Fixation method influences FLASH skin sparing in an in vivo leg model.

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q3 ONCOLOGY
Line Kristensen, Cathrine Overgaard, Jacob Johansen, Anna Hansen, Niels Bassler, Per Poulsen, Brita Sørensen
{"title":"Fixation method influences FLASH skin sparing in an in vivo leg model.","authors":"Line Kristensen, Cathrine Overgaard, Jacob Johansen, Anna Hansen, Niels Bassler, Per Poulsen, Brita Sørensen","doi":"10.2340/1651-226X.2025.43972","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and purpose: </strong>The FLASH effect, where ultra-high dose rate elicits a favourable normal tissue-sparing, has been shown in several preclinical studies. Study setup differences, for example fixation methods that affect blood flow, can influence radiation response but are unexplored for FLASH. This study compared FLASH's acute skin-sparing effect with two fixation methods: a glued fixation (no blood flow restriction) and taped fixation (slight blood flow restriction). Patient/material and methods: Female CDF1 mice were irradiated on their hind foot using a glue-fixation or tape-fixation method. Glue-fixated mice were only taped during the glueing procedure and had a 10-min unrestricted period afterwards before irradiation, while tape-fixated mice were taped shortly before and throughout irradiation. Mice received single-dose irradiation (19-58 Gy) with either conventional dose rate (CONV, protons 0.06 Gy/s, electrons 0.16 Gy/s) or FLASH (electrons, 223-233 Gy/s). Differences in skin toxicity were analysed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>CONV-treated tape-fixated mice required a 16-17% higher dose to induce skin toxicity relative to glued mice for both protons and electrons. Meanwhile, the fixation method did not affect FLASH-treated mice. The resulting electron FLASH-sparing effect was reduced by 18% due to the shift in radiosensitivity for CONV-treated mice.</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>CONV-treated tape-fixated mice were more radioresistant than the glue-fixated mice, consistent with the expected response to mild hypoxia. FLASH-treated mice were unaffected. These findings demonstrate the impact of fixation and, in turn, oxygen level on the differential CONV versus FLASH skin response. The results highlight the importance of minimal systemic influence on animals during FLASH studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":7110,"journal":{"name":"Acta Oncologica","volume":"64 ","pages":"1029-1034"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12340987/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Oncologica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2340/1651-226X.2025.43972","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and purpose: The FLASH effect, where ultra-high dose rate elicits a favourable normal tissue-sparing, has been shown in several preclinical studies. Study setup differences, for example fixation methods that affect blood flow, can influence radiation response but are unexplored for FLASH. This study compared FLASH's acute skin-sparing effect with two fixation methods: a glued fixation (no blood flow restriction) and taped fixation (slight blood flow restriction). Patient/material and methods: Female CDF1 mice were irradiated on their hind foot using a glue-fixation or tape-fixation method. Glue-fixated mice were only taped during the glueing procedure and had a 10-min unrestricted period afterwards before irradiation, while tape-fixated mice were taped shortly before and throughout irradiation. Mice received single-dose irradiation (19-58 Gy) with either conventional dose rate (CONV, protons 0.06 Gy/s, electrons 0.16 Gy/s) or FLASH (electrons, 223-233 Gy/s). Differences in skin toxicity were analysed.

Results: CONV-treated tape-fixated mice required a 16-17% higher dose to induce skin toxicity relative to glued mice for both protons and electrons. Meanwhile, the fixation method did not affect FLASH-treated mice. The resulting electron FLASH-sparing effect was reduced by 18% due to the shift in radiosensitivity for CONV-treated mice.

Interpretation: CONV-treated tape-fixated mice were more radioresistant than the glue-fixated mice, consistent with the expected response to mild hypoxia. FLASH-treated mice were unaffected. These findings demonstrate the impact of fixation and, in turn, oxygen level on the differential CONV versus FLASH skin response. The results highlight the importance of minimal systemic influence on animals during FLASH studies.

在活体腿模型中,固定方法影响FLASH皮肤保留。
背景和目的:在一些临床前研究中,超高剂量率引起良好的正常组织保留的FLASH效应已被证明。研究设置的差异,例如影响血流的固定方法,可以影响辐射反应,但尚未对FLASH进行探索。本研究比较了FLASH在两种固定方法下的急性皮肤保护效果:粘接固定(无血流限制)和胶带固定(轻微血流限制)。患者/材料和方法:雌性CDF1小鼠后足用胶粘固定或胶带固定照射。胶粘固定小鼠仅在胶粘过程中进行胶粘,在辐照前有10分钟不受限制的时间,而胶粘固定小鼠在辐照前不久和整个辐照过程中均进行胶粘。小鼠接受常规剂量率(CONV,质子0.06 Gy/s,电子0.16 Gy/s)或FLASH(电子223-233 Gy/s)单剂量(19-58 Gy)照射。分析皮肤毒性的差异。结果:与胶合小鼠相比,经convv处理的胶合小鼠需要高16-17%的质子和电子剂量来诱导皮肤毒性。同时,固定方法对flash处理小鼠无影响。由于convv处理小鼠的放射敏感性发生了变化,由此产生的电子flash保留效应降低了18%。解释:经convv处理的胶带固定小鼠比胶水固定小鼠更耐辐射,与预期的轻度缺氧反应一致。flash处理的小鼠未受影响。这些发现证明了固定以及氧气水平对CONV和FLASH皮肤反应差异的影响。结果强调了在FLASH研究中对动物的最小系统性影响的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Acta Oncologica
Acta Oncologica 医学-肿瘤学
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
3.20%
发文量
301
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Acta Oncologica is a journal for the clinical oncologist and accepts articles within all fields of clinical cancer research. Articles on tumour pathology, experimental oncology, radiobiology, cancer epidemiology and medical radio physics are also welcome, especially if they have a clinical aim or interest. Scientific articles on cancer nursing and psychological or social aspects of cancer are also welcomed. Extensive material may be published as Supplements, for which special conditions apply.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信