Therapy: Which type is right for me?”, OncoLink Penn Medicine, last reviewed Mar. 3, 2020, Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania, https://www.oncolink.org/cancer-treatment/radiation/introduction-to-radiation-therapy/radiation-therapy-which-type-is-right-for me. |
Marco Durante et al., “Faster and safer? FLASH ultra-high dose rate in radiotherapy,” Br J Radiol 2018; 91(1082):20170628, British Institute of Radiology, Published Online: Dec. 15, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20170628. |
John R. Fischer, “PMB launches FLASH radiotherapy system for use in clinical trials,” Healthcare Business News, Jun. 29, 2020, DOTmed.com, Inc., https://www.dotmed.com/news/story/51662. |
Marie-Catherine Vozenin et al., “The advantage of FLASH radiotherapy confirmed in mini-pig and cat-cancer patients,” Clinical Cancer Research, Author Manuscript Published OnlineFirst Jun. 6, 2018, https://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/clincanres/early/2018/06/06/1078-0432.CCR-17-3375.full.pdf. |
M. McManus et al., “The challenge of ionisation chamber dosimetry in ultra-short pulsed high dose-rate Very High Energy Electron beams,” Sci Rep 10, 9089 (2020), published Jun. 3, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-65819-y. |
Brahim Oraiqat et al., “An Ionizing Radiation Acoustic Imaging (iRAI) Technique for Real-Time Dosimetric Measurements for FLASH Radiotherapy,” Medical Physics, vol. 47, Issue10, Oct. 2020, pp. 5090-5101, First published: Jun. 27, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.14358. |
K. Petersson et al., “Dosimetry of ultra high dose rate irradiation for studies on the biological effect induced in normal brain and GBM,” ICTR-PHE 2016, page S84, Feb. 2016, https://publisher-connector.core.ac.uk/resourcesync/data/elsevier/pdf/14c/aHR0cDovL2FwaS5lbHNIdmllci5jb20vY29udGVudC9hcnRpY2xIL3BpaS9zMDE2NzgxNDAxNjMwMTcyNA==.pdf. |
Susanne Auer et al., “Survival of tumor cells after proton irradiation with ultra-high dose rates,” Radiation Oncology 2011, 6:139, Published Oct. 18, 2011, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-717X-6-139. |
Cynthia E. Keen, “Clinical linear accelerator delivers FLASH radiotherapy,” Physics World, Apr. 23, 2019, IOP Publishing Ltd, https://physicsworld.com/a/clinical-linear-accelerator-delivers-flash-radiotherapy/. |
Fan et al., “Emission guided radiation therapy for lung and prostate cancers: A feasibility study on a digital patient,” Med Phys. Nov. 2012; 39(11): 7140-7152. Published online Nov. 5, 2012. https://www.ncbi.nim.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3505203/doi: 10.1118/1.4761951. |
O. Zlobinskaya et al., “The Effects of Ultra-High Dose Rate Proton Irradiation on Growth Delay in the Treatment of Human Tumor Xenografts in Nude Mice,” Radiation Research, 181(2):177-183. Published Feb. 13, 2014, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1667/RR13464.1. |
P. Montay-Gruel et al., “Irradiation in a flash: Unique sparing of memory in mice after whole brain irradiation with dose rates above 100 Gy/s,” Radiotherapy and Oncology, vol. 124, Issue 3, Sep. 2017, pp. 365-369, Available online May 22, 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2017.05.003. |
BW Loo et al., “Delivery of Ultra-Rapid Flash Radiation Therapy and Demonstration of Normal Tissue Sparing After Abdominal Irradiation of Mice,” International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, vol. 98, Issue 2, p. E16, Supplement: S Meeting Abstract: P003, Published: Jun. 1, 2017, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2017.02.101. |
Bhanu Prasad Venkatesulu et al., “Ultra high dose rate (35 Gy/sec) radiation does not spare the normal tissue in cardiac and splenic models of lymphopenia and gastrointestinal syndrome,” Sci Rep 9, 17180 (2019), Published Nov. 20, 2019, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-53562-y. |
P. Montay-Gruel et al., “Long-term neurocognitive benefits of FLASH radiotherapy driven by reduced reactive oxygen species,” PNAS May 28, 2019, vol. 116, No. 22, pp. 10943-10951; first published May 16, 2019, https://doi .org/10.1073/pnas.1901777116. |
Peter G. Maxim et al., “FLASH radiotherapy: Newsflash or flash in the pan?”, Medical Physics, 46 (10), Oct. 2019, pp. 4287-4290, American Association of Physicists in Medicine, First published: Jun. 27, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.13685. |
Andrei Pugachev et al., “Pseudo beam's-eye-view as applied to beam orientation selection in intensity-modulated radiation therapy,” Int. J. Radiation Oncology Biol. Phys., vol. 51, Issue 5, p. 1361-1370, Dec. 1, 2001, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-3016(01)01736-9. |
Xiaodong Zhang et al., “Intensity-Modulated Proton Therapy Reduces the Dose to Normal Tissue Compared With Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy or Passive Scattering Proton Therapy and Enables Individualized Radical Radiotherapy for Extensive Stage IIIB Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Virtual Clinical Study,” Int. J. Radiation Oncology Biol. Phys., vol. 77, No. 2, pp. 357-366, 2010, Available online Aug. 5, 2009, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.04.028. |
Lamberto Widesott et al., “Intensity-Modulated Proton Therapy Versus Helical Tomotherapy in Nasopharynx Cancer: Planning Comparison and NTCP Evaluation,” Int. J. Radiation Oncology Biol. Phys., vol. 72, No. 2, pp. 589-596, Oct. 1, 2008, Available online Sep. 13, 2008, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.05.065. |
Andrei Pugachev et al., “Role of beam orientation optimization in intensity-modulated radiation therapy,” Int. J. Radiation Oncology Biol. Phys., vol. 50, No. 2, pp. 551-560, Jun. 1, 2001, Available online May 10, 2001, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-3016(01)01502-4. |
Damien C. Weber et al., “Radiation therapy planning with photons and protons for early and advanced breast cancer: an overview,” Radiat Oncol. 2006; 1: 22. Published online Jul. 20, 2006, doi: 10.1186/1748-717X-1-22. |
RaySearch Laboratories, “Leading the way in cancer treatment, Annual Report 2013,” RaySearch Laboratories (publ), Stockholm, Sweden, 94 pages, Apr. 2014, https://www.raysearchlabs.com/siteassets/about-overview/media-center/wp-re-ev-n-pdfs/brochures/raysearch-ar-2013-eng-pdf. |
Chang-Ming Charlie MA, “Physics and Dosimetric Principles of SRS and SBRT,” Mathews J Cancer Sci. 4(2): 22, 2019, published: Dec. 11, 2019, ISSN: 2474-6797, DOI: https://doi.org/10.30654/MJCS.10022. |
M. McManus et al., “The challenge of ionisation chamber dosimetry in ultra-short pulsed high dose-rate Very High Energy Electron beams,” Sci Rep 10, 9089 (2020), published Jun. 3, 2020,; rattps://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-65819-y. |
Brahim Oraiqat et al., “An Ionizing Radiation Acoustic Imaging (iRAI) Technique for Real-Time Dosimetric Measurements for FLASH Radiotherapy,” Medical Physics, vol. 47, Issue10, Oct. 2020, pp. 5090-5510first published: Jun. 27, 2020, rattps://doi.org/10.1002/mp.14358. |
K. Petersson et al., “Dosimetry of ultra high dose rate irradiation for studies on the biological effect induced in normal brain and Gbm,” ICTR-PHE 2016, page S84, Feb. 2016,; rattps://publisher-connector.core.ac.uk/resourcesync/data/elsevier/pdf/14c/1:1HR0cDovL2FwaS51bHNIdmllci5jb20vY29udGVudC9hcnRpY2xIL3BpaS9zMDE2NzgxNDAxNjMwMTcyNA==.pdf. |
Susanne Auer et al., “Survival of tumor cells after proton irradiation with ultra-high dose rates,” Radiation Oncology 011, 6:139, Published Oct. 18, 2011,; POI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-717X-6-139. |
Cynthia E. Keen, “Clinical linear accelerator delivers FLASH radiotherapy,” Physics World, Apr. 23, 2019, IOP Publishing Ltd,; rattps://physicsworld.com/a/clinical-linear-accelerator-delivers-flash-radiotherapy/. |
Fan et al., “Emission guided radiation therapy for lung and prostate cancers: A feasibility study on a digital patient,” Med Phys. Nov. 2012; 39(11): 7140-7152. Published online Nov. 5, 2012. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih_gov/pmc/articles/PMC3505203/; oi: 10.1118/1.4761951. |
Favaudon et al., “Ultrahigh dose-rate, ”flash“ irradiation minimizes the side-effects of radiotherapy,” Cancer/ Radiotherapy, vol. 19, Issues 6-7, Oct. 2015, pp. 526-531, Available online Aug. 12, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.canrad.2015.04.006. |
D. Zlobinskaya et al., “The Effects of Ultra-High Dose Rate Proton Irradiation on Growth Delay in the Treatment of Human Tumor Xenografts in Nude Mice,” Radiation Research, 181(2):177-183. Published Feb. 13, 2014,; POI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1667/RR13464.1. |
Bjorn Zackrisson, “Biological Effects Of High Energy Radiation And Ultra High Dose Rates,” Umea University Medical Dissertations, New series No. 315—ISSN 0346-6612, From the Department of Oncology, University of Umea, Umea, Sweden, ISBN 91-7174-614-5, Printed in Sweden by the Printing Office of Umea University, Umea, 1991. |
P. Montay-Gruel et al., “Irradiation in a flash: Unique sparing of memory in mice after whole brain irradiation with dose rates above 100 Gy/s,” Radiotherapy and Oncology, vol. 124, Issue 3, Sep. 2017, pp. 365-369,; available online May 22, 2017,; oi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2017.05.003. |
Bw Loo et al., “Delivery of Ultra-Rapid Flash Radiation Therapy and Demonstration of Normal Tissue Sparing After Abdominal Irradiation of Mice,” International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics,; vol. 98, Issue 2, p. E16, Supplement: S Meeting Abstract: P003, Published: Jun. 1, 2017, POI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2017.02.101. |
Bhanu Prasad Venkatesulu et al., “Ultra high dose rate (35 Gy/sec) radiation does not spare the normal tissue n cardiac and splenic models of lymphopenia and gastrointestinal syndrome,” Sci Rep 9, 17180 (2019), Published; O Nov. 2019,; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-53562-y. |
P. Montav-Gruel et al., “Long-term neurocognitive benefits of FLASH radiotherapy driven by reduced reactive oxygen species,” PNAS May 28, 2019, vol. 116, No. 22, pp. 10943-10951; first published May 16, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1901777116. |
Peter G. Maxim et al., “Flash radiotherapy: Newsflash or flash in the pan?”, Medical Physics, 46 {10), Oct. eo19, pp. 4287-4290, American Association of Physicists in Medicine, First published: Jun. 27, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1002/mp_ 13685. |
Andrei Pugachev et al., “Pseudo beam's-eye-view as applied to beam orientation selection in intensity-modulated adiation therapy,” Int. J. Radiation Oncology Biol. Phys., vol. 51, Issue 5, P1361-1370, Dec. 1, 2001, POI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360- 3016(01)01736-9. |
Xiaodong Zhang et al., “Intensity-Modulated Proton Therapy Reduces the Dose to Normal Tissue Compared With; Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy or Passive Scattering Proton Therapy and Enables Individualized Radical Radiotherapy for Extensive Stage IIIB Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Virtual Clinical Study,” Int. J_ Radiation Oncology Biol. Phys., vol. 77, No. 2, pp. 357-366, 2010, Available online Aug. 5, 2009,; DOI: https://doi.ora/10.1016/i.iirobo.2009.04.028. |
A. J. Lomax et al., “Intensity modulated proton therapy: A clinical example,” Medical Physics, vol. 28, Issue 3, Mar. 2001, pp. 317-324, First published: Mar. 9, 2001,; https://doi.org/10.1118/1.1350587. |
Lamberto Widesott et al., “Intensity-Modulated Proton Therapy Versus Helical Tomotherapy in Nasopharynx Cancer: Planning Comparison and NTCP Evaluation,” Int. J. Radiation Oncology Biol. Phys., vol. 72, No. 2, pp. 589-p. 96, Oct. 1, 2008, Available online Sep. 13, 2008,; POI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.05.065. |
Andrei Pugachev et al., “Role of beam orientation optimization in intensity-modulated radiation therapy,” Int. J. Radiation Oncology Biol. Phys., vol. 50, No. 2, pp. 551-560, Jun. 1, 2001, Available online May 10, 2001,; POI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-3016(01)01502-4. |
Damien C. Weber et al., “Radiation therapy planning with photons and protons for early and advanced breast cancer: an overview,” Radial Oneal. 2006; 1: 22. Published online Jul. 20, 2006,; oi: 10.1186/1748-717X-1-22. |
RaySearch Laboratories, “Leading the way in cancer treatment, Annual Report 2013,” RaySearch Laboratories (publ), Stockholm, Sweden, 94 pages, Apr. 2014,; https://www.raysearchlabs.com/siteassets/about-overview/media-center/wp-re-ev-n-pdfs/brochures/raysearch-ar-2013 ng.pdf. |
Fredrik Carlsson, “Utilizing Problem Structure in Optimization of Radiation Therapy,” KTH Engineering Sciences,; Doctoral Thesis, Stockholm, Sweden, Apr. 2008, Optimization and Systems Theory, Department of Mathematics, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden, ISSN 1401-2294, https://www.raysearchlabs.com/globalassets/about- overview/media-center/wp-re-ev-n-pdfs/publications/thesis-; fredrik light.pdf. |
Chang-Ming Charlie Ma, “Physics and Dosimetric Principles of SRS and SBRT,” Mathews J Cancer Sci. 4(2): 22, 019, published: Dec. 11, 2019, ISSN: 2474-6797, DOI: https://doi.org/10.30654/MJCS.10022. |
Alterego-Admin, “Conventional Radiation Therapy May Not Protect Healthy Brain Cells,”; International Neuropsychiatric Association-INA, Oct. 10, 2019, https://inawebsite.org/conventional-radiation-therapy-may-not-protect-healthy-brain-cells/. |
Vladimir Anferov, “Scan pattern optimization for uniform proton beam scanning,” Medical Physics, vol. 36, Issue 8, Aug. 2009, pp. 3560-3567, First published: Jul. 2, 2009. |
Ryosuke Kohno et al., “Development of Continuous Line Scanning System Prototype for Proton Beam Therapy,” International Journal of Particle Therapy, Jul. 11, 2017, vol. 3, Issue 4, pp. 429-438,; bOI: 10.14338/IJPT-16-00017.1. |
Wenbo Gu et al., “Integrated Beam Orientation and Scanning-Spot Optimization in Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy for Brain and Unilateral Head and Neck Tumors,” Med Phys. Author manuscript; available in PMC Apr. 1, 2019 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5904040/; Published in final edited form as: Med Phys_Apr. 2018; 45(4): 1338-1350. Published online Mar. 1, 2018.; oi: 10.1002/mp_ 12788 Accepted manuscriptonline: Feb. 2, 2018. |
Paul Morel et al., “Spot weight adaptation for moving target in spot scanning proton therapy,” Frontiers in Oncology, May 28, 2015, vol. 5, Article 119, 7 pages, doi: 10.3389/fonc.2015.00119. |
Simeon Nill et al., “Inverse planning of intensity modulated proton therapy,” Zeitschrift fur Medizinische Physik, vol. 14, Issue 1, 2004, pp. 35-40, https://doi.org/10.1078/0939- 3889-00198. |
A. Lomax, “Intensity modulation methods for proton radiotherapy,” Physics in Medicine & Biology, Jan. 1999, vol. J4, No. 1, pp. 185-205, doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/44/1/014. |
M. Kramer et al., “Treatment planning for heavy-ion radiotherapy: physical beam model and dose optimization,” Physics in Medicine & Biology, 2000, vol. 45, No. 11, pp. 3299-3317, doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/45/11/313. |
Harald Paganetti, “Proton Beam Therapy,” Jan. 2017, Physics World Discovery, IOP Publishing Ltd, Bristol, UK, 34 pages, DOI: 10.1088/978-0-7503-1370-4. |
Shinichi Shimizu et al., “A Proton Beam Therapy System Dedicated lo Spot-Scanning Increases Accuracy with Moving Tumors by Real-Time Imaging and Gating and Reduces Equipment Size,” Plos One, Apr. 18, 2014, Volume;. Issue 4, e94971, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0094971. |
Heng Li et al., “Reducing Dose Uncertainty for Spot-Scanning Proton Beam Therapy of Moving Tumors by Optimizing he Spot Delivery Sequence,” International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, vol. 93, Issue 3, Nov. 1, 2015, pp. 547-556, available online Jun. 18, 2015, htlps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2015.06.019. |
Ion Beam Applications Sa, “Netherlands Proton Therapy Center Delivers First Clinical Flash Irradiation,” Imaging Technology News, May 2, 2019, Wainscot Media,; https://www.itnonline.com/content/netherlands-proton-therapy-center-delivers-first-clinical-flash-irradiation. |
Aafke Christine Kraan, “Range verification methods in particle therapy: underlying physics and Monte Carlo modeling,” Frontiers in Oncology, Jul. 7, 2015, vol. 5, Article 150, 27 pages, doi: 10.3389/fonc.2015 00150. |
Wayne D. Newhauser et al., “The physics of proton therapy,” Physics in Medicine & Biology, Mar. 24, 2015, 60 R155-R209, Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine, IOP Publishing, doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/60/8/R155. |
Se McGowan et al., “Treatment planning optimisation in proton therapy,” Br J Radiol, 2013, 86, 20120288, The British Institute of Radiology, 12 pages, DOI: 10_1259_bjr 20120288. |
Steven Van De Water et al., “Towards Flash proton therapy: the impact of treatment planning and machine characteristics on achievable dose rates,” Acta Oncologica, Jun. 26, 2019, vol. 58, No_ 10, pg_ 1462-1469, Tayloi; II. Francis Group, DOI: 10_1080/0284186X.2019_1627416. |
J. Groen, “Flash optimisation in clinical IMPT treatment planning,” MSC Thesis, Jul. 1, 2020, Erasmus University Medical Center, department of radiotherapy, Delft University of Technology, 72 pages. |
Muhammad Ramish Ashraf et al., “Dosimetry for Flash Radiotherapy: A Review of Tools and the Role of Radioluminescence and Cherenkov Emission,” Frontiers in Oncology, Aug. 21, 2020, vol. 8, Article 328, 20 pages, doi: 10.3389/fphy.2020_00328. |
Emil Schuler et al., “Experimental Platform for Ultra-high Dose Rate Flash Irradiation of Small Animals Using a Clinical Linear Accelerator,” International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, vol. 97, No. 1, Sep. 2016, pp. 195-203. |
Elette Engels et al., “Toward personalized synchrotron microbeam radiation therapy,” Scientific Reports, 10:8833, Jun. 1, 2020, 13 pages, DOI: https://doLorg/10_1038/s41598- 020-65729-z. |
P.H Mackeprang et al., “Assessing dose rate distributions in VMAT plans” (Accepted Version), Accepted Version: https://boris_unibe.ch/92814/8/dose_rate_project_revised_submitpdf; Published Version: 2016, Physics in medicine and biology, 61(8), pp. 3208-3221 _ Institute of Physics Publishing IOP,; published Mar. 29, 2016, https://boris.unibe_ch/92814/. |
Xiaoying Liang et al., “Using Robust Optimization for Skin Flashing in Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy for Breast Cancer Treatment: A Feasibility Study,” Practical Radiation Oncology, vol. 10, Issue 1, p. 59-69, Published DY Elsevier Inc., Oct. 15, 2019. |
Alexei Trofimov et al., “Optimization of Beam Parameters and Treatment Planning for Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy,” Technology in Cancer Research & Treatment, vol. 2, No. 5, Oct. 2003, p. 437-444, Adenine Press. |
R. M. De Kruijff, “Flash radiotherapy: ultra-high dose rates to spare healthy tissue,” International Journal of Radiation Biology, 2020, vol. 96, No. 4, pp. 419-423, published online: Dec. 19, 2019, rattps://doi.org/10.1080/09553002.2020.1704912. |
Mevion Medical Systems, “Focus on the Future: Flash Therapy,” Press Releases, Sep. 16, 2019, https://www.mevion.com/newsroom/press-releases/focus-future-flash-therapy. |
Joseph D. Wilson et al., “Ultra-High Dose Rate (Flash) Radiotherapy: Silver Bullet or Fool's Gold?”, Frontiers in Oncology, Jan. 17, 2020, vol. 9, Article 1563, 12 pages, doi: 10.3389/fonc 2019.01563. |
David P. Gierga, “Is Flash Radiotherapy coming?”, International Organization for Medical Physics, 2020, rattps://www.iomp.org/iomp-news2-flash-radiotherapy/. |
Abdullah Muhammad Zakaria et al., “Ultra-High Dose-Rate, Pulsed (Flash) Radiotherapy with Carbon lons: Generation of Early, Transient, Highly Oxygenated Conditions in the Tumor Environment,” Radiation Research, Dec. 1, 2020, vol. 194, Issue 6, pp. 587-593, Radiation Research Society, Published: Aug. 27, 2020, oi: https://doi.org/10.1667/RADE-19-00015.1. |
Yusuke Demizu et al., “Carbon lon Therapy for Early-Stage Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer,” BioMed Research Intemational, vol. 2014, Article ID 727962, 9 pages, Hindawi Publishing Corporation, published: Sep. 11, 2014, rattps://doi.org/10.1155/2014/727962. |
Ivana Dokic et al., “Next generation multi-scale biophysical characterization of high precision cancer particle radiotherapy using clinical proton, helium-, carbon- and oxygen ion beams,” Oncotarget, Aug. 3, 20160, vol. 7, No. 35, p. 56676-56689, published online: Aug. 1, 2016,; oi: 10.18632/oncotarget.10996. |
Aetna Inc., “Proton Beam, Neutron Beam, and Carbon lon Radiotherapy,” 2020, No. 0270, rattp://www_aetna.com/cpb/medical/data/200_299/0270.html. |
Nicholas W. Colangelo et al., “The Importance and Clinical Implications of FLASH Ultra- High Dose-Rate Studies; or Proton and Heavy lon Radiotherapy,” Radial Res. Author manuscript; available in PMC Jan. 1, 2021. rattps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6949397/; Published in final edited form as: Radial Res. Jan. 2020; 193(1): 1-4 .; Published online Oct. 2, 20198. doi: 10.1667/RR15537.1. |
Vincent Favaudon et al., “Ultrahigh dose-rate FLASH irradiation increases the differential response between hormal and tumor tissue in mice,” Science Translational Medicine, Jul. 16, 2014, vol. 6, Issue 245, 245ra93, American Association for the Advancement of Science,; DOI: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3008973. |
'FlashRad: Ultra-high dose-rate Flash radiotherapy to minimize the complications of radiotherapy, 2014, rattps://siric.curie.fr/sites/default/files/atoms/filesfflashrad.pdf. |
Tami Freeman, “Flash radiotherapy: from preclinical promise to the first human treatment,” Physics World, Aug. 1, 2019, IOP Publishing Ltd,; rattps://physicsworld.com/afflash- radiotherapy-from-preclinical-promise-to-the-first-human-treatment/. |
Intraop Medical, Inc., “IntraOp and Lausanne University Hospital Announce Collaboration in Flash radiotherapy,” Jun. 18, 2020,; rattps://intraop.com/news- events/lausanne-university-flash-radiotherapy-collaboration/. |
M. C. Vozenin et al., “Biological Benefits of Ultra-high Dose Rate FLASH Radiotherapy: Sleeping Beauty Awoken,”; Clin Oneal (R Coll Radial). Author manuscript; available in PMC Nov. 1, 20192. rattps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6850216/; Published in final edited form as: Clin Oneal (R Coll Radial). Jul. 2019; 31(7): 407-415 .; Published online Apr. 1, 2019. doi: 10.1016/j_clon.2019.04.001. |
Efstathios Kamperis et al., “A Flash back to radiotherapy's past and then fast forward to the future,” J Cancer Prev Curr Res. 2019;10(6): 142-144. published Nov. 13, 2019,; POI: 10.15406/jcpcr.2019.10.00407. |
P. Symonds et al., “Flash Radiotherapy: The Next Technological Advance in Radiation Therapy?”, Clinical Oncology, vol. 31, Issue 7, P405-406, Jul. 1, 2019, The Royal College of Radiologists, Published by Elsevier Ltd., POI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clon.2019.05.011. |
Swati Girdhani et al., “Abstract LB-280: Flash: A novel paradigm changing tumor irradiation platform that; enhances therapeutic ratio by reducing normal tissue toxicity and activating immune pathways,” Proceedings: MCR Annual Meeting 2019; March 29-Apr. 3, 2019; Atlanta, GA, published Jul. 2019, vol. 79, Issue 13 Supplement, pp. B-280, American Association for Cancer Research,; DOI: https://doi.om/10.1158/1538-7445.AM2019-LB-280. |
Bazalova-Carter et al., “On the capabilities of conventional x-ray tubes to deliver ultra-high (Flash) dose rates,” Med. Phys. Dec. 2019; 46 (12):5690-5695, published Oct. 23, 2019, American Association of Physicists in Medicine; oi: 10.1002/mp.13858. Epub Oct. 23, 2019. PMID: 31600830. |
Manuela Buonanno et al., “Biological effects in normal cells exposed to Flash dose rate protons,” Radiother; Oncol. Author manuscript; available in PMC Oct. 1, 2020. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6728238/; Published in final edited form as: Radiother Oneal. Oct. 2019; 139: 51-55.; Published online Mar. 5, 2019. doi: 10.1016/i.radonc.2019.02.009. |
N. Rama et al., “Improved Tumor Control Through T-cell Infiltration Modulated by Ultra-High Dose Rate Proton Flash Using a Clinical Pencil Beam Scanning Proton System,” International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, vol. 105, Issue 1, Supplement, S164-S165, Sep. 1, 2019, Mini Oral Sessions, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2019.06.187. |
Inserm Press Office, “Radiotherapy ‘flashes’ to reduce side effects,” Press Release, Jul. 16, 2014, https://presse.inserm.fr/en/radiotherapy-flashes-to-reduce-side-effects/13394/. |
Eric S. Diffenderfer et al., “Design, Implementation, and in Vivo Validation of a Novel Proton Flash Radiation Therapy System,” International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, vol. 106, Issue 2, Feb. 1, 2020, pp. 440-448, Available online Jan. 9, 2020, Published by Elsevier Inc., POI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2019.10.049. |
Valerie Devillaine, “Radiotherapy and Radiation Biology,” Institut Curie, Apr. 21, 2017, https:1/institut-curie_org/page/radiotherapy-and-radiation-biology. |
Imaging Technology News, “ProNova and medPhoton to Offer Next Generation Beam Delivery, Advanced Imaging for Proton Therapy,” Oct. 6, 2014, Wainscot Media,; Link: https://www.itnonline.com/contenl/pronova-and-medphoton-offer-next-generation-beam-delivery-advanced-Imaging-proton-therapy. |
Oncolink Team, “Radiation Therapy: Which type is right for me?”, Oncolink Penn Medicine, last reviewed Mar. 3, 2020, Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania,; https://www_oncolink.org/cancer-treatmenl/radiation/introduction-to-radiation-therapy/radiation-therapy-which-type-is-;right-for-me. |
Marco Durante et al., “Faster and safer? Flash ultra-high dose rate in radiotherapy,” Br J Radiol 2018; 91(1082): 0170628, British Institute of Radiology, Published Online: Dec. 15, 2017,; rattps://doi.org/10.1259/bjr-20170628. |
John R. Fischer, “PMB launches Flash radiotherapy system for use in clinical trials,” HealthCare Business News, Jun. 9, 2020, DOTmed_com, Inc_,; rattps://www_dotmed.com/news/story/51662. |
Marie-Catherine Vozenin et al., “The advantage of Flash radiotherapy confirmed in mini-pig and cat-cancer patients,” Clinical Cancer Research, Author Manuscript Published OnlineFirst Jun. 6, 2018, https://clincancerres.aacrjournals_org/contenl/clincanres/early/2018/06/06/1078-0432_CCR- 17-3375Jull _pdf. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20230211178 A1 | Jul 2023 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 17147353 | Jan 2021 | US |
Child | 18087398 | US | |
Parent | 16436762 | Jun 2019 | US |
Child | 17147353 | US |