Discordance in acute gastrointestinal toxicity between synchrotron-based proton and linac-based electron ultra-high dose rate irradiation

Kevin Liu,Uwe Titt,Nolan M Esplen,Luke Connell,Elise K Konradsson,Ming Yang,Xiaochun Wang,Takeshi Takaoka,Ziyi Li,Albert C Koong,Devarati Mitra,Radhe Mohan,Billy W Loo Jr.,Steven H Lin,Emil Schueler
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.09.04.611307
2024-09-08
Abstract:Purpose: Proton FLASH has been investigated using cyclotron and synchrocyclotron beamlines but not synchrotron beamlines. We evaluated the impact of dose rate (ultra-high [UHDR] vs. conventional [CONV]) and beam configuration (shoot-through [ST] vs. spread-out-Bragg-peak [SOBP]) on acute radiation-induced gastrointestinal toxicity (RIGIT) in mice. We also compared RIGIT between synchrotron-based protons and linac-based electrons with matched mean dose rates. Methods and Materials: We administered abdominal irradiation (12-14 Gy single fraction) to female C57BL/6J mice with an 87 MeV synchrotron-based proton beamline (2 cm diameter field size as a lateral beam). Dose rates were 0.2 Gy/s (S-T pCONV), 0.3 Gy/s (SOBP pCONV), 150 Gy/s (S-T pFLASH), and 230 Gy/s (SOBP pFLASH). RIGIT was assessed by the jejunal regenerating crypt assay and survival. We also compared responses to proton [pFLASH and pCONV] with responses to electron CONV (eCONV, 0.4 Gy/s) and electron FLASH (eFLASH, 188-205 Gy/s). Results: The number of regenerating jejunal crypts at each matched dose was lowest for pFLASH (similar between S-T and SOBP), greater and similar between pCONV (S-T and SOBP) and eCONV, and greatest for eFLASH. Correspondingly, mice that received pFLASH SOBP had the lowest survival rates (50% at 50 days), followed by pFLASH S-T (80%), and pCONV SOBP (90%), but 100% of mice receiving pCONV S-T survived (log-rank P = 0.047 for the four groups). Conclusions: Our findings are consistent with an increase in RIGIT after synchrotron-based pFLASH versus pCONV. This negative proton-specific FLASH effect versus linac-based electron irradiation underscores the importance of understanding the physical and biological factors that will allow safe and effective clinical translation.
Cancer Biology
What problem does this paper attempt to address?